Home / Culture and Society / Science and Technology / Our Shameful and Glaring Contradiction: The Myth of Personal Responsibility

Our Shameful and Glaring Contradiction: The Myth of Personal Responsibility

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I oppose abortion not on the grounds of some faith, belief or following of specific moral guidelines but instead as a plain, rational human being. I oppose it on the precedents we–the people–have set not just in this nation, but in history. I oppose it on the blatant logical contradictions in our justifications and on the vast, long lasting consequences that likely await it.

We claim to be a society of personal responsibility; one that not only holds individuals accountable for their actions, but that has over time created a rationale that rewards those who embrace this. Yet here we have perhaps our most shameful and glaring contradiction.

Those who break the law must deal with the repercussions. Those who offend the sensibilities of another are forced to deal with social exclusion or loss of status. Those who refuse to work or take advantage of numerous economic opportunities remain poor and unemployed. However, those who engage in procreation–perhaps the most human of all actions–are without responsibility. A woman, or a couple, if they so choose, can literally destroy her creation. In the same way that a criminal cannot simply refuse to be sentenced and ostracized, a pregnant woman cannot simply decide not to birth a child.

I oppose abortion not because of the Bible, but because I am literally sickened at this thought. That the most sacred cycle in this world–that of natural life and death–is simply disregarded due to inconvenience. Sacred, in that it is the creation of the only rational entity in existence; the most supreme living inhabitant of this world ought not have its nature disrupted on the grounds of undesired effects.

The left in this country preach to us of their passion for an equal society, one of opportunity and compassion. Yet despite all the rhetoric, they maintain support for such a shameful and precarious institution. Not only does abortion create the utmost inequality, a society where some are chosen for life and others for death, but it puts the imperfect and the flawed as the gatekeepers of this horrific roulette wheel.

When we proclaim a fetus worthy of a trip to the clinic we are not only predicting it as a certain failure but additionally denying it the opportunity to prove us wrong. In a society that supposedly values the underdog, we hypocritically cut short millions upon millions of chances to be proven wrong and inspired.

I oppose abortion not because I’m attempting to claim some moral high ground but because as a society we cannot afford this blood on our hands. If the few thousand years of human existence have proven anything it is that we are the most inept and misguided judges of potential. We are wrong with the regularity of a clock, and it’s time we start realizing it. Situations of the utmost finality ought be left up to something other than our innate selfishness or, at the very least, decided with a liberal dose of doubt’s benefit.

Somehow, in our twisted logic, we have decided that most government sanctioned killings of proven sadists, murderers and villains is cruel and unjust, while the censure of life from perhaps the only pure living-being is not only appropriate, but an inalienable right. Our courts strike down death penalty laws, sure–but they also struck down a ban on partial birth abortions. There is heartbreaking irony here: that our agents of justice refuse to support the public sanctioned execution of criminals, but protect the right to personally sanctioned execution in the doctor’s office as diligently as the First Amendment.

For all the idealism in this country–all the risks we take and all our leaps of faith–how can that of human potential not be one of them? We believe that proven liars will suddenly spew truth but not that the birth of a child will add a single positive to this world? We refuse to agree that power corrupts absolutely in our republic, that our offices will not be abused, but universally conclude that an unplanned or even undesired child will forever be a victim of their environment–one that is impossible to rise above.

We should be ashamed, not only for our condoning of this practice but also for our allowance of greed to influence our beliefs thereof. This nation wastes more than any other in this history of existence and has deeper pockets than any will ever know, but in the instance of raising the abandoned or unwanted, the well suspiciously runs dry. If ever there were a more worthy cause than investing in the consistently yielding fund of human potential, I have yet to hear it.

Our justification that the child is unlikely to contribute to our society is eugenics at its very worst. Supposedly, choice advocates resent the moral judgments from conservatives, but haven’t a problem with the self-proclaimed moral supremacy they exhibit with their decision to abort. Sure, the child of a criminal may in turn follow in the footsteps of their parents, but so too exists probability that the child of a wealthy or caring parents may swing to the wrong side of the law. In admitting that those unlikely to fall through the cracks sometimes do, we must also admit that those who likely will, occasionally do not.

I oppose abortion because surprises come too readily in this life for us to bet against them. I oppose abortion, not because of some vague religious text, or the political lineage of my family, but because I refuse to become jaded in the most sacred and vital aspect of human existence. If there is to be one principle that one steadfastly clings to, why not be it in creation?

There is little–correction: nothing–worthier of protection than the future of those whose own futures may be in doubt. If our wages must fund something, why not have them fund life rather than the clinical prevention of it? I oppose abortion because for once, in our lives of political decision, we are finally faced with a decision not between two evils, but instead between one good and one evil. I oppose abortion, because I refuse to settle for the latter.

Daily Updates at:


Powered by

About ChaunceyBillups

  • Jackie

    As a child growing up in working class Britain in the 60s I remember a woman who died from a backyard abortion. She fell pregnant accidentally and couldn’t afford to feed another child. She already had 7.
    Is this what the anti-abortionists want? The US has a high level of child poverty. Who would want to bring a child into a world to suffer?

  • TSL

    Are they, Mr Holiday?

    The stakes for us were clear. Implosion of anything resembling a life. Loss of the ability to care properly for the child that was already breathing on his own.

    What stakes can you apply to our situation, and still support your opinion?

    And why should I listen to one who has not been there?

  • My whole point, though, is that this is the one area that we must not take the “viable path in the world of hard reality.” The stakes are too high, and the collatoral damage is too much.

  • TSL

    OK, Ryan Clark Holiday, when you’ve been there. Then you can talk with authority. When you’ve been in the situation of having to choose, then your words cary credance. Otherwise you are just another talking head.

    As a modern humanist, I hate the thought of abortion for the same points you make. I do believe life is sacred.

    But I’ve been there. In 1993 my wife and I were living in a 900 sf condo we had bought 2 years previuosly. We had just brought home our first and only child. We were scared out of our minds. We had just lived through the final 6 months of my wife’s excrutiating pregnancy. She became sick so often and so violently – vomiting relentlessly and reduced to a paraletic fatigue for hours – that our clinic had become accustomed to seeing us at least once a week, no questions asked, to “drip” her back to full fluid levels. When you carry a developing life inside you, you can not afford to become and stay dehydrated. We thankfully had reasonably understanding bosses and got through with our jobs intact. Our love for one another (having lasted now for over 15 years of marriage) and our gaining confidence that we could actually pull off the parenting thing got us back “together” soon after. We had no idea how fertile she would be directly after delivering. She got pregnant again. We were already deeply in debt for the first pregancy and its complications. When we looked back on the previous pregnancy, we just couldn’t. When we looked at our alledged finances, we just couldn’t. We agonized for about 2 weeks over what to do. We chose to end the pregnancy. We cried over it. We hurt to this day and both just can’t talk about it without each of us dissapearing into ourselves. I wouldn’t wish the situation on anyone. It is an invisiable badge of pain and shame we will carry forever.

