This is the "North Dakota" province in Pakistan, right?

There are times when gender selection is used... for devastating gender-specific genetic disorders. But that is very rare. I am sorry for the women in North Dakota.

I would hope this would exclude developmental defects. I am happy it would prevent abortions soley based on gender.

The vote came with almost no debate in the Senate and after the same chamber approved another measure that would make North Dakota the first to ban abortions based on genetic defects such as Down syndrome.

Heartless, evil ... and so glad I left. ND'ans with a brain, please end this law with your initiative powers.

I can't wait to see some of these bills get overturned/reversed.

What happened to that conservative principle about small government/government not intruding into private lives?

We will not go back to the 1950's! we are ready to move . . .

FORWARD!

Fortunately when govts go too far their citizens take notice and they lose power. Its funny how some of those very same politicians talk about govt getting too large yet they want to impose their own views on the most personal decisions made by young women. Sounds hypocritical to me.

Because the heck with that ol' supreme court anyway... as long as they're ruling on something you disapprove of.

"Abortion industry"? "The lucrative nature of abortion"?

The average abortion costs around $500. Doesn't sound all that lucrative to me. You pay more for nail fungus treatment or a chemical peel.

55 million abortions in the last 40 years, 1.37 million per year, 114,000 a month, 3800 a day.

3800*$500.00 = $1,900,000.00.

$1.9 million dollars a day isn't a lucrative business?

Surely David, you don't believe this is pure profit. Exactly who do you think is getting rich?

Its not lucrative if it costs that amount to actually provide the service either through medication or surgery. Its only lucrative if someone is making a profit and most if not all abortion providers in this country are non-profit.

Regardless of whether its lucrative or not, haven't all you liberals, and I quote Joe Biden "if it saves just one life its worth it", claim to care so much about children, that we have to pass gun control laws now?

You will push for gun control, using the death of 20 children, to push your gun control agenda, but 55 million unborn children mean nothing, and how dare anyone try to curb the abuse of abortion?

Please tell us again how children are our most important asset?

Or does that only count when it fits your agenda?

Well spoken David,

And I bet if anyone were to look at the historical comments of some on here,for instance culhealth as an example, they would probably find that exact situation where after the shootings he might have supported the one child comment by Biden but now supports murdering even smaller children.

How do you people reconcile your contradictory comments on the same or similar subjects?

Let me get this straight, you're saying it's okay to kill someone ONCE they're born? I'm just not so sure you're as "pro-life" as you claim.

No "good",

We are asking how can *YOU* who bitched about making guns go away after the mentally ill person tragically killed those children and teachers and bowed to Biden's comments about saving 1 life by making guns go away, how can you sit here on your computer, hiding behind your screen name now tell the rest of us that supporting a pro-life stance is against your beliefs? Really do you make your decisions after rolling dice or do you have to warm up before you contort yourself into something that can balance those competing comments?

Eventually the proponents of banning all gund will realize that this is the way to do it. The anti-aboution folks are drawing the blueprints for the anti-gun measures of the future. Examples would banning all guns with triggers longer than 1/4 inch or ammunition which uses dangerous explosives. Neither measure would ban guns directly so the right wing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would remain intact and the Supreme Court has stated clearly that it saw nothing wrong with regulating guns short of banning them.

So, you guys with guns should be paying close attention to the anti-abortion tactics.

Surely David, you don't believe this is pure profit. Exactly who do you think is getting rich?

When you have clinics, A.K.A "abortions Clinics", it means they specialize in providing that one service, why would they do that if it wasn't profitable?

Would changing their title to "Woman's Health Care Clinic" be more P.C. and palatable to your sensablilties?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_clinic

United States

• There were 1,793 abortion providers in the United States in 2008.^[2]
• 381 of the 1,787 providers in the U.S. in 2005 were clinics at which the majority of patient visits were for abortions.^[3]
• Every state (and the District of Columbia) had at least one provider in 2008.^[2]
• The states with the most providers were California (522) and New York (249) in 2008.^[2]
• The states with the fewest providers were North Dakota (one) and South Dakota (two) in 2008.^[2]
• 13% of all counties in the United States had a provider in 2008.^[2]
• 31% of metropolitan counties and 3% of non-metropolitan counties had a provider in 2005.

I would say there are 381 clinics, in 2008, that were specializing in it because it is profitable.

Here is an example of the comments from someone who lives in a competing mindset. This comment is from goodforgoodnesssake in December of 2011 in regards to the comments about the shootings in Newton...

" Why would your "loving" god differentiate between two different buildings when young, innocent children are at stake?"

So with that comment mr or mrs "good" how can an "enlightend" athiest such as yourself reconcile between your comments back then to your comments now?

That measure would also ban abortion based on gender selection.

I never even thought that people were so ridiculous to get an abortion because of the child's sex. And people wonder why some want abortion to be illegal.

This is the "North Dakota" province in Pakistan, right?

So they still allow abortions, but just not every abortion, and this is not OK with you? Too bad TOS says I can't call you names that are appropriate.

55 million abortions in the last 40 years, 1.37 million per year, 114,000 a month, 3800 a day.

3800*$500.00 = $1,900,000.00.

$1.9 million dollars a day isn't a lucrative business?

Where do all these stats come from? Since there is a thing called doctor/patient confidentiality, how does ANYBODY know how many abortions (or any other procedure for that matter) are done every day?

Yet another gem of a comment from 'goodforgoodnesssake". Kind of poetic in itself isnt it?

February 2013

"Love the way potential murderers rationalize. "

DavidNoah, there are 1-1.5million miscarriages a year in the US. Assuming you are arguing from a religious standpoint, you may want to ask your God why he felt that is ok.

A Woman's body rejecting a baby is the Woman's body defending itself. Either the baby was not viable, or it was causing health issues for the woman, which is why the woman's body rejected it. Its an act of Nature. That's why its called a "miscarriage" and not an abortion.

How is a woman going to an abortion clinic and having the baby sucked out of them to avoid having the baby a natural process?

How is a woman going to an abortion clinic and having the baby sucked out of them to avoid having the baby a natural process?

He's an extremist, just the opposite of the rest of you, but he's got a point.

Hey, you're barking up the wrong tree, either way, unless it is your wife or daughter...it's none of your business. And don't feel you need to press your views on me. I have my own beliefs and they're not too far separated from yours. The difference is I'm not forcing you or anyone to follow my views and I am especially not trying to make laws to do that same thing.

Bob-2112

Please list your sources because thats quite a large range between 1 million and 1.5 million. But in answer to your comment, I dont see this as a religeous comment. I see this as a human comment. Are you stating that because we dont want to see helpless children murdered that it's a religeous notion only? If I were to follow that thought process and using your comment as the beginning I can then assume that you use the term "your God" as if you do not believe so therefore you either are a currrent child murderer or a potential murderer. So which is it?

Too bad, abortion wasn't an option when those Neanderthals were born...

My body, my choice! Your body, your choice!

A fetus is not a child, that's why Repubs want the name changes to personhood or some other form of "potential life", or some other term so they can call it murder.

If you follow that same logic every time a woman has her period she could be charged with homicide, or every time a man ...well you get the point... again you can choose your choice, but you cannot choose mine...right?

A fetus is not a child, that's why Repubs want the name changes to personhood, or some other term so they can call it murder. If you follow that same logic every time a woman has her period she could be charged with homicide, or every time a man ...well you get the point

Well that's an idiot's logic, I guess I understand why I said you are extremists.

