Again BHW, you're simply straight up factually wrong here: "Women who get abortions aren't baby killers." That's not mere "emotional rhetoric" from me. That's a simple recognition of fact. If you have a live baby growing in you, and you do away with it, then you have killed it. There's no cute rhetorical brush that you can apply that will make it otherwise. For me to say that an abortion "kills a baby" is not inflammatory rhetoric. It is the killing of a baby that is inflammatory.
You might have special horrible circumstances that make it understandable why you would find an abortion necessary. Just don't pretend that you're not really killing a baby when you do it, cause you most certainly are.
If you have a live baby growing in you, and you do away with it, then you have killed it. There's no cute rhetorical brush that you can apply that will make it otherwise.
It's not a baby, it's an embryo or a fetus. It's a potential baby. I can understand people's objection to late-term abortions, but I disagree completely that any abortion is the killing of a baby.
>>It's not a baby, it's an embryo or a fetus. It's a potential baby.<<
Maybe it isn't a baby yet, but it is still alive, it breaths and eats and you kill it like would kill a rodent. You consider it a pest and kill it. It is still murder, baby or not.
Don't want a baby? Use a condom, don't have sex, use pills, but please don't kill it, cherish it. Maybe the "embryo" will grow up to be another Martin Luther King or another Alex Rodriguez or maybe even a scientists who cures cancer.
>>Oh, but Anthony, THIS WOULD ELIMINATE OR REDUCE THE POOR POPULATION.<< by bhw
I rather see them not get pregnant instead of killing the baby.
"I think it's a fetus only if you don't want it." Right on, Rodney. That's exactly on target.
"I disagree completely that any abortion is the killing of a baby."
Yeah, but that's no good. Everybody gets to have their own opinions, but you don't get your own facts.
Monsieur Saleski, again, I can understand saying that the fertilized egg is not really a person yet. However, by the time that the choice has grown a circulatory system with heart beating, blood pumping, and a central nervous system that's a baby.
That's not a question of me arbitrarily declaring it so. Head and arms, nerves and blood vessels. It ain't a lump of coal. It ain't a tree. It's a little human baby. It just IS.
84 -
Nancy
Jul 22, 2005 at 3:21 pm
And maybe it will grow up to be another Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin or Mao Tse-Tung, hey? They don't all grow up to be saints, and some would have been 'way better off aborted, FYI. Stop romanticizing babies and/or humans. There is nothing so great or special about our species except we're real good at trashing everything in sight.
The medical community calls it a fetus. That's the proper definition. Mine were fetuses (feti?), too, at one time. I planned and wanted them. Didn't make them not fetuses.
Everybody gets to have their own opinions, but you don't get your own facts.
Al, you're the one making up "facts." It's not a baby, babe. It's on its way to being one, though.
Main Entry: fe-tus
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth (emphasis mine)
So I'd say you were the one making up definitions.
Literally speaking, it's a fetus, but so what? These are just word games, really. If you want a baby, you think of it as a baby. You refer to the fetus as a baby and you think of it as a deveoping human being with a personality, a character and so forth.
88 -
JR
Jul 22, 2005 at 4:11 pm
bhw: But doing as Dave suggests actually puts the man in control of the situation. Since he was 50% of the equation in creating the pregnancy, he should have 50% of responsibility if that pregnancy comes to term, even if he doesn't want it.
No. That essentially puts the woman in control of the man's finances for the next 20-odd years.
It's too easy to allow men to walk away by saying, "Hey, it's not my fault, I wanted her to have an abortion." I can imagine a lot of men saying that after the fact and after they realize how much time and money it costs to raise a child.
Yeah, that's a problem, though certainly not a new one. That's more complex, and probably should go to court. But if the man establishes before the birth that he isn't willing to raise a child, he ought to have a way to opt out, just as the woman does. He should have to share at least the costs of an abortion. If the woman has a problem with abortion, they can share the cost of carrying to term, after which she can put the baby up for adoption or raise it on her own finances. The man of course forfeits all rights, it's as if he put his child up for adoption.
JR, I basically agree with you. The only problem is that when you have two people making a decision, one person has to have a little more say than the other; otherwise, you have a stalemate. So, of course, I'd give the extra 1% of say to the woman, since her body is involved.