    But I will not tell anyone that we would do differently were we dropped back there. We stand by our decision as a sad but correct choice for us, then. I liken it to the sad and painful choice of knowingly sending some to their death in the name of preserving the original entity. In our case our fragily developing family. But perhaps this is just lofty rationalization.

    We will never know that child. We love our son dearly. But I can tell that on some occaisions my wife will wonder what if. So do I on occcaision. Self doubt is a commendable trait from where I sit.

    My point beyond relating this story is to note that I firmly believe that unless you are faced with that decision as were we, and can state your experience and choices as part of your stance. You are merely grandstanding on an unknown entity of ideal, rather than relating a viable path in the world of hard reality.

  • I can just see an 1860 slave owner saying “I’m gonna wup yo ass Alienboy, you stinkin slave”.

    Look!!! The tables have turned with this comeback.

    Re-read comment 117.

  • Anthony, re-read #114.

    I can just see an 1860 slave owner saying “I’m gonna wup yo ass Grande, you stinkin slave”.

  • Anthony Grande

    You know Alienboy, it might look foolish, but back in 1860 the country was divided on the slavery issue just like they are divided with abortion now.

    I can just see an 1860 slave owner saying, “Them Damn Yankees!!! They are a bunch of BULLIES!!! Who are they to say that I can’t CHOOSE to hold slaves???”

  • Cough* Cough* Roger, Pot calling the kettle black Cough*

  • RogerMDillon

    “Anthony, don’t worry, we all know the real reason you changed your name back is that you didn’t want to look like an ASS!”

    If that was actually a concern of his, he would stop making uninformed, poorly written posts

  • See, Anthony? There you go with the emotional statements when you can’t make your case. It is simply foolish to try and compare abortion with slavery.

    It won’t ever be abolished because of the resons I just gave you. Reasserting your claim doesn’t make it any more true.

    And I didn’t say you were a bully, try reading more carefully will you.

    Finally, people are very practical. Even if they thought it was morally wrong, many would, and do, take advantage of the possibility when it suits them, Funny that.

  • Alienboy,

    Trust me. Abortions will eventually be illegal. Probabally legal for cases of rape and when the mother is in danger.

    It will be abolished. People said that slavery would always exist. It took a Civil war, but it no longer exists.

    Either by civil war or by the government processes Aborion will be illegal.


    And how dare you say I am a bully!!!

    I wonder who the babies think is the bully.

    The majority of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong. I live in a liberal state, California, and 75% of the people I talk to are Pro-Life.

  • Anthony, I didn’t realise that you were so paranoid. There is no trap, I’m just trying to understand you because you are very good at emotionally provocative statements but not very good at being coherent.

    I’m glad to see that you are against state sanctioned killing as well, although it is not correct to say that someone is no longer a threat to society if someone is in jail, for life or otherwise.

    Ultimately though, your cause can never succeed, for two basic human reasons that all your charming passionate conviction can never overcome.

    The first is that it will never be accepted in a free society that some people should force their point of view on others that do not share it. This is nothing more than a special kind of bullying and is always wrong.

    The other is that there always have been and always will be women who can’t proceed with their pregnancy, for any of a whole range of perfectly legitimate reasons.

    If abortions were completely illegal, we would rapidly return to the days of old when unregistered and unregulated backstreet abortion clinics flourished or possibly worse, people with some kind of limited medical experience, midwives, nurses, cleaners et cetera, did unspeakable things with needles and gin.

  • Alienboy, I saw your trap when you first asked me the question. But why did I go for the cheese???

    Because Capital Punishment is MURDER!!! It is wrong. It should be abolished.

    Once someone is in jail for life they are no longer a threat to society. So why do you have to kill them???

    It doesn’t make sense to me.

    But my focus is still towards abortion. Why???:

    1,300,000 abortions happen every year in this country.

    7, only 7 people are put to death by leathal injection every year in this country.

  • Anthony, don’t worry, we all know the real reason you changed your name back is that you didn’t want to look like an ASS!

    But, on the topic under discussion, I take it you are also against the death penalty?

  • Anytime a life is purposely taken away, unless in a justified war or police shootout, is WRONG!!! Life is the greatest thing on this Earth.

    P.S. I know, I added the police shootout. But I promise that is all. I will no longer add anything.

  • Yes Alienboy, any life that is taken away (outside a justified war, or when some idiot points a gun at a cop) is murder and it is wrong.


    …the Sane and Sensible didn’t look as good as …Grande.

  • don’t worry Ryan, AtStS is more than capable of answering for himself and you’ve already confused me enough with your original article.

  • “to kill the innocent” I believe is what he meant.

  • So, Anthony, let me get this straight, your position is that it is always wrong to kill, outside of a justified war (we’ll leave the issue of what exactly a “justified” war is for another time)?

  • Alienboy, Yes!!! It is wrong to take a human life. The only excuse would be in a justified war.

    Nancy, have I judged anybody??? I am just trying to protect the lives of the unborn.

  • Nancy

    Or is this something your grandparents didn’t say, & also fail to grasp? ” ‘ Judgement is mine,’ sayeth the Lord” etc. etc.?

  • Nancy

    Yeah, but Anthony, the point is, GOD will do the judging, NOT you. Except you seem to have set yourself up as the spokesthing & alter ego for God.

  • Anthony – okay, yes, we’ve established that abortion is killing somebody. Are you saying that it is wrong to take human life?

  • Luke

    I don’t see what the non-religious arguements are suppose to be, either (a) a human being is equal to it’s soul, or (b) a human being is equal to the sum of it’s parts, a fetus which isn’t developed enough to be said to have all those parts does not equal a human, for example, a fetus that hasn’t grown a brain or such stuff.

  • But then shouldn’t you be glad that the sinless baby will go straight to heaven?

  • Pro-Life has nothing to do with religion. I am suprised Atheists aren’t Pro-Life. Life is a sacred thing. It should not be ended prematurely.

    I have asked Priests and my extremely religious GrandParents about abortion and they tell me the same thing:

    Those who commit abortion are sinners. Sinners will be judged.