HD - I am not the one to come up with that idea, that's been a Republican tactic for a few years and I agree it is extreme, but soooo many people truly believe in it. Don't blame the messenger.

Nice try bob but an unfertilized egg is exactly that, and egg. And to your other inuendo what you do in your hand also is not a person. You might want to review human biology to find out that a baby is made when the sperm meets the egg, thus creating life. And if you terminate that then you are a murderer. Simple - yes, hard for your type to understand- apparently.

Where do all these stats come from?

Are you afraid to do a search on the Internet because you don't like knowing how many children in the U.S. are aborted every year?

How do you know how many people had the flue last year? How do you know how many people had colon cancer?

If you want to dispute the 55 million abortions performed in the U.S. in the last 40 years then post the data. If you want to say it was only 50 million not 55 million is a 5% difference really going to help your argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

Number of abortions in United States

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973, roughly 50 million legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States.

While you would like to claim its a Womans health issue, only 6.1% of Abortions are performed for "health" reasons, which means 100,000+ abortions a month are performed for other reasons.

Reasons for abortions

Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:^[41] The source of this information, takes findings into account from 27 nations including the United States, and therefore these findings may not be typical for any one nation.

• 25.9% Want to postpone childbearing.
• 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
• 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
• 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
• 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
• 7.9% Want no (more) children
• 3.3% Risk to fetal health
• 2.8% Risk to maternal health
• 2.1% Other

http://www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.html

54,559,615 abortions 1973–2011

Reported abortions in the United States, by year

Why do women have abortions?

• 74% say having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities.
• 73% say they cannot afford to have a child.
• 48% say they do not want to be a single parent, or have relationship problems with husband or partner.
• Less than 2% say they became pregnant as a result of rape or incest.
  Source: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Perspective on Sexual & Reproductive Health, Sept. 2005

Are you afraid to do a search on the Internet because you don't like knowing how many children in the U.S. are aborted every year?

No, I'm not afraid to look, I'm just wondering how anybody knows these things. Bottom line is, it's none of my business what other women do when they go to the doctor...just like it's none of yours.

A fetus is not a child, that's why Repubs want the name changes to personhood or some other form of "potential life", or some other term so they can call it murder.

When was the last time you saw a headline, "Kim Kardashian's Fetus shower"?

How many times have you heard of Woman having a Zygot party?

When was the last time a woman said to her Husband "Honey were going to have a fetus"?

How many times have you heard a female co-worker tell her fellow employees she's going to have a Fetus?

When was the last time a first time expecting couple when Fetus shopping to prepare for their newborn baby?

How many "Fetus on Board' T-shirts have you seen?

Calling it a Fetus or a Zygot is the lefts cop-out, its their way of dehumanizing life, so they can sleep at night ,and avoid the moral dilemma of having to justify why its ok to kill a child before its born but not after its born.

Received this new, "tongue-in-cheek" email from my friend that's majoring in Law, in Eau Clair, Wisconsin:

"A race between Red States to see which state can ban abortions the soonest, eh? So one of them got it down to just six weeks now, eh? Tomorrow, another state will brag how they've banned all abortions happening after the very second the egg is fertilized and turned into an ovum. They'll force the women to officially register the ovum with a person's name. Maybe call for criminal investigations as a matter of possible homicide charges, if a woman miscarriages. To track potential fertilizations, they'll pass laws to monitor what women do in the privacy of their lives and in their homes. Maybe require hidden digital video cams installed in all bedrooms, or within the front panels of all household TV sets so their state's morality police can watch your every move. And in one-upmanship, another state will just simply ban access to birth control pills, condoms, etc., and make it illegal for any woman to leave the state to get an abortion elsewhere. And in another Bible Belt state, if they could, would just simply take away the women's right to vote. They'll pass a law taking away their civil rights and turn all of them into the human property of the Church. All to protect the life of the undifferentiated fetus, of which they've given it more religious rights to life, than even the mother's."

Bob-2112

Hey, you're barking up the wrong tree, either way, unless it is your wife or daughter...it's none of your business. And don't feel you need to press your views on me. I have my own beliefs and they're not too far separated from yours. The difference is I'm not forcing you or anyone to follow my views and I am especially not trying to make laws to do that same thing.

You know that's the same exact excuse the Democrats of the 1850's used for slavery in the run-up to the Civil War, right?

I'm not religious so don't lead your arguments in that direction. You'd just be wasting your time with me.

HOWEVER.

Abortion is the single most barbaric fact of the human race today. It's no different than leaving unwanted children for the wolves. Humans are supposed to be better than animals. Why can't we act like it? We talk about our freedoms and our responsibilities. We have birth control that is effective 999 times out of a thousand. Yet we can't, as a society, decide that we're not going to keep killing our children. We should ALL be ashamed until it no longer happens. Shame on me and shame on all of you.

David,

Please find me credible scientific sources that say SCIENCE has come to a consensus that a fetus or a zygote is a child. And I'm talking consensus on par with evolution or gravity. Until you can do THAT, the rest of your arguments are hyperbole and rhetoric.

I find the whole anti abortion issue forced on women a tragic injustice and far more barbaric. It just amazes me that some feel the rights of the unborn take precedence over the rights of the woman choice and her life.

I expect those same pious individuals that want all fetus protected as life have no problem cutting government spending on such programs as planned parenthood for sensible decisions. Cutting support in the form of welfare that is designed to protect the young by helping the new mother.

Education of both parent and child for future better paying jobs that could help someone stuggling with this decision. Geez, that might lead to some deciding to have this child if the social structure wasn't being undermined and defunded all the time by representatives of those same "caring" individuals.

I often have to ask how many unwanted new borns these folks have adopted to care for. The obvious answer is a big fat ZERO most times.

I was taught in high school about the 3 major problems facing humanity in the future.., population, population and population. Fact is the over population of this planet by humans is driving a large number of species to extinction. Guess that's part of 'God's" plan also? How about we just start answering for ourselves, wars and disease did this for centuries.... Guess its time for a good ole fashion pandemic.

Sarah, you know that's just as impossible as you providing that same level of proof that homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation or that climate change is man-made. It's because all of these are highly politicized issues.

Instead: let's use the same definition that would be used if we found potential life on another planet.

There are five basic rules scientists agree on that can be found in the majority of biology textbooks defining life.

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

Any fetus with cellular differentiation meets the first one. Does anyone need this one explained? If so, you probably shouldn't be having sciency type talks.

Any zygote meets the second. From fertilization, the cells absorb energy and grow.

Any fetus meets the third. It's been proven that a fetus can respond to many stimuli. Ask any mother.

A zygote meets the fourth. Cellular reproduction starts immediately.

Any fetus meets the fifth.

Don't take my word for it? OK, how about some experts?

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

Just because it doesn't meet your political definition, it doesn't necessarily follow that it doesn't meet a scientific one.

@Really?-2872425

Why do you assume that just because some people strongly disagree with you about how to care for the less fortunate, they don't care at all? That's a reprehensible projection and reflects more on you than them.

Don't worry Progressives......

Mr. Obama will send to North Dakota a "special" DOJ team to take care of the situation.

JimP1969 Hillarious, its pretty obvious by what is passed by both parties in Congress. By our current president and past administrations. If you don't know what is being represented by each and by whom, then your the one assuming. There plenty of general info on any one of these "issues".

How to care about the less fortunate? Thankfully poor people can get aid from my taxes. My purchase of health insurance helps pay their medical benefits as well, Oh geez, thats right. Some of those same folks don't want to purchase healthcare do they? Hilarious.