The biggest problem to me is that we already have a fairly large problem with young men spreading their seed without wanting to face any of the consequences of their actions. Allowing them to "call" abortion -- when they're not the one who has to undergo the procedure -- basically takes all meaningful responsibility away from them.
Sometimes life isn't fair. But I also don't think it's fair for men to have sex and be able to put all the responsibility on the woman.
90 -
JR
Jul 22, 2005 at 4:20 pm
Nancy: And maybe it will grow up to be another Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin or Mao Tse-Tung, hey?
I've read that Saddam Hussein's mother wanted to have an abortion but some asshole talked her out of it.
Everybody in this rant session is real concerned about the mom and her rights. Is anyone concerned about the mom and her future? Oh, its tough raising a baby on your own. I have many friends and co-workers who are doing it. My oldest daughter (adopted) was the daughter of a single mom until she was 11. She turned out great.
But what about 5 years, ten years, twenty years after an abortion. It is so common for women to still be emotionally scarred by the death of the pre born human. Some, who are never able to have any children after the abortion end up with even greater hurt and regret.
This decision is a big one for a woman. I think the abortion advocates would like to make it appear as simple as mole removal. It ain't. Sometimes the rhetoric even begins to sound pro-abortion. Including those who are truly closet eugenicists.
92 -
JR
Jul 22, 2005 at 4:31 pm
bhw: The biggest problem to me is that we already have a fairly large problem with young men spreading their seed without wanting to face any of the consequences of their actions. Allowing them to "call" abortion -- when they're not the one who has to undergo the procedure -- basically takes all meaningful responsibility away from them.
The same argument can be used to take the right to an abortion away from the woman. Why should it apply only to men?
And men have been running away from that responsibility all along; in the past the woman didn't even have the option of a legal abortion. It's only now that we're really starting to crack down on deadbeat dads.
It is also possible for a woman to be emotionally scarred after giving a baby up for adoption, Randy. There are no easy choices, but I would argue that the best way to make any choice is to be fully-informed about all of one's alternatives.
94 -
JR
Jul 22, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Randy Kirk: It is so common for women to still be emotionally scarred by the death of the pre born human.
That's because Operation Rescue and like-minded religious nuts go to such great lengths to fetishize fetuses. A woman need not feel any more guilty having an abortion than I do clipping my toenails. All that emotional scarring is YOUR fault.
Sometimes the rhetoric even begins to sound pro-abortion. Including those who are truly closet eugenicists.
Yeah JR, you're lying to yourself right here: "That's because Operation Rescue and like-minded religious nuts go to such great lengths to fetishize fetuses. A woman need not feel any more guilty having an abortion than I do clipping my toenails." Your toenails don't have consciousness. Your toenails can't feel pain. You know better.
Likewise BHW and Miss Angel are arguing like Pharisees over the definition of "fetus" and "baby." Whatever the technical merits of arguing over the dictionary definition of fetus vs baby, it's all toward the end of un-truth. That is, that THING growing inside a pregnant woman is a person, certainly after 6-8 weeks. It has people parts, blood is flowing, it feels pain.
No amount of sophistry about dictionary definitions will change those facts.
>>There is nothing so great or special about our species except we're real good at trashing everything in sight.<< by Nancy
I guess in that case it is o.k. to take a gun and kill anyone I want to, just like hunter's kill deer? After all what makes us better than rodents, fleas or deer?
In this day and age there is no way another Hitler, Stalin or Pul Pot can rise to extreme power. Look what happened to Saddam.
Maybe someday they will sell pesticides to kill "embryos" over the counter just like they sell roach spray or rat pellets. Hopefully when Hell freezes over.
The pro-choice position is dependant upon refusing to acknowledge that it is a baby at any point that is getting sucked out, or poisened, or however they kill them.
Another assault on language to hide the doing of what is unpalatable to a large segment of the population. Like calling a law that takes away your rights a Patriot Act.
Notice the anger and wrath unleashed by pro-choicers when you refuse to use the sanitized words they use to deny reality.
Another thing the pro-choice people do is take very very rare events and act as if they are the norm, crying wildly that 12 year old who get raped by their fathers with aids will be forced to bear quadraplegic fetuses with downs syndrome
who will grow up and force everyone to raise taxes, but not before they lead miserable lives and kill everybody in the process.