    But I disagree. If the woman was only hurting herself then fine, I will wait until she is judged. But what about the baby??? Whether of not the babies mother goes to hell he is still dead and didn’t get a chance to set foot on Earth.

  • RogerMDillon

    Learn how to write and maybe he will

  • Learn how to read Luke, there are plenty of non-religious arguments against abortion.

  • Luke

    Anthony, don’t they have a thing about keeping the church and state seperate? Prohibiting abortion to me sounds like it breaches that, because the reason why aborting a fetus is bad is because there’s suppose to be a human soul in there right? So regardless of whether there is or isn’t a human soul, it’s not for the government to decide, and if the women who get abortions are wrong, they go to hell, seems fair to me.

  • Not to mention that your arguments are weak and you don’t adequately address those of your opponents, Anthony.

  • Ryan, they are picking on me because I am a young Conservative.

  • Is there a reason that AG needs to be picked on? He isn’t the only one who feels this way about abortion so there is no need to personally direct your comments at him.

    Kitty–How the hell would you know who has and hasn’t had sex on this site?

  • Roger, I don’t know about you but I am not having Intercoarse with the computer.

  • RogerMDillon

    “Teenagers are too young to be making decisions like this.”

    Then you should probably opt out of the conversation for the next 3 years.

  • Well you know what happens in jail. Rape. By passing out condoms to prisoners it will promote rape.

    And sex in prison is illegal. So we would also be promoting breaking the law. Just like “illegal” immigrant defenders.

  • I don’t see why prisoners should not have access to condoms. They may not be perfect, but abstinence doesn’t work in practice, and they are a hell of a lot better than unprotected sex when it comes to health and preventing unwanted pregnancies.

  • I don’t promote abstinence only. You can have ALL the pre-marital sex you want as long as you don’t kill the baby.

    Condoms and Pills do not work against STDs. You are promoting danger. The only safe method is abstinence.

    Yes or No: Do you also support giving condoms to jail birds???

  • By promoting abstinence as the ONLY option and that pre-marital sex is evil, you end up with teenagers breaking their abstinence vows with no contraception to protect them. It seems clear which method is best for teenagers and best for society.

  • Winston, I presume that you support giving condoms to men in jail also???

    He called me a Puritan. Winston is a witch!!!! Hang him!!!

    By passing out condoms and pills to minors creates more STDs victims. A Pill isn’t affective against STDs and a condom isn’t a 100% affective.

    Teenagers are too young to be making decisions like this. Teenagers shouldn’t be haveing intercourse.

  • Oh get real, Anthony! Can you rely say that you can completely resist your hormones? Maybe with your Puritan anti-sex views you can, but most teenagers cannot, and they will be having sex with other teenagers. Society should protect them from unwanted pregnancy and STDs as best we can.

  • Winston, why do we oppose pills and condoms going to kids???

    Because we are minors and sex is something we shouldn’t be doing. Passing out condoms and pills would encourage under age sex.


    Alienboy, the main argument for you guys is that you claim that the fetus is not alive. So you admittedly support the killing of human life.

    It is not personal when you decide to kill because the murdee is also involved.

    And if “murdee” is not in the dictionary it should be added.

  • Anthony, if conservatives want to stop abortion, why do they stridently oppose supplying condoms and the morning after pill to teenagers?

  • Bill B

    Thanks RMD. I found if I double click on a published post, in a certain way, I can at least narrow it down to just the entire individual post (ie one comment). But then I have to copy from the drop down edit menu. If I right click after I block to try and copy, I lose the blocked text. It’s a bit bizarre.


  • RogerMDillon

    Bill B, I’m having the same problem since the new format.

  • Anthony, actually it is NONE of your business what other people do in their lives. You don’t have the right to tell other people how to live their lives. I think we can all be grateful for that.

    And, yes, I admit the foetus is alive. What’s your point? And let’s leave the name calling out, shall we?

  • In 77 add “not” in “who is strong enough to stop it”

    So it should read “who is not strong enough to stop it.”

  • Kitty, no. It is MY business if YOU decide to have an abortion

    It is my business and everyone elses when someone is harming another who is strong enough to stop it.

    When a woman pierces her nose it is none of my business because she is hurting only herself. But when a woman decides to kill her baby it is not harming herself. It is harming another.

    Alienboy, so you admit the fetus is alive??? And you still support abortion????


  • Bill B


    I think it’s IE. I’m on another computer now (although within my wireless network) and it’s the same thing. Do you use IE on your PC? (Internet Explorer) And if so is it working properly there? A friend just told me to check out the firefox browser. Might be a plan.

  • kittygogo

    …and one more thing. It sounds like some of you have never even had sex, so why do you believe that you should even have an opinion on other people doing it? You don’t even know what you are talking about.

    My suggstion, spend less time on this blog site and spend more time curing your obvious sexual frustrations. It’s fun, that’s why people do it (and many other reasons that are none of our frickin’ business) and maybe that is not being respnsible, but that is the way it is.

    Just becuase some of you don’t approve of it, does not mean that it is going to stop people from doin’ it. It’s been going on since the beginning of time. BTW – oftentimes the daddy does not want to be involved, so there goes that illusion some of you carry. Get real people, this is not the Victorian Age and it never will be again. DUH

  • Kitty- The whole point of this thread is that society’s laws, precedents and beliefs contradict the idea that one can do whatever they want with their body

    Bill- Ive had problems like the one your describing. I have always attributed it to my lap top but I could be wrong.

  • kittygogo

    Hey, I have an idea. If you don’t want to have an abortion – don’t have one. I appreciate your personal opinion, but it is none of your business what a single woman does with her choice.

  • Bill B

    Thanks Alienboy but I’m thinking it’s on my end.

    >>I’m not having that problem as you can see<< I was just able to do this through my compuserve account. Hmmm. It must be my IE. My superior deduction skills have come to the fore once more! Albeit a dollar short and a day late. Humbug. Thanks.

  • Bill B


    RE # 3. I think I pretty much answered that but I’d say the majority of them would. I’m not convinced the behavior would alter significantly.

    I don’t think women view enduring this procedure as lightly as you infer. I would say the old “it’s not gonna happen to me” phenomenom is more likely although more so with younger, less mature women.

    A side note. Your debating skills would be enhanced if you didn’t extrapolate pure conjecture to an absolute conclusion. It’s your opinion that abortion has led to more births. Yet your last line states it as fact. If your interest is to persuade, it would aid your cause, especially when the actual numbers are virtually unknowable.