All I can say is thankfully abortion is legal. Thankfully, Obama will be appointing more Supremes. Thankfully, education is still funded, especially not religious doctrine. most places . Hell yes, that is my opinion. Thankfully it is many more like me too.

Please find me credible scientific sources that say SCIENCE has come to a consensus that a fetus or a zygote is a child. And I'm talking consensus on par with evolution or gravity. Until you can do THAT, the rest of your arguments are hyperbole and rhetoric.

How was the Universe created?

The Big Bang theory?

Bubble Theory?

String theory?

Multiverse theory?

No Boundry proposal?

Steady State Theory?

We've been around for what 65,000 years? What did we call it for tens of thousands of years, when we started to speak and developed languages, before Science came along and decided to call it something other than an unborn child or baby?

Does calling it a zygot or a fetus instead of an unborn child or baby make you feel any better when you end its life?

If a Woman miscarries a baby why should she be upset, suffer from depression, suffer emotional trauma, be embarrassed, etc, after all its just a zygot, so there must be something wrong with her, right?

When you can justify the killing of an unborn child simply by giving it a scientific term, calling it something other than a baby or an unborn child, what makes you think you have the right to claim you value any life?

@Really?-2872425

That garbage doesn't even deserve an answer. Do us all (including yourself) a favor and go learn about logical fallacies and legitimate debate. Then you might actually have something meaningful to contribute instead of the warped logic you probably picked up in the public school system. Oh, and exactly what was your tax burden last year since you seem to think that's your contribution? I bet you're a red line on the nation's budget. Just a guess but I'd put money on it. By the way, specifically look up tyranny of the majority. A majority alone means nothing when talking about justice, rights, and legality. Using the spell check button at the top of the window occasionally wouldn't hurt either.

Got to wonder how much statically these state suck up in welfare, teen pregnancy, suicide (as well as infanticide), drug usage and high school drop out rates?

Yeah, there is a correlation.

Cherokee- Two thumbs up, Sarah, pftttt. How does your mother feel about abortion? Regret?

Funny how Liberals will advocate repealing death penalties and less punishment and greater freedom for Death Row rapists and murderers but will sit by idly as millions of babies are brutally slaughtered in their own mothers womb for a crime they never committed.

Can someone explain to me why a woman who aborts a baby at 20 weeks is aborting a fetus but when she miscarries at the same time, she's lost a baby?

When your wife told you she was pregnant and you felt her belly, were you thinking she was carrying a clump of cells, a fetus or your baby?

When you and your wife first felt the movement in her womb at 13-16 weeks did you think it was a fetus, or your baby?

Now, for any of you abortion advocates, I challenge you to go to the link below.

When you get there click on the pixelated pictures of the products of abortions from 7 weeks to 24 weeks and look at them all very closely. This is what you Pro-Choicers murder with every abortion.

If this doesn't tug at your Liberal bleeding hearts, then your hypocrisy is complete.

This is the REAL world of abortion, not some symbolic protest or clever slogan you can chant.

I dare you!

http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_pictures/

You should all hide in shame to allow this to continue.

Love it, I ask for scientific links and consensus and I get "pfft".

No, finding science here is NOT impossible. Science is quite clear on the matter, and I asked for links, not Newsvine posts. If it's THAT easy you should be able to find me plenty. I'll wait. And yet I noticed not ONE of you posted even ONE link.

Find me the scientific consensus that says a fetus and/or zygote are a "children". This may be a political issue, but the entire thing hinges on the science here.

And Jim...

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

THOSE are links and evidence. What YOU did was more rhetoric. Let me give you a hint YOUR Newsvine posts will NEVER prove your position correct, because they're MERELY Newsvine posts.

And, by the way, if YOUR INTERPRETATION up there were correct, abortion would be illegal. Think about it for a minute.

http://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/inconsistancy-in-the-life-begins-at-conception-argument/

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/25/opinion/zygotes-and-people-aren-t-quite-the-same.html

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml

From earliest times the relationship between a woman and her developing embryo or fetus has been the subject of philosophic, religious, and legal wrangling. This is one of the most important questions in the abortion debate because how this relationship is envisioned will result in both legislation and social attitudes based on that vision. With this in mind I'd like to examine the paradigms we currently use and look at the implications. I want, furthermore to examine how those paradigms fit into what we know biologically about the relationship and discuss whether we are basing our paradigms on this biological reality or on a concept that fits a political agenda.

This work will essentially throw some light on the flaws inherent in the current trend to sometimes view an embryo/fetus (which for simplicity I will refer to as fetus from here on) as a separate entity residing in the body of the woman.

The "Integrated Single Unit" Paradigm.

With this concept the woman and her fetus are represented as a single organism which could be referred to as the "Pregnancy Unit" as the textbook Williams Obstetrics does; or the "organism of the pregnant woman" as it is referred to on this site .

Viewing a pregnancy in this way certainly is in line with what we know about the nature of the relationship being described.British Medical researcher and Scientist, Sir Peter Medawar, as part of the study of the immune system he was conducting in 1953, drew attention to a paradox with respect to that fetal relationship. He described the fetus as a graft on the body of the woman and as such wondered why, without drug intervention, rejection does not always take place.

As background, grafts can be of several types.

They may be:

• Autologous: referring to naturally occurring cells, tissues, organs in which the donor and recipient are the same individual and antigenically identical. Words associated with this are autogenous, autograft, or autotransfusion isograft, a self-to-self graft.
• Allogeneic: referring to naturally occurring cells, tissues, organs in which the donor and recipient are not genetically identical yet are within the same species. Words associated are allogenic, allogeneic, allograft, and homograft.
• Syngeneic: referring to naturally occurring cells, tissues, organs in which the donor has an identical genotype with the recipient. Words associated syngraft, isogeneic, or isogenic.
• Xenogeneic: referring to naturally occurring cells, tissues, organs in which the donor and recipient belong to different (or widely separated) species. Words associated xenogenic, xenogenous, heterogeneic or heterologous.

(The above are taken From Stedman and Dorland definitions).

There are others types of graft also but these are sufficient for our purpose. Now since the contribution to the genetic structure of the fetus is half from the woman it is not a true autograft but a semi autograft, and since it is the same species as the host it is it is therefore properly described as an allograft but it is more like the host than most allografts because of the 50% identical genetic component. So semiallogenic is the term frequently used to describe the fetal/host graft relationship. Medawar noted that despite the semiallogenic nature of the fetus that rejection did not take place automatically and postulated a number of reasons for this. Without going into unnecessary detail here, let me simply say that further research has shown the maintenance of the graft relationship (and thus the pregnancy) depends on the production of hormones that will reduce the normal rejection mechanism of the immune system, and cause the host body to recognize the graft as a part of itself.

Thus the relationship between the woman and her fetus is a graft to host one and the graft is integrated into the body of the host making the combination, as in all such relationships, a single unit.

The "Dual Organism" Paradigm.

A competing vision of what the pregnant woman consists of, is that what is actually present are two separate and independent entities and that they should always be treated as such. For this reason, using this paradigm, we find fetal specialists and medical ethicists insisting that the pregnant woman is actually two patients. This view then makes the further claim that a separate organism is produced at conception, which is "when life begins" and that organism, because it has a different DNA from the woman in whose body it resides, is not a part of her. The human reproductive cycle is thus viewed as an instantaneous point in time rather than the prolonged approximately 40 week developmental process it actually is. Let me point out some of the flaws in this 'dual organism' position.