And if the poor and minorities are indeed getting 60% of all abortions, then PP's founder must be smiling in her grave, as this was her expressed desire and purpose.
I have lived in "da hood" before and every "poor" neighborhood can support ALOT of drug dealers and stores which seem to mainly sell malt liquor, blunts, and cigarettes. So I feel for the poor, but I know for a fact its bad choices and misallocation of time and money that keeps people THAT poor.
The whole thing is founded upon such wild, hysterical premises.
ON the other hand, the pro-life (the ones in the big, more radical organizations) people come off as being total wing nuts and seem to be utterly repellent.
I know women who have had abortions and who regret it horribly, and yet they don't scream and shout at people and demonize them.
They work gently and earnestly in ministries in churches that try to help girls do the right thing, and actually HELP them financially and emotionally.
This seems to me anyways, to be a much better thing to spend your resources on rather than intimidating women going into abortion clinics. Or wasting your political capital on dead horses, no pun intended, like Terry Schiavo.
But dealing with nervous, scared girls in trouble takes patience, gentleness and humility. Its alot more fun, I would imagine, to yell cuss words at them.
99 -
JR
Jul 23, 2005 at 8:32 am
Al Barger: Your toenails don't have consciousness.
Oh, so a fetus has consciousness now? And I suppose you can prove this too by repeating it emphatically.
100 -
Nancy
Jul 23, 2005 at 8:52 am
The basic FACTS are that pro-choicers want the person most closely involved - the woman - to have access to a variety of choices. Options. Hers. Not anyone else's decision. So-called 'pro-lifers' on the other hand, do NOT want women - or anyone else - to have any choice except what THEY (the pro-lifers) have decided is acceptable; exactly on the same level as fundamentalist cretins like the Taliban. The fundamental hypocrisy of 'pro-lifers' is blatant: they scream about saving the lives of unborn babies - but I don't see many of them adopting these unwanted babies. Once those babies are born, their attitude changes to, "you got pregnant, you live with it". Their attitude to those already born is callous beyond belief, to the point where a good many of them support (even if not willing to carry out) murder of the already-born in support of their fanatical cause. If pro-lifers were actually pro-life, they'd be out there trying to get congress to approve preventive birth control measures, i.e. funding for pharmaceuticals that would ensure prevention of conception either before or within 48 hours of sex, before the egg implants. But they don't, and they won't. If pro-lifers were truly pro-life, they'd be out there trying to ensure that all the kids already here and born had good homes. But they don't. Their interest stops at birth of the fetus. And despite the posturing of those among them who use it as a cover to try to justify their concern for the woman involved, if pro-lifers were truly pro-life, they'd less concerned with their private religious agenda (which is what this is) and more concerned about the effects of demonizing the procedure & those women who choose to resort to it. But they don't. So in the end, pro-lifers are shown to be the flaming religious maniac hypocrits they are. Their own actions & attitudes to the already born, and their own words, condemn & convict them. They are anti-women, anti-freedom, and anti-American. They believe only in creating a Taliban state, run along the laws they mandate.
But in the end, it all gets down to the basics: who actually ends up the ultimate person whose life is most affected: the woman. Therefore it is the business of NO ONE else than herself, what she does with her body. Not her doctor, not her husband or boyfriend, not her parents, not her neighbors, not the fucking religious leaders or congress or the asshole president of the united states. It's HER body, it's HER choice, it's HER decision. Not yours. Not ever. Not for any reason whatsoever. Period.
You could say the same thing about the pro-choice position, that its hypocritical to only care about a womens right to choose abortion, not about her right to choose to opt out of taxation or Social Security, or to choose what kind of drugs you wish to take, or what wages and conditions you are willing to work under.
You could say, under that line of reasoning, that pro-choice people don't care what happens to a woman after she has her abortion, that they just throw her to the wolves of a society that limits her choices to only those that the elites have deemed appropriate.
I actually agree with you about the pro-lifers, they would in fact bring about a taliban style gov't if they could.
The religous right doesn't believe that God can change people, they don't have any faith in His ability to get people to voluntarily choose to stop doing bad things and start doing right things.
As if God needed a majority on the Supreme Court to take the idea of abortion out of people's hearts and minds.