  • Sorry Bill B,

    I’m not having that problem as you can see “Any chance you could shed some light on the problem”.

    Probably best that you report it to the long suffering Phillip Winn via the blogcritics group mail…

  • Bill B

    Hey Alienboy,

    Any chance you could shed some light on the problem I’m having that I cite in the first paragragh of comment #63? I’m using IE and not having the problem on any other site’s (that I’ve been on anyway). It seems to have started with the new format although I could still have a bug of some sort I suppose.

    Note: I can block within my own post while I’m typing. I can’t block already published post’s w/o highlighting the whole page below where I’m highlighting.

    Thanks for any help.

  • er , yes, abortion is intentionally killing another human being. But what exactly is your point Anthony?

  • You still don’t get it, Anthony. You can be guilty of omission if you don’t save another’s life. Yet the law doesn’t require that people put themselves at risk to their own lives to save others, and I believe that is reasonable. Why do you insist that women must sacrifice nine months to save their baby’s life?

    It’s noble to give blood and organs to save others, but I do not think that it should be mandatory for the living to make such large sacrifices to save others.

  • Winston, Winston, Winston, abortion is DIRECTLY and INTENTIONALLY killing another human being. Not giving blood, lungs ect. is not.

    If someone I know is in need of a lung or kidney I will give it to them. Everyone in my family gives blood exept my father and mother because they won’t take blood from them, thalassemia.

  • Anthony, if you want abortion illegal (which you seem to do), to be consistent you would need to mandate that everyone in society risks their life to save others, such as donate blood, a lung, a kidney and bone marrow, and that they be charged with murder if they fail. After all, you are claiming that women who accept the risks of sex and get pregnant should sacrifice their bodies for nine months and give birth, aren’t you?

  • !)Forty Million is a bit high. Thirty million is more like it.

    2)And I would say that over or at par with 30 million are the ones who changed their mind.

    3)Do you believe that those 30/40 million who had an abortion would still have gotten pregnant if abortion was illegal???

    I am telling that abortion provides a guarantee that you won’t have a child. So you can go ahead and have all the sex you want because getting pregnant doesn’t matter anymore.

    So subtract those people who wouldn’t have gotten pregnant if it wasn’t for Roe v. Wade from 30/40 million and take the number of the people who changed their mind when they got pregnant and see or go ahead and guess which one is higher.

    Therefore, Roe v. Wade has created more births.

  • Bill B

    Hello Ryan,

    First, on an entirely unrelated note, are you having trouble blocking and copying text to paste to your posts? I don’t know if it’s my browser or the new format but where ever I try to block it highlights the whole page below. Pissing me off it is.

    Anyway, thanks for responding. First, while I don’t have the numbers at my fingertips I’m pretty sure the prison population has grown quite a bit and disproportionately to population growth at large. If so, why, I’m not sure but I’m not as convinced of your point as you are.

    While behavior will modify, I don’t believe it would be enough to offset the non-complying behavior. Your point is valid Ryan. I would just disagree with the extent and impact of the behavior modification you allude to.

    I believe over population would be a real problem. It’s possibly going to be a problem either way.

    For the purpose of my point I didn’t even factor in for instance, politics, which has a heavy influence on what’s going on now in Darfur and what has happened in China.

    To AG,

    I don’t think the numbers (as impossible as it would be to actually know them for sure) would bear that out Anthony. Lets just take the anti-abortion movements claims that 40 million abortions have been performed since Roe v. Wade. For you to be right more than 40 mil women have had to have chanced risky sex, that they wouldn’t have pursued if abortion were illegal, and than decided to have the child once pregnant. I don’t see it.

    I certainly would agree that many, who may have thought they would have had an abortion, once pregnant, changed their perspective. I doubt it’s enough to offset the abortions performed or that they would not have had risky sex regardless of the legality of the procedure.

    Thanks for the response.

  • Bill B, abortion creates more births than it prevents.

    The fact that Abortion is legal allows women to get pregnant thinking that they can just have an abortion. But when the time comes many think, “Wow, there is a human life growing inside me. I can’t kill it.” Then some will think, “What if there is a God???”

  • Bill B- I really do not think that the elimination of abortion will lead to as many new births as you think.

    Just like stiffer prison sentences don’t necessarily lead to a sustained increase in prison population, I think that while intially we might see more births, eventaully people will become responsible.

    The elimination of abortion will make non-fatal forms of birth control more prevlant and teach people to respect sex at a higher degree. I think we would see a decline in the attitude of “so what if shes pregnant? Ill just have it aborted”

    Does that make sense? I apologize for ignoring your post, I didnt see it.

  • Bill B

    You haven’t responded to my comment #25, which is fine of course, but if nothing else I’d like to get your opinion of my last point. Especially since your opinion seems to be coming from an emotionally charged place. I mean no malice by that.

    Here’s the relevant portion.

    >>One other thought. If abortion were illegal worldwide, how long, due to our ability/inability to sustain the population, before it might become mandatory? Procreation is good. It must be done responsibly.<< This would be presuming a time when there would be too many of us for us to sustain. Would it be better to abort, or bear a child destined to live a short, painful life only to soon die of dehydration or starvation? Remember, this is not about getting food to the baby's in question; there is not enough. Of course we hope to never confront such a proposition. But prohibited abortion would be a factor that could lead to this possibility. Of course one could say China has already had to deal with this issue although I make no judgements on their method of dealing with it. I simply don't know enough about what other options (if they had any) they could have chosen.

  • Ryan, I am “only” 17. It is nice to see another young conservative.

    RedSoxSuck, it is not about the women having to deal with the consequences of sex. It is about not killing a life. The fetus is a life. You must not kill a life. A life is the most valuable thing on this world. It shouldn’t be a consequence to have a baby and give life.

    But is you choose to have sex you do know what is coming. “But I do not want to have a baby,” is no excuse.

  • steve

    where can I sign up to be a baby executioner? Id like to work at an abortion clinic someday vaccuming out fetus after fetus. That sounds like an occupation id like to get into. maybe I could get Jack Kevorkian to open a clinic with me.

    do you need a doctorate to kill babies? you liberals should know…just curious…if I am going to be removing your mistakes, the least you could do is provide me with some adequate information. Thanks!

  • Ag– Yes I am “only” 18.

    Shark— I’m shocked to hear that you didn’t like my writing, but I’d love to see your awesome list of the cliches I used.