Organisms come in many forms, including single celled, but since we are talking about humans at this point, we are referring to mammals, and mammals are not single celled organisms. What we need to do is look at the markers that are necessary and sufficient to classify an entity as a mammalian organism. These markers are identified in many biological textbooks and but for simplicity I will use the definitions found in the Oxford English Dictionary, and Websters, here.

Organism: An organized body, consisting of mutually connected and dependent parts constituted to share a common life; the material structure of an individual animal or plant. OED

And from this the biological definition of Individual is needed also:

Individual: "Biol. An organism regarded as having a separate existence...an organism detached from other organisms, composed of coherent parts, and capable of independent life." OED

Then from Webster's Medical Dictionary Online we have:

Organism: "An individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being." (Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary on line)

So what is required to describe an entity as a mammalian organism is individuality, and the capacity for independent life. Some of the requirements for maintaining independent life in a mammalian organism would be the ability to detoxify and reoxygenate blood; to maintain homeostasis - temperature, blood pressure and blood pH, etc., using it's own internal regulatory systems that respond to the external environment; to ingest, digest, and excrete in order to produce and convert energy to maintain systems; and more.

All of these functions are performed for the fetus by the host organism of which it is a part, and the fetus is incapable of performing them independently as long as it remains integrated into the body of the woman. We can safely draw the conclusion that the fetus does not have the markers of, or perform the self regulated life sustaining functions of, independent organism in itself but it is a part of a larger organism (even though the fetus gains an increasing capacity for independent performance of those functions as the pregnancy progresses - which is the purpose of gestation).

I can already hear the clamor at this point to grab dictionaries or textbooks that refer to the fetus as an organism and I'm quite aware that this is frequently done for reasons of convenience and ease in description. It is even more frequent since the "dual organism" and "pregnant woman as two patients" has been adopted by some in both the medical and political arena. (Factoids also play a role in the dissemination of this view. The word factoid was apparently coined by Norman Mailer in 1973 in the sense 'something fictitious or unsubstantiated presented as a fact, that is accepted as true because of its constant repetition in the media'.) Nonetheless this paradigm is incorrect because the fetus fails to meet the biological definition of an independent organism, and calling it an organism in a textbook or newspaper won't make it one.

A fetus is, indeed, a semiallogenic graft and as such it is a part of the host/woman into whose body the graft is integrated.

What are the implications of these paradigms?

From a legal, social, and ethical viewpoint, whichever of these paradigms become the dominant one - regardless of their accuracy or lack thereof - has enormous implications on the society accepting it. The effects on women's rights are especially dependent on the acceptance of one over the other.

If the "integrated single unit" paradigm, which is in fact the older of the two and the more accurate, is accepted as correct, then it means that legislation concerning abortion, particularly prior to the time when the fetus has the possibility of an independent self sustaining life, is essentially legislation designed to control a part of a woman's body It might very well be argued that until successful parturition, when indeed there is a separate organism "capable of carrying on the activities of life", any such legislation would be unconstitutional since it would be giving a part of a woman rights that can restrict or abridge rights she currently has. Canada, with no abortion legislation on the books, may have gotten it right.

If the "dual organism" paradigm prevails, despite its inherent flaws both in biological fact and its treatment of the pregnant woman, then regulation of the separate organism certainly has a basis to work with. Proscribing the activities and freedoms of one person for the protection of the developing organism may be both possible legally, and socially seen as acceptable. All of the dangers warned about in Katha Pollits Fetal Rights - Women's Wrongs are possible only if the "dual organism" paradigm is accepted.

http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/infrmdC/Paradigms.html

What happened to that conservative principle about small government/government not intruding into private lives?

They'll enact on that once Obama gets news of the decision and gives his opinion on it. Whatever he agrees with they'll negate it and make it the opposite.

If you want to dispute the 55 million abortions performed in the U.S. in the last 40 years then post the data. If you want to say it was only 50 million not 55 million is a 5% difference really going to help your argument?

Then perhaps you would have felt better if we had dumped these 55 million unwanted kids on your front lawn instead, right?

A Woman's body rejecting a baby is the Woman's body defending itself. Either the baby was not viable, or it was causing health issues for the woman, which is why the woman's body rejected it. Its an act of Nature. That's why its called a "miscarriage" and not an abortion.

Flunked biology back in school, didn't you?

El Wrongo. In the vast majority of cases it's due to a serious genetic defect, such as Trisomy 13 or Trisomy 18, NOT because of a woman's immune response to the fetus. Yes, there ARE cases of Hemolytic Disease of the Fetus and Newborn, in which the maternal antibodies cross the placenta in increasing amounts and start attacking the fetal red cells (i.e. Rh HDFN) but this CAN be easily prevented antenatally with Rhogam. This is generally NOT a problem with a first pregnancy anyway. It's subsequent pregnancies that the obstetrician has to worry about. This is why every Rh negative woman who bears a Rh positive child for the first time has the Rhogam injection.

And most other maternal antibodies are not clinically significant, mainly because they are IgM and cannot cross the placenta, ( too big ) NOT IgG.

Look, in your fantasy world, every pregnancy would be intended and planned but that's not how real life works. And sorry, skippy - you are NOT one to tell a woman to carry an intended pregnancy to term or not to.

Spence,

There are no "abortion advocates". There are CHOICE advocates. It's not like we sit around on a Friday night and say, "Hey, let's drink some wine coolers and get some abortions tonight".

There are no "abortion advocates". There are CHOICE advocates. It's not like we sit around on a Friday night and say, "Hey, let's drink some wine coolers and get some abortions tonight".

Anyone who uses abortion as a means to choose what sex their child will be is an "abortion advocate" and since you find that practice completely acceptable, then you maam are an abortion advocate.

Honest (I feel ridiculous even calling you that),

I would love to see some credible sources showing us how sex selective abortion is a problem in our country.

“I don’t support abortion for gender selection,” said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and an opponent of the legislation. “I don’t know anyone who does. Maybe that’s because there is no problem in this country of abortion for gender selection.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/us/politics/house-rejects-bill-to-ban-sex-selective-abortions.html?_r=0

In the U.S., this is a “solution” in search of a problem. Even in immigrant communities that show very limited evidence of more boys being born than girls later in the birth order, abortion is far from the only mechanism available to sort for sex. Half of American fertility clinics offer some possibility of sorting by sex before a pregnancy. But if you ask people who actually work on this issue in Asia, where skewed sex ratios – whether achieved through IVF, abortion or even infanticide — can be socially destabilizing, they’ll tell you that limiting reproductive freedom isn’t the answer. The only mechanism that has changed anything (the go-to example is South Korea, where abortion is technically illegal but widely tolerated) is moving toward a more gender-equitable society where life as a woman is less of a burden. Part of that equitable society includes women making the decision when and if to be mothers. Seeking to chip away at that right is the true hypocrisy.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/31/the_sex_selective_abortion_sham/

You want to make something that I have a right to harder, you need some evidence. Let's see it. Also, that STILL wouldn't be "pro-abortion" or any kind of murder/infantiside/gendercide, because it still wouldn't be a HUMAN BEING. See the posts above and SCIENCE. Until you can provide that link about science's consensus calling fetus/zygotes "children", you've got NOTHING.

In the mean time, worry about your OWN body, because you will NEVER have a say in ours.

Yesterday the US House of Representatives defeated a bill (the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act or PRENDA) that would ban sex-selective abortion.