And that he was so weak and non existant that he was dependant upon our craven polticians to being about his plans.
The pro lifers had their way until Roe. We didn't have a taliban society. What a crock.
Visit the homes for unwed mom's. Find out what happens there. You will find a loving environment that tries to help sustain life, and then HELPS the woman find adoptive parents.
THERE IS A HUGE WAITING LIST for babies.
Go to an abortion clinic. I have many personal friends who have told about the process. It is cold, uncaring, clinical.
We didn't have a federal Gov't as powerful and far reaching, even in 1973, either.
And the assaults on federalism and liberty via the Civil Rights Act of 1965 had only begun to make to trickle down.
You would have been considered a nut if you had predicted national seat belt laws, throwing people in jail for trading music, and national ID cards in 1973.
Zealous Religous people always kill their enemies and detractors when they get political power, if you can name one case in which this HASN'T happened throughout history, I would be pleased to hear about it.
After all, the Pilgrims left Europe partly because they couldn't kill heretics and witches like they wanted to.
Gee Todd, maybe we're actually on the same side here. I hate seat belt laws (even though it helped me get in the habit), I don't think anyone should be thrown in jail for trading music (although I would fine the heck out of them for setting up systems to steal from creative talent), and I certainly don't want a national ID program (but we've had one for over 50 years...344-54-3944.
There is no way to disprove your case regarding zealotry. The sentence still reads perfectly if you take out religious. However, I would point to the US, England, and most of the Western European nations as examples where Christian governments which were sometimes actual theocracies, had really good track records compared to irreligious countries around the globe.
Uh, if you are referring to the RC hegemony of Europe, known as the DARK AGES for a very good reason, I would have lived under the Ottomans anyday
England under Cromwell or Berne under the Reformers, same deal, those guys were loons, and the repression in Jesus name made it that more intolerable and heinous.
Even jews did better under the Muslim rule than under the Xtian rule, for the most part, anyways.
C'mon Temple. I'm trusting to a fault, but not that big a fault.
Sure, Todd. You can think those things.
108 -
Anthony Grande
Jul 23, 2005 at 4:08 pm
>>The basic FACTS are that pro-choicers want the person most closely involved - the woman - to have access to a variety of choices.<<
The basic FACTS are that pro-lifers DO give the women a variety of choices, like pills, not sleeping around or making sure partner is using condom.
Todd, how in the world does the Patriot Act take your rights away. Alls they want to do is look at library records of suspected terrorists. That way they can't look at how to make bombs and such. I would not give a f*** if someone in the FBI looked at my library books that are usually about history or organized crime. The only people who should offended by this is the terrorists who check out suspicious books. What do you check out Todd? Why are you soooo offende? I highly don't you are a suspected terrorist on the FBI list so don't worry if anyone is going to look at your porn books or whatever it is you check out.
As a right winger, I think the library thing is questionable choice of benefit vs reduction in liberty. However, I also think the left is making a mountain out of a molehill in order to score political points or raise money in their email campaigns.
110 -
famous_amos
Jul 23, 2005 at 10:04 pm
The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business. Over 60% of thier revenue comes from abortion. They claim to provide "counseling for all potions." This is complete bullshit. Planned parenthood will do anything to geta woman to have an abortion so they can make money. This has been proven many times in cases where Planned parenthood has provided abortions for very young girls 13-14 without informing the parents or the authorities as most state laws require. If planned parenthood did this they might lose out on that sweet sweet profit that comes from ending an innocent babies life. Planned parent commits infanticide for profit. They are disgusting and anyone who defends them with this they provide options bullshit is a dumbass. May they all rot in hell for eternity with Bill and Hillary.
Article comments
76 - Al Barger
Again BHW, you're simply straight up factually wrong here: "Women who get abortions aren't baby killers." That's not mere "emotional rhetoric" from me. That's a simple recognition of fact. If you have a live baby growing in you, and you do away with it, then you have killed it. There's no cute rhetorical brush that you can apply that will make it otherwise. For me to say that an abortion "kills a baby" is not inflammatory rhetoric. It is the killing of a baby that is inflammatory.
You might have special horrible circumstances that make it understandable why you would find an abortion necessary. Just don't pretend that you're not really killing a baby when you do it, cause you most certainly are.