  • RedSoxSuck

    In regards to the assertion that a woman has the right to have control over what happens to her body, I couldn’t agree more. She has EVERY right to NOT have sex. (And so do the men too.) However, both partners are aware of the risk of pregnancy, and therefore, should have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Now, I am not saying that the woman should have to deal with everything on her own while the man ditches her. The father should have an equal responsibility towards the pregnancy in terms of the expenses, and actual hassles involved (such as driving the woman to the doctor, midnight runs to the store to satisfy her cravings, etc.) I know the current laws cover the financial aspect, however, it is grossly underenforced.

    Let me give an analogy regarding personal responsibility:
    When a person drives a car, they are acknowledging the risk of an accident, and their potential liability if it is their fault. Therefore, they (well, most people, hopefully) buy insurance beforehand as a safeguard.

    Just as someone has the responsibility to proactively purchase an insurance policy, people have to take responsiblity to take proactive precautions when having sex. If you cause an accident and are uninsured, not only are you screwed in terms of your car, but you may be forced to pay out of pocket for the damage you cause to the property of others. Likewise, if you have sex and are too reckless to use adequate protection, then you should also have to bear the consequences.

    One last note: I mentioned above that women have every right to not have sex, in terms of controlling her body. Before you all start screaming at me, in the event of rape, yes, I think an abortion should be allowed (should the woman choose it) within a reasonable time frame at the beginnig of the prenancy. I am not going to pretend to be an expect in this field and state a specific time frame, however, it should be toward the beginning of the prenancy. Not at 8 monthes…. Also, if there is a health threat to either the woman or the fetus, then is should also be allowed.

  • When it comes to someone’s personal business Conservatives stay out of it.

    Let’s say a woman named Diana has an abortion. It is not personal because there is another life involved. When someone named Dean desides to get loaded he is affecting everyone that he comes in contact with. These situations are not personal.

    When Diana desides to have sex with Dean it is personal. She desided to have sex with Dean and there is no one hurt in the process. Conservatives respect Diana’s CHOICE to risk pregnancy.

  • Winston Jen

    Why are conservatives more interested in the bedroom than the boardroom? Why act as social dictators when it comes to someone’s personal business, but social anarchists when it comes to big corporations?

  • Yeah, Roger. You are right. We should end all laws and hope our neighbors will make the right choices.

    Why are liberals so fascinated with making our society falling apart???

  • RogerMDillion

    Because liberals believe in freedom and while conservatives only pretend to.

  • Shark, how do I know that it will be the liberals screaming “You can’t tell people they can’t do drugs!!! It is none of your business!!! You are anti-Drugs because you are Bible thumpers!!!”

  • nugget

    shark i love you

  • Ryan, you are only 18???

  • “Humans are all fucked up”

    Yeah, just look at these liberal baby killers.

  • Luke

    Humans are all fucked up.

  • Shark

    BTW, two additional points:

    1) drugs will soon make the ‘abortion’ discussion obsolete and irrelevant.

    2) in the near future, reducing the number of that virus with an ego known as “humans” will not only be legal, encouraged, and a source of pride — but it will be mandatory.

  • Shark

    A Ryan Quote that qualifies him as a future speechwriter for W. Bush and/or Dan Quayle:

    “What is more intrinsic than life? You cannot have anything else without it.”

    PS: hi nugget! fancy meeting you here!

    xxoo —
    yer pal, S

  • Shark

    Wow, Ryan, nice little podium-pounding speech from someone who apparently speaks English as a second language.

    …And there’s something inspirational about picturing an 18 year-old kid standing on a soapbox in the middle of a high school playground!

    You’ve got a helluva future, son — what with the litany of simplistic emotional cliches and trite jingoisms.

  • Luke

    “and we all know what happens to women when they are captured.”

    “The same thing that happens to Iraqi men?”

    buttsex? I didn’t know muslims loved buttsex, especially regardless of whether it’s a male or female butt… :/

  • bhw

    and we all know what happens to women when they are captured.

    The same thing that happens to Iraqi men?

  • Luke

    I was just pointing out before we got on the subject of killing retards that up to and before a certain point, a fetus isn’t developed enough to be human, so therefore you can kill it, and it won’t care, as far as vegetables are concerned, nature used to have it’s own way of dealing with them, and then science gave us a way to force an organism to continue living unnaturally with the invention of ‘the plug’, after which we all had to sit around deciding whether to pull it.

  • nugget

    at least you’re consistent.

    I’m glad you don’t run a nursing/MH home.

    Who’s to decide whether or not a vegetable is aware? You? A committee? Just because a person does not respond or seem to comprehend something does not mean that they do not. YOU may think that they are braindead, and even the doctor may use that term, but how much do humans know about the brain??

    The truth is, luke, that you’d pull the plug on a vegetable only because you BELIEVE that they are unaware of themselves. You don’t know anymore than the next guy whether or not that human still has a conscience, a will to live, or emotions. Your logic is nix. Forging an assumption like that when life is on the line is a fatal mistake. (no pun intended)

  • Luke

    I’m aware of myself, so I give a shit if I die or not, but if I wasn’t aware of myself, I wouldn’t care if I died, if I was a brain damaged vegetable with the intelligence of a chicken, then this debate would not have anything to do with me, the outcome of which would not affect me in anyway whatsoever, because I would be a body with no mind, a body no more cares whether it lives or dies than a rock cares whether it is crushed into sand.

  • Luke

    Nugget, the human body is a machine, machines can be destroyed, improved, crushed into a cube, whatever you want, the only one who actually cares what happens to the machine is the person inside it, there are one’s that aren’t being used, such as a braindead person who’s body is being kept alive by machines, waiting for someone to pull the plug, however, I’m not going to decide whether or not retards are as good as a braindead body, but if they literally have a brain the size of a peanut, and get carted around in a wheel chair while being fed through a tube every day, then that to me is an example of a non-human, a flesh mannequin, and the only reason they’re being kept alive is because their appearance has deceived us, if mentally they’re no more intelligent than a chicken, then how is it any less moral to kill one of them than it is to kill a chicken, it’s due to our crippling inability to discard something that has the outward appearance of a human. Secondly, if they aren’t aware of themselves, and have no concept of death, or even what it is to be alive, then they literally don’t mind dying, we’re keeping them alive so that we don’t have to feel bad about letting them die, but we, the people who actually understand the concept of life and death, are the only ones that care.

  • nugget

    brilliant luke.