The anti-choice movement in Canada has also ramped up their rhetoric on the issue, calling it “female feticide” and trying to shame feminists who refuse to support a ban. Earlier this year the Canadian Medical Association Journal called for regulations to prohibit Canadian doctors from disclosing the sex of the fetus until 30 weeks, when it would be considered too late to have an abortion.

First, let’s put the Canadian uproar in perspective. Prabhat Jha of the University of Toronto’s chair in disease control cautioned that the study the CMA based their opinion on has several limitations. According to the Globe and Mail:

The calculations show the total number of “missing” girls is 245, which equals about 35 births per year, or less than one per cent of the total births to Indian-born women. Dr. Jha said in an e-mail if sex-selective abortion is at play, it is a very small problem and other “important but subtle biases,” such as migration of Indian women about to give birth to a son, could help explain the trend.

Let me be clear. I don’t like that sex-selective abortion happens, because it’s sex-selective. But we can’t start putting bans on women’s motives for having an abortion, because where do you draw the line? As Nivedita Menon, an Indian feminist professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University states:

We seem to be counterposing the rights of (future) women to be born against the rights of (present) women to control over their bodies…Decisions to abort are almost always shaped by factors like…illegitimacy, lack of social facilities for childcare that place a disproportionate burden on women, economic constraints and so on.

If you look at the people championing these bans it’s clear passing a ban on sex-selective abortions would be by no means the end.

Opponents of PRENDA point out that passing a ban, especially like this one that would punish doctors, would result in stereotyping and intimidation of women of colour seeking abortions. It would result in doctors concealing medical information from women. As the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health states:

No woman should ever be scrutinized or interrogated by her doctor based on cultural background, and that is exactly what would happen if this bill becomes law. This policy wouldn’t address the root causes of abortion for sex selection. It would just take away a woman’s ability to make personal, private medical decisions.

If you think that’s alarmist you only have to read some of the racist comments posted on stories about sex-selective abortion in Canada. Here are a couple.

From the National Post:

“Here is another case where the problem is imported and remains restricted to culturally alien minorities, but the measures to alleviate it would be extended to the completely innocent majority. Not unlike the long gun registry and absurd aviation security measures. If the term Minority-Run Canada (MRC) has not been copyrighted yet, I’m claiming it. Diversity, the gift that keeps on giving.”

“Simple……stop Asians from immigrating here……….and while you’re at it………..Muslim’s too please.”

…and the Toronto Sun:

“If they want to move here, yes sterilize them all, the whole family, mama, papa, and kids. And force them to undertake OUR traditions, not forcing us to accept theirs. Stop the building of Mosques etc… Did Columbus have any Muslims on his ship when he discovered North America. And did Jacques Cartier have any Muslims on his ship when he discovered Canada? Hell NO!”

“…..those sneaky bitches….go back to India and pay for your own damn abortion if you don’t want girl babies, why the hell should Canadians pay for it. Beggars can’t be choosey.”

Now granted that’s not everyone but it does show the kind of racist vitriol that could only be further inflamed by this type of ban.

But feminists do believe in taking action, only it’s action to actually address root causes. It’s about changing the attitudes that say a baby girl is undesirable. It starts with improving women’s access to sex education and contraception and raising the status of women by making sure girls and women can access education and employment. How can a mother value her daughter when she herself is not valued?

Some Indian feminists are pushing for increased access to condoms and greater onus on men to prevent pregnancy. Menon supports crack-downs on clinics that specifically offer gender testing, but in the end states that “feminists must defend women’s access to legal and safe abortions whenever they decide to have them – whatever the reason for their decision”.

As Fern Hill at Dammit Janet puts it (also where I got the title of this post):

As we keep repeating, ‘female feticide’ is NOT a big gotcha for feminists. We’re cool with all choices. Of course, we’d prefer that all choices be accurately informed and freely made.

In the end, choice is choice, and disempowering adult women and refusing to allow them reproductive autonomy is going at this whole thing ass-backwards.

http://www.gender-focus.com/2012/06/01/sex-selective-abortion/

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/06/27/254554/sex-selective-abortion-is-a-story-about-sex-selection-more-than-a-story-about-abortion/?mobile=nc

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/06/03/outlawing-sex-selective-abortion/

See, this is what we call INFORMATION, SOURCES and LINKS. As opposed to your sanctimonious rhetoric which will FAIL as this law will be SHOT DOWN and you will NEVER stop a single abortion.

I don't recall anyone on this thread advocating abortion for gender selection. That was done in China as a response to the one child policy but no one in this country is advocating state limits on the size of families either.

In cold terms - I see a whole lot of guys cutting off their nose to spite their face! If a woman - single or married - has absolutely no choice - how many times do you think you will get laid in your lifetime??? Once? Twice??

Mark,

So true. Not to mention I don't know a lot of girls who find it "hot" when a dude tells them what to do with their body. And really, that's never good for your chances of getting laid either.

"Ooooh, he's sooooo dreamy when he patronizes me!" Yeah, not so much.

Angela -

Much less than states like California and New York.

Check it out.

The bottom line is that all the states limiting or prohibiting freedom of choice value a mass of multiplying cells more highly than they do a woman. Women, to them, are just walking wombs with no rights. They can debate all the details about what to call the mass of multiplying cells and make laws but they are basically saying that after sperm meets egg, the woman... the individual American citizen that is the vessel becomes a non-person. What I see in the future is a map made available that will show where women have rights and where they do not. This is a huge step backwards for our society, back to a medieval view of women and a triumph for those who are using the law to force their religious views on others.

The Tale of the Handmaiden coming true.

Sarah-3043284

There are no "abortion advocates". There are CHOICE advocates. It's not like we sit around on a Friday night and say, "Hey, let's drink some wine coolers and get some abortions tonight".

Sarah, you’re playing semantics. If advocates is offensive then how about enablers. We can toss around nouns, verbs and adjectives all day, the reality is that abortion is the willful taking of a life.

I read all the dictionary definitions many post to justify their positions, it’s just more semantics. What amazes me is how so many abortion supporters will be so rabid about a tree being cut down or a pipeline being promoted and in the same breath allow one of the most violent acts to be performed on a womans body.

I don’t know if you have ever been through an abortion or even seen one performed. It’s very emotional. I have seen abortions performed and it is literally sickening. Not because of the sounds of the procedure or the womans body being invaded and the baby being terminated and removed, but rather the look on her face. Regardless of the reason, the woman knows a terrible thing is happening in her womb. I never once saw a look of contentment on the womans face. I never saw a look of relief. I never saw a look of joy. But I did see fear, anger and guilt.

As a retired physician I have seen the joy of conception and pregnancy and I have seen the sorrow of a miscarriage and abortions. I have seen the sheer joy on the face of the new mother as her baby is handed to her and that incredible bond begins. I have seen the pride on the face as the new father clumsily holds his tiny child in his hands for the first time, looks in its eyes, and says hello. I have also seen the depression and emotional breakdown on the face of the woman, and even the father, after the abortion. When we as people minimize and delegitimize life so easily it’s no surprise we see the other breakdowns in our society.

We are taught to cherish the miracle of life, be it a magnificent redwood or a cute little puppy, but in the same breath we are supposed to allow a defenseless child to be violently sucked out of a womans body. A child that never hurt anyone, never committed a crime or even sinned is found guilty and sentenced to death.