77 - Mark Saleski
oh really?
is an ambryo a 'baby' from the beginning?
and where is that 'fact' written down?
and, if not, at what point does it become a baby?
and who gets to decide?
78 - bhw
If you have a live baby growing in you, and you do away with it, then you have killed it. There's no cute rhetorical brush that you can apply that will make it otherwise.
It's not a baby, it's an embryo or a fetus. It's a potential baby. I can understand people's objection to late-term abortions, but I disagree completely that any abortion is the killing of a baby.
79 - Dave Nalle
No, it's an 'ambryo'. Whatever the hell that is. Maybe it's an ambidextrous embryo.
Dave
80 - Mark Saleski
yow...now i'm getting left-hand-only dyslexia!
81 - Rodney Welch
I think it's a fetus only if you don't want it.
82 - Anthony Grande
>>It's not a baby, it's an embryo or a fetus. It's a potential baby.<<
Maybe it isn't a baby yet, but it is still alive, it breaths and eats and you kill it like would kill a rodent. You consider it a pest and kill it. It is still murder, baby or not.
Don't want a baby? Use a condom, don't have sex, use pills, but please don't kill it, cherish it. Maybe the "embryo" will grow up to be another Martin Luther King or another Alex Rodriguez or maybe even a scientists who cures cancer.
>>Oh, but Anthony, THIS WOULD ELIMINATE OR REDUCE THE POOR POPULATION.<< by bhw
I rather see them not get pregnant instead of killing the baby.
83 - Al Barger
"I think it's a fetus only if you don't want it." Right on, Rodney. That's exactly on target.
"I disagree completely that any abortion is the killing of a baby."
Yeah, but that's no good. Everybody gets to have their own opinions, but you don't get your own facts.
Monsieur Saleski, again, I can understand saying that the fertilized egg is not really a person yet. However, by the time that the choice has grown a circulatory system with heart beating, blood pumping, and a central nervous system that's a baby.
That's not a question of me arbitrarily declaring it so. Head and arms, nerves and blood vessels. It ain't a lump of coal. It ain't a tree. It's a little human baby. It just IS.
84 - Nancy
And maybe it will grow up to be another Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin or Mao Tse-Tung, hey? They don't all grow up to be saints, and some would have been 'way better off aborted, FYI. Stop romanticizing babies and/or humans. There is nothing so great or special about our species except we're real good at trashing everything in sight.
85 - bhw
I think it's a fetus only if you don't want it.
The medical community calls it a fetus. That's the proper definition. Mine were fetuses (feti?), too, at one time. I planned and wanted them. Didn't make them not fetuses.
Everybody gets to have their own opinions, but you don't get your own facts.
Al, you're the one making up "facts." It's not a baby, babe. It's on its way to being one, though.
86 - Lisa McKay
Here you go, Al, from Merriam-Webster online:
Main Entry: fe-tus
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth (emphasis mine)
So I'd say you were the one making up definitions.
87 - Rodney Welch
Literally speaking, it's a fetus, but so what? These are just word games, really. If you want a baby, you think of it as a baby. You refer to the fetus as a baby and you think of it as a deveoping human being with a personality, a character and so forth.
88 - JR
bhw: But doing as Dave suggests actually puts the man in control of the situation. Since he was 50% of the equation in creating the pregnancy, he should have 50% of responsibility if that pregnancy comes to term, even if he doesn't want it.
No. That essentially puts the woman in control of the man's finances for the next 20-odd years.
It's too easy to allow men to walk away by saying, "Hey, it's not my fault, I wanted her to have an abortion." I can imagine a lot of men saying that after the fact and after they realize how much time and money it costs to raise a child.
Yeah, that's a problem, though certainly not a new one. That's more complex, and probably should go to court. But if the man establishes before the birth that he isn't willing to raise a child, he ought to have a way to opt out, just as the woman does. He should have to share at least the costs of an abortion. If the woman has a problem with abortion, they can share the cost of carrying to term, after which she can put the baby up for adoption or raise it on her own finances. The man of course forfeits all rights, it's as if he put his child up for adoption.
89 - bhw
JR, I basically agree with you. The only problem is that when you have two people making a decision, one person has to have a little more say than the other; otherwise, you have a stalemate. So, of course, I'd give the extra 1% of say to the woman, since her body is involved.