    “The way I see it, while a fetus is developing it looks pretty much the same as a fetus from any other specie, and isn’t likely to be more or less aware of it’s own existence that an ape fetus is.”

    kill things because they are unaware? what about the mentally handicapped, those who are mentally ill, and others who are vegetables? Should we kill them for not being able to comprehend objects, abstractions, and themselves?

    They can’t rationalize, so they’re not human right???……and they’re SUCKING money out of the taxpayer’s pockets with their government funded living expenses. Let’s kill the retards that don’t seem like humans. Right luke?

  • Abstinence would make sure always that every expecting mother and baby has a husband and an expecting father.

    how’s that?
    if one is abstaining, how would one get (someone) pregnant?
    abstinence is abstaining, nothing more…how can not doing something insure anything, or anyone?

  • RogerMDillion

    “The white man will never know what the struggle of the black mine is like—No more white people voting on welfare laws”

    Welfare is for the poor. Are you saying there are no poor whites, Einstein? Are you a Conservative or in the Klan?

    “Non-college graduates don’t have the perspective to see the value of education—Only college graduates can vote on school funding issues”

    People without degrees usually don’t get high paying jobs, so they would certainly have a perspective on it.

  • “I want to know who should care and provide for the expecting mother. Who is going to take her to the doctor. Who is going to make sure she eats right?”

    The husband. Abstinence would make sure always that every expecting mother and baby has a husband and an expecting father.

  • The talk here seems to be tilted more toward what happens to the baby once it is born. Like who will care and provide for that child.

    I want to know who should care and provide for the expecting mother. Who is going to take her to the doctor. Who is going to make sure she eats right?

    I want to know if we are willing to go all the way to make sure all these babies from forced pregnancies have a chance at full potential.

    Are we going to make store clerks give pregnancy tests before they sell women cigaretts or alcohol? Will there be a pregnancy police making sure expecting mothers everywhere are doing all they can to assure a healthy child?

    How many rights are we willing to take away from a pregnant women? If potential is your argument, you must be willing to take away quite a few to give that baby every chance you think it deserves.

    While were at it, lets just make all women take randum pregnancy tests.
    I they pass(or fail, depending on how you are looking at this), round them up and put them in special hospitals that will assure them a perfect pregnancy. That way all children have a chance at their full potential.

  • Luke

    Yes, but you can’t give me, “boohoo the fetus didn’t get to reach it’s potential” as a reason why it’s wrong, unless it’s a conscious being, and can decide for itself (it’s if it decides sub-consciously, seeing as it can’t think in words) that it doesn’t want to die, you’re not killing anything that gives a shit one way or the other. The way I see it, while a fetus is developing it looks pretty much the same as a fetus from any other specie, and isn’t likely to be more or less aware of it’s own existence that an ape fetus is.

  • Luke– The point is, sex is an act that one goes into aware of certain outcomes. Just because current medicine makes it possible for one to eliminate one outcome, doesn’t make it right.

  • Luke

    “I oppose abortion not on the grounds of some faith, belief or following of specific moral guidelines but instead as a plain, rational human being.”

    “However, those who engage in procreation–perhaps the most human of all actions–are without responsibility. A woman, or a couple, if they so choose, can literally destroy her creation. In the same way that a criminal cannot simply refuse to be sentenced and ostracized, a pregnant woman cannot simply decide not to birth a child.

    So even if god doesn’t exist, and the human soul doesn’t exist, a woman should be forced to give birth to a child as punishment for the crime of sex? That’s how it sounds to me when you’re comparing them to criminals, that’s just a fucked up attitude, at least Abortion Grande uses religion in his arguement, because unless there’s a soul and a god and all that other touchy feally shit, then a fetus is just a chunk of meat, and it’s not until it has a fully formed brain that you can call it human.

  • What does abortion have to do with this???

  • Therefore, women are not allowed in Infantry

    okay, per abortion, therefore?

  • Therefore, women are not allowed in Infantry.

  • Well, the people in ifantry are the most likely to be captured and we all know what happens to women when they are captured.


  • Bill B

    Kudos to Dave. He hit it on the head.

    It’s the autonomy stupid!

    I also find the weight given to the idea that abortions are chosen because the fetus will not amount to anything out of proportion with my sense of why women have abortions.

    Is it a reason? Sure. But the most cited, or predominant reason? I doubt it.

    Anecdotally, none I’ve heard of were for this reason.

    How about not being ready, willing, fiscally able, or already having as many children as one wishes to bear?

    You lament the lack of personal responsibility and then seem to call for society to foot the bill. Which is it? Are you a Darwinist? Or a communist?

    On society’s alleged hypocrisy I’ll give you my view. I’m pro-choice and anti death penalty and without an ounce of question.

    Pro-choice because I believe in freedom and I’m against the government getting involved in my personal business.

    Against the death penalty because I don’t want the government putting anyone to death in my name.

    I get a chuckle out of so many folks who don’t trust the government to deliver our mail properly, yet are ok with it putting someone to death.

    No one likes abortion except to the extent that it symbolizes our freedom to direct our own lives.

    I understand your angst and revulsion. As someone said earlier we should work toward common ground.

    Sex ed, counseling, help to build self esteem in our younger folk so they don’t engage in sex for trivial reasons, providing meaningful options for those whose decision may be aided and much more, rational people could agree on.

    But in the end…

    Safe, legal and rare.

    One other thought. If abortion were illegal worldwide, how long, due to our ability/inability to sustain the population, before it might become mandatory? Procreation is good. It must be done responsibly.

  • “women aren’t in infantry because of man’s law”

    Well, the people in ifantry are the most likely to be captured and we all know what happens to women when they are captured.

  • okay guys (males specifically)…your analogies are not quite up to snuff…
    women aren’t in infantry because of man’s law, not nature’s…discrimination based on skin color is, again, a man-made thing, not a natural thing…women not holding sports as near and dear is an opinion, not a physical condition specific to one gender…
    a non-college educated person still has the opportunity to get that way…

    to review, pregnancy is not a law, it’s not something every person on the planet is born with, it’s not an opinion, and it’s not something everyone can acquire…pregnancy is specific to women, period…
    i might not agree with nancy that only women should discuss this (however conceding that there are certain men who shouldn’t discuss it or anything else for that matter) but i sure think any man jumping in the ring should at least come adequately prepared…

    alienboy, unless your pregnant man is throwing up and still queasy for a few months, is being boinked in the kidneys in the middle of the night after already saying “NO!”, waking up with swollen breasts whose nipples are sensitive enough to detect the opening of a door several floors down, is having to sleep on his back for months then not able to sleep at all, and craving everything from chocolate-dipped strawberries to flour straight from the bag, i really don’t want to hear about it…if it’s true that a man could carry a baby then it’s proof right there that no man would as no man has…

  • Although men can not currently get pregnant, I do remember reading an article some time ago that men can actually carry babys to term by connecting the embryo to a blood supply from, I believe, the intestines. Delivery would obviously be by caesarian section!