I post those pictures that I referenced in my above post not to be cruel, but to show that it is a person that is being killed. Those pictures cannot be dismissed as a clump of cells, a fetus or any other descriptive “feel-good” term. It’s a person. They have fingers and toes, eyes, a nose, often times a beating heart and all the other characteristics parents so joyfully compare to themselves when the baby is born.

When we as a society allow the most intimate act between two people to become a circus driven by emotions rather than responsibility, we have failed. When the reproductive act is reduced to a contest of machismo or the ability to attract someone, we have failed. We are supposedly the alpha species on this planet, if so, why do we allow the most intimate act between two people to be reduced to “advanced bedroom gymnastics”? Everyone agrees that sex feels good and it has its place in a civilized society. We have taken it from a responsibility and turned it into a hedonistic expression of our inadequacies. Yes, the responsibility lies with both partners, man and woman, but that’s where the distinction ends.

If this were the Middle Ages where education was a privilege, it might be justified. Today we start teaching our children about sex before they even know what it means and yet we still have the horrors of teen and unwanted pregnancies. Some do well, the great majority don’t. We see the statistics leading to crime, drugs and poverty. The solution can no longer be the submissive act of abortion. The biggest failure we must admit is our lack of education and the incorporation of responsibility. When we allow more and more simple solutions to solve our failures as humans we admit our weakness.

You can be Pro-Choice, I just hope that the choice is made before the act is consummated.

When you figure out how a United States would look once we instituted "labor camps" where pregnant women are forced to incubate and give birth, you let us know, okay?

Exactly how much authority are you willing to give the federal government over domain of YOUR body? How do you plan to legislate responsibility? What do you propose we do with all the yet-to-be adopted (over 400K) children we already have?

Maybe you've haven't heard any stories about or personally know any unloved, unwanted or neglected children.

I notice few understand that what a man or woman does with their body is beyond the governments purview to control. All anti abortion laws are not constitutionally legal regardless what any Supreme Court says.

We tend to forget that personal freedom is what freedom is all about. A man or woman's body is a soverign entity which is what the very idea of freedom is based on. If we don't have that then we actually have NO FREEDOM.

We can whine or intellectualize about abortion all we want, it is still no one elses business but the woman's. Government and the Rick Santorums need to stay the fuk out of our space.

I hear there is a movement on to castrate all men that are ugly so we can genetically move towards improving the looks of people. How does that grab you?

What kills more, guns or abortion? What a bunch of hypocrites.

What's regulated more, aworldofhurt? A uterus or a gun? Which has had more bills introduced since the thumper GOPs took control?

CherokeeBlonde, you're tackling two issues here. I'll try to explain my position.

1. You feel it is ok to force your views upon others in a legal fashion. That is not something I agree with. You would no rather accept an Islamic or Hindu religious belief made into law for the same reason. So why is it ok for you to decide whether some other woman must carry a baby to full term and take care of it for the next 18-40+ years? If you choose to do that, I fully support you. You have no right to force that decision onto someone else legally.

2. Science has not been able to 100% define life. Life is a loose term and can mean many things. But by your definition and those above an unfertilized "egg" is living, a sperm is living, trees, plants, even "fire" fits most of those terms, a virus comes pretty darn close too. All of those things comprise "life". So which 'lives" are ok to kill and which ones aren't? What are the criteria? Why do you get to decide for someone else?

I fully support your right to choose the position and belief that all unborn fetuses should live. You can say it, wear a shirt that states it, sing songs about it, even do TV ads supporting it.

I do not support you forcing others to believe and adhere to the same legally. That is a choice they must make, independent of you. Your rights end where their rights begin.

Just did some quick research but basically 63% think we should keep Roe v Wade vs 30 to overturn. That was Quinnipiac, WSJ, PEW, USA and Gallup polls from the last few months.

A scary fact was when asked about Roe v Wade 39% agreed with it, 18% disagreed and 41 didn't know enough to provide an opinion. (WSJ).

I fully support each side making a rational and logical case for their opinion, obviously people need to be better informed. But that being said, 2/3 already think letting the individual make her own choice is the right answer as opposed to 1/3 who think the government or laws should make that choice for a woman. I don't see a major swing on this one, in fact, I'd bet that margin widens as we progress to the future.

Tammy doesn't understand what a 'static' is, kind of pathetic...

Next you're going to tell me that there are more 'white women' on welfare than black, right?

Sarah, storm915, Bob, and others that are pro-choice, your parents should have swallowed or, better yet, had done the world a favor and made sure that they had never even met in the first place, thus prrventing themselves from giving birth and resulting in making the uber-stupid beings that are yourselves. Ronald Reagan was right when he said, "I think that it's funny that the people who are for abortion have already been born." Also, you would do well to learn this quite from Margaret Mead, when she said, "Never doubt the actions of a small, commited group of people to change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever (really) has (worked)." A true rule of justice does not worry about mere concepts of who the majority or who the minority is in power, rather, it only cares for truth, justice, mercy, and swift punishment of the doers of evil and wicked things. To put it another way, a quote from a classroom in an elementary school would suffice at this point, namely, "Whatever is popular is not always right, whatever is right is not always popular."

Agree, Scalzo . . . It would be bad enough if we were talking about "throats,' BUT . . . .

and my guess is we will go back to coat hangers & back-alley abortions, and women hemorrhaging to death, like we had in the late '60's/early 70's, before Roe . . .

Outlawing abortion doesn't make it go away, any more than prohibition worked.

How can a state BAN something that is legal under Roe vs Wade? I don't get it?

I also don't understand why, with doctor/patient privilege how anybody should be able to know what procedure my doctor preforms on me. Therefore, who's to say I had an abortion, or a colonoscopy?

genafan, in your case, there probably IS no difference between an abortion and a colonoscopy.

Now that is VERY intelligent Vern. If you can't give a good answer, insult, hey?

KC_NC....."Outlawing abortion doesn't make it go away, any more than prohibition worked."

So......

"Outlawing certain weapons doesn't make it go away, any more than prohibition worked."

Gotta love the Progressive hypocrites.

What is next on the Progressive list for "outlawing" ? Oh yeah, your right to free speech and your religious preference.

As a South Dakota citizen I plead for help from anyone and anything. South Dakota is not far behind North Dakota on the abortion issue. They legalize guns in schools because it is a constitutional right to have guns- but they have no qualms about destroying the constitutionally protected right of a woman to control her own body. I do not like abortions. I hate fools even worse that think they can dictate morality to the person whose body and life is at stake. They cry and scream about the "War on Christmas?" while they belittle the notion of a War on Women. Their record speaks for itself. I am thinking these republicans are hopelessly brain-damaged. Perhaps it is an inherited sensitivity to sugar.

Yup. A BILLION dollars a year. Apparently, there's a lot of money to be made off of the blood of dead babies.

...>>>

Vern's attitude: Typical attitude that is determining the future of women and children in this country. Do you hear that ladies? The next time you want to do anything with your own body, people like Vern would like you to ask his permission please. For the sake of the dead babies that bother his conscience so much. How about if we start treating sperm cells like they are a future person and start passing laws concerning what men have to do to prevent the murder of all those cute little sperms that are obviously alive because they wiggle and they travel?

You might find Communist China more to your liking.

No... see, Vern, what you "love it or leave it" folks seem to have forgotten is that this country belongs to all Americans and not just to you "my way or the highway" types. A democracy works because citizens are allowed to disagree with their laws and have the right to dissent. If you can't accept that then maybe you should be the one to try China. A country where you can force your views on everyone might be more to your taste.