The biggest problem to me is that we already have a fairly large problem with young men spreading their seed without wanting to face any of the consequences of their actions. Allowing them to "call" abortion -- when they're not the one who has to undergo the procedure -- basically takes all meaningful responsibility away from them.
Sometimes life isn't fair. But I also don't think it's fair for men to have sex and be able to put all the responsibility on the woman.
90 - JR
Nancy: And maybe it will grow up to be another Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin or Mao Tse-Tung, hey?
I've read that Saddam Hussein's mother wanted to have an abortion but some asshole talked her out of it.
91 - Randy Kirk
Everybody in this rant session is real concerned about the mom and her rights. Is anyone concerned about the mom and her future? Oh, its tough raising a baby on your own. I have many friends and co-workers who are doing it. My oldest daughter (adopted) was the daughter of a single mom until she was 11. She turned out great.
But what about 5 years, ten years, twenty years after an abortion. It is so common for women to still be emotionally scarred by the death of the pre born human. Some, who are never able to have any children after the abortion end up with even greater hurt and regret.
This decision is a big one for a woman. I think the abortion advocates would like to make it appear as simple as mole removal. It ain't. Sometimes the rhetoric even begins to sound pro-abortion. Including those who are truly closet eugenicists.
92 - JR
bhw: The biggest problem to me is that we already have a fairly large problem with young men spreading their seed without wanting to face any of the consequences of their actions. Allowing them to "call" abortion -- when they're not the one who has to undergo the procedure -- basically takes all meaningful responsibility away from them.
The same argument can be used to take the right to an abortion away from the woman. Why should it apply only to men?
And men have been running away from that responsibility all along; in the past the woman didn't even have the option of a legal abortion. It's only now that we're really starting to crack down on deadbeat dads.
93 - Lisa McKay
It is also possible for a woman to be emotionally scarred after giving a baby up for adoption, Randy. There are no easy choices, but I would argue that the best way to make any choice is to be fully-informed about all of one's alternatives.
94 - JR
Randy Kirk: It is so common for women to still be emotionally scarred by the death of the pre born human.
That's because Operation Rescue and like-minded religious nuts go to such great lengths to fetishize fetuses. A woman need not feel any more guilty having an abortion than I do clipping my toenails. All that emotional scarring is YOUR fault.
Sometimes the rhetoric even begins to sound pro-abortion. Including those who are truly closet eugenicists.
Yeah, way to tone down the rhetoric.
95 - Al Barger
Yeah JR, you're lying to yourself right here: "That's because Operation Rescue and like-minded religious nuts go to such great lengths to fetishize fetuses. A woman need not feel any more guilty having an abortion than I do clipping my toenails." Your toenails don't have consciousness. Your toenails can't feel pain. You know better.
Likewise BHW and Miss Angel are arguing like Pharisees over the definition of "fetus" and "baby." Whatever the technical merits of arguing over the dictionary definition of fetus vs baby, it's all toward the end of un-truth. That is, that THING growing inside a pregnant woman is a person, certainly after 6-8 weeks. It has people parts, blood is flowing, it feels pain.
No amount of sophistry about dictionary definitions will change those facts.
96 - Randy Kirk
Fingernails and babies. Hmmm
97 - Anthony Grande
>>There is nothing so great or special about our species except we're real good at trashing everything in sight.<< by Nancy
I guess in that case it is o.k. to take a gun and kill anyone I want to, just like hunter's kill deer? After all what makes us better than rodents, fleas or deer?
In this day and age there is no way another Hitler, Stalin or Pul Pot can rise to extreme power. Look what happened to Saddam.
Maybe someday they will sell pesticides to kill "embryos" over the counter just like they sell roach spray or rat pellets. Hopefully when Hell freezes over.
98 - todd
The pro-choice position is dependant upon refusing to acknowledge that it is a baby at any point that is getting sucked out, or poisened, or however they kill them.
Another assault on language to hide the doing of what is unpalatable to a large segment of the population. Like calling a law that takes away your rights a Patriot Act.
Notice the anger and wrath unleashed by pro-choicers when you refuse to use the sanitized words they use to deny reality.