  • Cunning Linguist

    Men can’t get pregnant so they can’t have an opinion on abortion Nancy?

    Does that mean women are not allowed to have an opinion on the war in Iraq becuase they can’t serve in infantry units?

  • Maurice

    I recommend you push the ‘ignore poster button’ on Nancy.

    Great post Ryan. I am right there with you.

  • Last time I check this was still a democracy. So if it affects all of us, we are ALL going to talk about it

  • Nice Logic.

    The white man will never know what the struggle of the black mine is like—No more white people voting on welfare laws

    Non-college graduates don’t have the perspective to see the value of education—Only college graduates can vote on school funding issues

    Women don’t know how truely valuable sports are to men—Only men can vote on the tax payer subsidies of sports arenas.

    Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

  • Nancy

    Well, THAT certainly pressed a button, didn’t it!?

    Men can’t get pregnant. It’s doubtful they ever will. They also don’t have to bear the physical pains & problems of pregnancy, and an awful lot of them don’t bother with the pains & problems, financial or otherwise, of bringing up the babies they spent 5 minutes engendering, either. I have asserted before & I continue to do so, that abortion is something no man has any say about. No man would entertain for a second any outside party trying to dictate to him how he lived his reproductive life; why should any woman. No one has the right to force any woman to breed if she doesn’t want it, for any reason. The hypocrisy of a bunch of men debating whether & how women have rights in this arena is blinding. And galling.

  • Nancy—

    1) Where the hell is the sign that says women can’t participate?

    2) How dare you fucking try and diminish this discussion when all you can add is the word “facsist” when given the opportunity.

    Are only men allowed to weigh in on the issue of schools distrubuting condoms in school? Pull your head out of your ass.

  • They are generally willing to fight for the idea that a parent has total rights to control and raise a child free from outside interference, yet are unwilling to accept the inevitable logic that thsi ‘ownership’ of a child includes the right to determine their life or death within the womb.

    yes…and more yes…

    You see being pro life does not mean I must be responsible for the lives of babies who may not be born into the best of situations. It just means that I believe that baby has the right to life.

    there is a much larger picture than extremists from either side are willing to address…
    there are those who won’t be born and those who will…globally, many of the latter will be born into need, and those needs will either have to be consciously addressed or consciously ignored…i’m disturbed by so much emphasis on the latter of these, that it’s either someone else’s job or it just sucks to be that starving kid…

    it’s fun to think one could dictate how others have sex, who they can and cannot marry, and what they do with the consequences of that sex…it’s all very dirty while still remaining clean and thinking oneself as chaste…it’s not so fun to meet the needs of a starving child, and many are not up to the challenge…it’s a mess of a situation and no one who works with starving, diseased, impoverished children comes away without being in dire of a shower and maybe even a sanity check…
    it’s moral relativism to suggest that one is responsible for bringing children into the world and not responsible for what happens next…you can say you’re not responsible all day long but the bottom line is that if you’re the one forcing the birth, you’re one of those who shares in the responsibiltiy for meeting the basic needs of that child…that you shun that responsibility doesn’t make you right, it makes you a hypocritical coward deftly scared of getting your hands dirty…if, as is the case with many children, the parents/caretakers are able to provide for the child themselves then all is well…where they are not able or alive, it’s on you buddy…and not just you, it’s on all of us, as it should be…
    even without programs specifically and directly providing for the child’s needs, some of those needs will get met at taxpayer expense whether the taxpayer likes it or not — and it will cost more than the implementation of direct-service programs because treating a virus in the clinic costs less and is more effective in the long run than treating it in the emergency room assuming the parent/caretaker doesn’t have to go to work before the child’s name is called…still there will be many, many children whose lives are complete crap and they will die young because the programs aren’t in place, thus the “every child deserves a chance” rhetoric is just to make the unconscionable feel better about themselves…every child deserves a chance at what? were your odds that bad when you were born or are you so assumptious of your own good fortune that you would dismiss the misfortune of others as being their fault and their responsibility? sure there’s the possibility that one in a million of the kids currently playing in a puddle shared by the bloated body of a dead animal will make a significant contribution to mankind…and what of the rest who die before they get the chance? who never learn to read? who eat the same mush shared by too many flies day in and day out and that’s it for their existence?
    oh look, it’s your back…lucky you that abortion isn’t retroactive…

  • Nancy

    As usual, a bunch of MEN arguing about how to dictate & control womens’ reproductive rights. Fascists.

  • >>Heaven or not, there is nothing more sacred on this planet than the birth of a human.. Cash? Pets? Marriage? Success?<< Wrongo, my ideologically blinded amigo. Freedom is more important than life, because without freedom life is meaningless. And there you have the theocon's dilemma, because their espoused conservative belief in the core values our nation was founded on is in direct conflict with their religious belief that potential life is sacred. They are generally willing to fight for the idea that a parent has total rights to control and raise a child free from outside interference, yet are unwilling to accept the inevitable logic that thsi 'ownership' of a child includes the right to determine their life or death within the womb. Dave

  • Winston Jen

    Sieg Heil, Cunning Linguist!

    Why do you think abortions are more prevalent in countries where it is illegal? There is no counselling there, and contraception is generally limited.

  • Cunning Linguist

    Ryan, if you’re a liberal Democrat there is something more sacred than the birth of a human being. That is the furthering of your morally relevent left wing agenda which is totally devoid of the notions of personal accountability and personal responsibility.

    When you get right down to it that’s the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats or Conservatives and Liberals in this nation isn’t it? Republicans/conservatives although we are often accused of lacking compassion do believe iun helping others. However we do not believe tnat helping absolves people of all personal accountability and responsibility. I have no problem with the notion that I may pay taxes so that a single mom working a full time job to support her children, who is a legal citizen of the country may recieve a little extra support from the government. I do however have a problem with an adult who is mentally and physically capable of working refusing to do so and seeking government handouts.

    Democrats/liberals on thier other hand believe the government should take care of everyone. They believe that although not everyone makes an equal effort everyone should have an equal quality of life. They make excuses for people and promote the idea that it is entirely the government’s responsibility to provide safety, security and happiness in everyone’s life and not the individual’s.