I think an appropriate punishment would be to put the rapist in jail.

I do not think that an appropriate punishment is to murder the rape victim's baby.

Spoken like someone who will NEVER have to carry a rapist's baby to term...

He'll change his tune if the rapist wasn't the same race as his daughter...friggin idiot.

By the way, it's not a child UNTIL IT CAN SURVIVE outside of the womb. Screw your "life begins at conception bull@!$%#!"

Plus, you a-holes don't give a rat's ass about children AFTER they are born.

Interesting that declaration of 'rape' could become the legal means to circumnavigate an unwanted pregnancy. It's going to be quite interesting when men - single or married - have to legally defend 'he said - she said' even when 'no' came weeks after the event.

Keep it up, guys. The back lash will eventually reduce your means of pleasure to self gratification. But, I suppose the work-around would be a verified vasectomy prior to penetration.

Thank you - your post shows an understanding that abortion is not a simple, easy or quick decision. By putting a six week limit on abortion ND has ensured that women may choose abortion early before they have had time to collect the information they need to make a serious, informed decision. Those women, who feel pressured to make this decision quickly may in fact be the ones who later question their choice.

Well said Gary.

Gary,

"Confederate traitors" ? Seriously son you need to go read your history and look up how to read a map.

Now if you would like to stand on your comments that anyone trying to protect a child is a traitor then sign me up.

Gary, this is not about "the woman's bodies". We're not talking about pregnant women committing suicide by jamming scissors into the backs of their own skulls and suctioning their own brains out until their skull collapses. We're talking about them doing that to their own babies, which are distinctly DIFFERENT bodies, with different DNA and everything.

Approximately 30% of the population in North Dakota self-identifies as Roman Catholic. It appears this minority is working to force their religious beliefs on the entire state population through legislation such as this, even though it runs counter to the Roe vs. Wade decision. Wonder what the reaction would be if a Muslim minority advocated for legislation based on Sharia law?

Jwight01,

I'm going to ask you as others where exactly are your sources for your percentile? But ignoring the fact that you either made it up or got it from wiki ( a confirmed scientific source, yeah right), 30 % of a population may indeed be a majority if the other portions/divisions are something like 7% blue people and 16& athiest, etc...

Do you see the failure of your comment?

The majority (even if it is a 30% minority) doesn't get to use legislation to violate a person's Constitutional rights. Roe vs. Wade is settled case law; any of these state laws that don't adhere to the Roe vs. Wade ruling will be thrown out when they reach the Supreme Court. Do you see that majority rule doesn't always equal Constitutional?

I wonder what the percentages are for Deadbeat Dads vs Deadbeat Moms??

I wonder how many men used a condom with their girlfriend/wife to make sure there was not an unwanted pregnancy?

And I wonder how many men gave up their jobs, careers, professions...to raise an unplanned child?

I wonder how many men who are pushing these "anti" laws have responsibly chosen a vasectomy to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

In law, your personal beliefs are irrelevant. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't get one. Don't place yourself on a pedestal, declare your superiority over others, act like a dictator and wave the American flag. Your religious and personal beliefs are outdated, small minded and have no place in a modern society. Go to Pakistan and practice your intolerance. Your kind are dying out in this nation.

Firstly, birth control methods fail. Secondly, ending a pregnancy when you neither want or are prepared for a baby IS responsibility. Thirdly, have you ever seen a neglected child? Just because you legislate it, doesn't mean a woman is going to gush with love and affection over a child she didn't want. Lastly, this country is filled with children waiting to be adopted already, over 400,000 of them.

So Diane - where are all the "fathers" in this? Are they exempt from responsibility? What consequences do you suggest be imposed upon them for failing to use birth control? Your response couldn't be more narrow minded and self-righteous. I tolerate your view on abortion because you are entitled to your opinion, however, this is not a black and white issue and just because I tolerate your opinion and your right to it, doesn't mean you ARE right or have the right to make these decisions for others. I'd rather see abortion offered than hear another story about a BABY in a dumpster or rest stop bathroom toilet.

Diane - are you one of those people willing to adopt? I hope so and congratulations if you have done so. Those PLENTY of people willing to adopt, however, are frequently kind of choosy about who they will adopt - by gender, color, ethnicity, health etc. There are not many perfectly formed white babies with no disabilities or risk of genetic abnormalities such as fetal alcohol syndrome available for adoption.

There is a reason the SCOTUS identified viability as the point before which abortion is legal - before that point the fetus can not survive independently which is why an abortion prior to viability is different than a mother giving birth and then murdering her independently alive baby. Regardless of your religious beliefs about human life, we live, fortunately, in a democracy and not a theocracy and our laws are determined by principles of civil common law rather than biblical law.

A heartbeat in and of itself is not an indicator of independent life. Transplant donors have their heartbeats maintained for hours if not days while organ recipients are identified and before organs are harvested. That does not make that donor "alive."

I wonder what the percentage of adoption is for the "anti-abortion" crusaders??

I wonder how many men have been punished for impregnating a woman "accidentally"?

Why are men 'givers' and women are 'takers'...and women better take what they get???

Why don't men just keep their damned old sperm to themselves? (ie...go screw yourself)

And I wonder how many men have been punished for FAILING to impregnate??

How come women are the targets on this rifle range???

Actually, you're full of $hit.

I am very much against infanticide on demand, and between my career choice and my volunteer committments relating to serving the needs of children, I stay VERY busy.

Actually, you're full of $hit.

No, you are Vern. And your posts reek of it too!

I am very much against infanticide on demand

Good. I imagine everyone is too. But the issue is abortion, which is not infanticide!

and between my career choice and my volunteer committments relating to serving the needs of children, I stay VERY busy.

Yet you seem to find plenty of time to rant nonsensically!

Vern - how how many unwanted kids have you adopted?

The US Supreme Court does not consider abortion murder.

That was a very different and very left leaning scotus. You may be able to validate the differnece between shooting a 6 year old child and ripping an unborn child apart with scissors or a vaccuum but I really doubt most here could *if* they were honest about it.

Cherokee, when the fetus is able to live OUTSIDE of the womb then it becomes a baby. Until such time, it is up to the woman to decide if she wants to continue a pregnancy that robs her bones of minerals or could potentially KILL HER. Women still die during pregnancy and delivery IN THIS COUNTRY. I *personally* almost died in 2006 while delivering my son after a 100% uneventful, uncomplicated pregnancy. If it had not been for an emergency c-section my son and I BOTH would have died.

I personally can not WAIT until medical science comes up with a way for a fetus to be TRANSPLANTED from one host body to another. Then women AND MEN can put their bodies where their mouths are or SHUT UP ALREADY. Until such time as we can take an embryo/fetus out of one body and place it into another while surgically implanting/attaching the placenta to either a uterine wall, the liver or an intestine, abortion will be a NECESSARY evil. Why don't you pro-BIRTHERS start collecting money to finance the research that will make that happen and ALSO make sure that birth control and sex education are free, IN OUR SCHOOLS and unrestricted until medical science gets there? While you're at it, adopt an older, handicapped, non-white child that may have psychological, mental health or physical issues and put THAT money where your mouth is. As long as we have ONE child in this nation in permanent foster-care you guys are LIARS and HYPOCRITES.

Lib-tards, always standing around with their hand out, expecting someone else to pay for their crappy life decisions.