    This relates to abortion. The typical liberal argument is why don’t all you conservatives who are pro life pay for the babies needs once they are born. By that logic I guess I could say why don’t all you liberals who are so concerned with the poor pay for all of thier needs or why don’t all you liberals who claim to care about minorities and illegal aliens so much give them your job or your home. You see being pro life does not mean I must be responsible for the lives of babies who may not be born into the best of situations. It just means that I believe that baby has the right to life. I know you liberals don’t undeerstand that but then there’s a lot you don’t undersdtand. I’m sure all you good liberals believe that once a chiuld is born it should not be even if it is poor or has bad prents right? By believing that are you responsible for all of the children in America in that situation?

    Then there’s the whole it’s a fetus not a person argument. That’s just semantics. It is a living thing and an abortion is the killing of that living thing. end of story.

    There’s also the way the left and the providersof abortion frame the argument. Every time you here Planned Parenthood or Naral talk about the issue they claim “women’s lives are at stake,” as if every abortion was a choice between the mother’s life or the babies. It’s 2005 folks not 1805. Medical science has come along way and in fact the vast majority of abortions are performed because the mother doesn’t want the baby because it will cramp her lifestyle. Not to mention all the other porpaganda spewed by these leftist groups such as parental consent laws would do more harm than good, there is no emotional/mental trauma assiciated with having an abortion, and that so called back alley abortions would be common if abortion were illegal.

    You ACLU loving liberals will rant and rave about the rights of pedophiles, terrorists, and illegal aliens and bash George Bush over Iraq all day long every day but you won’t say a word when planned parenthood tells states that the notification of the parents of a 13 year old girl who is about an abortion is a bad thing so that they can profit off of the murder of innocent babies. And you wonder why you can’t wina friggin election.

  • AG,

    You totally grasped my point.

    Heaven or not, there is nothing more sacred on this planet than the birth of a human.. Cash? Pets? Marriage? Success?

    What is more intrinsic than life? You cannot have anything else without it.

    My point is that abortion, with or without the existence of a higher being, is horrific.

  • Remember, Roger is an atheist. He doesn’t believe in the Kingdom of Heaven or any other form of after life.

    The cycle of life and death IS the most sacred thing. Ecspecially for you atheists. We live for 70 years then we are dead for eternity. Atheists believe that we just die and our soul dies too which should mean that you have to value life the little time you are here.

  • RogerMDillion

    Who says they are answerable? They derive from Ryan’s proclamations. I asked what he based his statements on. If they are unanswerable, than Ryan has no basis for his arguement.

    “we then face the beginnings of socio-religious civil war.”

    Are you under the delusion that isn’t happening already?

  • Alethinos

    Roger D., asking a lot of unanswerable questions doesn’t constitute a counter-argument.

    Roe v. Wade is intact, for now. Be happy for that.

    What is needed is to try and find bridges of commonality between the different camps, no matter how shakey they may be…

    It’s either that, or, God forbid if the Court IS changed thoroughly and Roe v. Wade IS overthrown… we then face the beginnings of socio-religious civil war.

    Civility is called for…

    (Lord?! Did I say that? Me?)


  • RogerMDillion

    Why should it? It’s just one person’s opinion and unproven statements about what he believes.

    Attach an audio file so you can have strings play behind your lofty idealism.

    “That the most sacred cycle in this world–that of natural life and death–is simply disregarded due to inconvenience. Sacred, in that it is the creation of the only rational entity in existence; the most supreme living inhabitant of this world ought not have its nature disrupted on the grounds of undesired effects.”

    Why is it the most sacred cycle? Who decided humans are the only rational entity? Or that we are the supreme living inhabitant? It sounds like you are myopic and don’t realize that humans are a part of nature and not above it.

    You said, “We are the most inept and misguided judges of potential. We are wrong with the regularity of a clock,”

    Doesn’t sound very rational or supreme.

    “Those who break the law must deal with the repercussions.”

    Do you know the way the legal system works? Plenty of people who break the law don’t suffer the repercussions they should.

    No one is telling you whether or not to have an abortion, especially since you are a man, but it’s not the place of government to tell people what to do with their bodies. If you are okay with the government saying you have to have a baby when you get pregnant, then you are also okay with the government telling you how many babies to have. The government either has control of productive rights or it doesn’t.

    And even if you and your crowd get all abortions made illegal, it won’t stop them from happening to women who want them. It will just make them more dangerous and cause more injury and death to the women, so think twice as you are getting off your high horse about how much you actually value life.

    If we really needed all those potential lives, things wouldn’t be as good as they are in this country or the world, so you have yet to prove your arguement.

  • RJ

    Superb post! But it won’t change a single mind… :-/

  • Good post Ryan

  • Alethinos,

    I agree with you, and appreciate your comment. That is exactly why I attempted to make a case against abortion without using religious beliefs (which as of right now, I don’t even have)

    Sure abortion contradicts nearly every religious–be it Chrisitian, Buddist or Muslim– faith, not everyone follows that faith.

    However, that doesn’t make the act any less atrocious or more acceptable. Abortion contradicts our soceital beliefs, protcalls and practices in thousands of ways.

  • Alethinos

    RCH… A lot of folks feel as you do. I myself am personally opposed to abortion. So I can agree with the your general sentiment.

    The day may come when, as a society we evolve to such a degree that we recognize abortion for what it is. However, that day has yet to arrive.

    While YOU do not, apparently, wish to thrust your personal beliefs down the throats of others, telling them how they should live their lives, unfortunately far too many others have a deep, sickening hunger to do just that. For THIS reason, along with others I do what I can to DEFEND Roe v. Wade.

    The hypocricy you speak of – where we protest the death penalty yet allow abortion IS disturbing. But then so is the hypocricy of all those “church-goin'” types who so desperately want to direct the lives of others… Who are so certain that Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and others do not deserve respect and are “already going to hell”.

    In the end, the only way we can hope to affect the lives of others is to live the life that ALL the Manifestations of God have called upon us to lead… In the end, EACH person is left to make their way to God, as they see fit.

    But until REAL SPIRITUALITY prevades religion I am afraid of the horror that would be brought on by those “so near to God.” We see their handiwork all around the world these days. It must be a real comfort for them to KNOW deep in their hearts that all those people over “there” deserve to die this day…


  • Winston Jen

    Since forcing women to give birth will save lives, do you also advocate mandating that every healthy adult also donate blood, as well as a lung and kidney to save even more lives?

    Or do you go against the hypocritical conservative grain and support universal healthcare for everyone?