Well cat it sounds like you have an axe to grind. Sorry if you believe those of us who dont want *any* children murdered should "shut up" or are "liars and hypocrites". Have you adopted a child" I have 3 that I've adopted, one with downs syndrome. So please explain to me your moral superiority because you "almost died in 2006" gives you the god position to tell us when a human is alive. I do read in your comment a hatred for men however. Is that why you are more comfortable with killing children? Do you imagine that they are always male?

Lib-tards, always standing around with their hand out, expecting someone else to pay for their crappy life decisions.

Most who make the difficult choice to end a pregnancy are doing so specifically because they do not feel they are in a position to financially provide for the child. So you pass laws which force them to have the child, and then criticize them when they cannot cope and need government services?

All I can see at the beginning of the comments are a lot of folks who must feel it is a privilege to kill a defenseless unborn child.

No, it's a right, and really none of your business either! Besides, if a fetus is unborn, it's not yet a child!

That was a very different and very left leaning scotus.

Irrelevant! The SCOTUS decision is established law. Or do you only agree with court decisions when it suits you?

You may be able to validate the differnece between shooting a 6 year old child and ripping an unborn child apart with scissors or a vaccuum but I really doubt most here could *if* they were honest about it.

Actually, yes, there is a big difference between the two. It seems you're the one being dishonest about it if you can't make the distinction. That and your appeals to emotion also make you seem dishonest.

Sorry if you believe those of us who dont want *any* children murdered should "shut up" or are "liars and hypocrites".

You can believe whatever you want. But your beliefs end where another person's rights begin. And abortion is a woman's right!

Is that why you are more comfortable with killing children?

If you know anyone killing children, I suggest you contact the authorities immediately. Of course, abortion isn't killing. Trying to pass it off as such also makes you look dishonest.

Gordy (ChrisB327) did I read you correctly?

Did you just say that "it's a right" to kill unborn defenseless children?

DAMN! Looks like your true colors are shining through brilliantly today.

And yes abortion stops a beating heart so yes it IS KILLING A CHILD.

The right to privacy and the domain over one's body IS a right Cherokee. Emotional language doesn't really help the debate.

Have you adopted a child" I have 3 that I've adopted, one with downs syndrome. So please explain to me your moral superiority because you "almost died in 2006" gives you the god position to tell us when a human is alive.

Sounds like you're the one who thinks they've got "moral superiority". Is this why you think YOU have a "god position" to tell other people what to do with their lives?

Cherokee, honestly, really ... you may need to get some help for your misogyny. I am happily married and my child is a SON. I love my husband and my son very much. While I was growing up, my best friend was my brother and most of my friends were BOYS. My best friend of my adulthood was a MAN who died a few years ago of cancer. My almost dying when I was delivering MY SON gives me the right to attest that women still can DIE during pregnancy and delivery. It gives me the right to ask you which is more important to you - the POTENTIAL for life or the LIVING, BREATHING, AUTONOMOUS woman who has the womb that is keeping that POTENTIAL life going?

My emphasis on men is a reflection that the majority of people who are "pro-birth" are MEN. They have no idea what it is like to be pregnant, to face almost losing your life due to placenta accretia (where the placenta attaches too deeply and must be surgically separated from the uterus or it will PULL THE UTERUS INSIDE OUT), or being forced to continue a pregnancy when the fetus has no stomach, no kidneys, 1/10 of a brain and has NO ability to live outside of the womb and will DIE shortly after birth (I know a young woman who was in that position). To have the agony of feeling it MOVE for 18 weeks and know that it is being supported by your body only to DIE once it exits. I *WANT* men to be able to support that life and feel the wonderful feeling of your WANTED child moving inside of you and know the WONDER of that. To allow men to have a CHOICE if their partner doesn't want to continue a pregnancy that would allow them to carry and nurture that child that THEY want even if the woman doesn't. The fact that you ASSume that I hate men shows your own hatred of WOMEN and is probably why you are so vocal about it.

Again - as long as we have ONE CHILD in permanent foster care, as long as the so-called "pro-life" movement is not putting their money and their homes where their mouths are, they need to realize they are HYPOCRITES. So you adopted a child with Down's ... how many drug addicted babies have you adopted? How many babies with FAS? How many of your children were over the age of 6 YEARS old or were TEENAGERS when you adopted them? How many children that have serious mental issues and have been so neglected by their parents that they are violent and have ODD? I suspect that all of your children were BABIES when you adopted them and none of them were children who had been abused and neglected to the point of serious psychological damage. But you go ahead and tell ME I have a "god complex" for wanting EVERY SINGLE child to be wanted and loved instead of born to parents who will abuse them. You go ahead and tell me *I* hate half of society when I want them to be able to share in the experience of carrying a child through a pregnancy and feel that child moving inside them. You go head and tell yourself whatever you have to in order to make yourself feel morally superior for wanting to turn half of society into INCUBATORS whether they want to be or not and make judgments about someone you've never met who wants abortion to go away because it is no longer NEEDED due to better birth control, the ability to transplant fetuses to a person who WANTS it and in general allow both genders to be able to carry a child in their bodies. After all, I've expressed a hope for solutions that would WORK better than subjugating half of the planet to the will of the other half.

Don't forget, though, that if you can force someone to carry a fetus against their will, how far is it from there to forcing someone to ABORT whether they want to or not? Think about it. Neither is any different or any less morally repugnant. I am for all women having the CHOICE to carry to term and keep it, to carry to term and allow someone to adopt it, to terminate a pregnancy that either is unwanted or doomed to fail AND to prevent pregnancy in the first place. Most people who are pro-CHOICE are people who want that decision left in the hands of the woman and her doctors and are fully behind ALL choices involved. There is no such thing as pro-abortion. It is NOT an easy thing to decide to do or to go through.

Did you just say that "it's a right" to kill unborn defenseless children?

I said abortion is a right! That's a fact!

And yes abortion stops a beating heart so yes it IS KILLING A CHILD.

Wrong again. It's not a child until it's born.

DAMN! Looks like your true colors are shining through brilliantly today.

Oh yes, as a supporter of individual rights. Shame your "colors" is not as brilliant!

Here! Here!

I'll bet a whole bunch of the righteous windbags would deflate!

What kind of female would slaughter her own baby for convenience?

Most women do not have abortions out of convenience. Sorry you have that opinion of women.

What kind of male would allow her to slaughter his baby?

Those men who respect women's rights?

Women have a right to be born.

Women have a right to be born.

Says who? You place the unborn child's rights above the women's right to choose. When you get pregnant by all means never have an abortion. You do not have the right to make that decision for other women however.

Women have a right to be born.

Women also have the right to make decisions regarding their health care choices. Shame you think they shouldn't!

Women can do anything they want with their vaginas. My own personal opinion is that a vagina is not a clown car, but hey, if you're a DemonKKKrat and you disagree, you're free to do whatever you want with yours.

Republicans are standing up for the Right To Life of the babies.

And why is it that DemonKKKrats always think that it's someone else's responsibility to pay for their own crappy life choices?

And Vern, I'll bet you took a ride in a couple of those clown cars - and never looked back.

Just tell me that you pro-lifers are willing and able to help support the children that their mothers cannot support--just tell me that the deadbeat dads will be held accountable and forced to contribute to the rearing of their children, at the very least financially--just tell me that pro-lifers will continue to be interested in the child's welfare after the child is born, and then I'll maybe believe that you have an argument. Of course you support universal healthcare, right? so all women can get pre-natal care?

In the meantime, understand that there are things worse than death. Go talk to the Probate Court about abused and neglected children. Then maybe I'll believe that you truly care about kids.