Another thing the pro-choice people do is take very very rare events and act as if they are the norm, crying wildly that 12 year old who get raped by their fathers with aids will be forced to bear quadraplegic fetuses with downs syndrome
who will grow up and force everyone to raise taxes, but not before they lead miserable lives and kill everybody in the process.
And if the poor and minorities are indeed getting 60% of all abortions, then PP's founder must be smiling in her grave, as this was her expressed desire and purpose.
I have lived in "da hood" before and every "poor" neighborhood can support ALOT of drug dealers and stores which seem to mainly sell malt liquor, blunts, and cigarettes. So I feel for the poor, but I know for a fact its bad choices and misallocation of time and money that keeps people THAT poor.
The whole thing is founded upon such wild, hysterical premises.
ON the other hand, the pro-life (the ones in the big, more radical organizations) people come off as being total wing nuts and seem to be utterly repellent.
I know women who have had abortions and who regret it horribly, and yet they don't scream and shout at people and demonize them.
They work gently and earnestly in ministries in churches that try to help girls do the right thing, and actually HELP them financially and emotionally.
This seems to me anyways, to be a much better thing to spend your resources on rather than intimidating women going into abortion clinics. Or wasting your political capital on dead horses, no pun intended, like Terry Schiavo.
But dealing with nervous, scared girls in trouble takes patience, gentleness and humility. Its alot more fun, I would imagine, to yell cuss words at them.
99 - JR
Al Barger: Your toenails don't have consciousness.
Oh, so a fetus has consciousness now? And I suppose you can prove this too by repeating it emphatically.
100 - Nancy
The basic FACTS are that pro-choicers want the person most closely involved - the woman - to have access to a variety of choices. Options. Hers. Not anyone else's decision. So-called 'pro-lifers' on the other hand, do NOT want women - or anyone else - to have any choice except what THEY (the pro-lifers) have decided is acceptable; exactly on the same level as fundamentalist cretins like the Taliban. The fundamental hypocrisy of 'pro-lifers' is blatant: they scream about saving the lives of unborn babies - but I don't see many of them adopting these unwanted babies. Once those babies are born, their attitude changes to, "you got pregnant, you live with it". Their attitude to those already born is callous beyond belief, to the point where a good many of them support (even if not willing to carry out) murder of the already-born in support of their fanatical cause. If pro-lifers were actually pro-life, they'd be out there trying to get congress to approve preventive birth control measures, i.e. funding for pharmaceuticals that would ensure prevention of conception either before or within 48 hours of sex, before the egg implants. But they don't, and they won't. If pro-lifers were truly pro-life, they'd be out there trying to ensure that all the kids already here and born had good homes. But they don't. Their interest stops at birth of the fetus. And despite the posturing of those among them who use it as a cover to try to justify their concern for the woman involved, if pro-lifers were truly pro-life, they'd less concerned with their private religious agenda (which is what this is) and more concerned about the effects of demonizing the procedure & those women who choose to resort to it. But they don't. So in the end, pro-lifers are shown to be the flaming religious maniac hypocrits they are. Their own actions & attitudes to the already born, and their own words, condemn & convict them. They are anti-women, anti-freedom, and anti-American. They believe only in creating a Taliban state, run along the laws they mandate.
But in the end, it all gets down to the basics: who actually ends up the ultimate person whose life is most affected: the woman. Therefore it is the business of NO ONE else than herself, what she does with her body. Not her doctor, not her husband or boyfriend, not her parents, not her neighbors, not the fucking religious leaders or congress or the asshole president of the united states. It's HER body, it's HER choice, it's HER decision. Not yours. Not ever. Not for any reason whatsoever. Period.
101 - todd
You could say the same thing about the pro-choice position, that its hypocritical to only care about a womens right to choose abortion, not about her right to choose to opt out of taxation or Social Security, or to choose what kind of drugs you wish to take, or what wages and conditions you are willing to work under.
You could say, under that line of reasoning, that pro-choice people don't care what happens to a woman after she has her abortion, that they just throw her to the wolves of a society that limits her choices to only those that the elites have deemed appropriate.
I actually agree with you about the pro-lifers, they would in fact bring about a taliban style gov't if they could.
The religous right doesn't believe that God can change people, they don't have any faith in His ability to get people to voluntarily choose to stop doing bad things and start doing right things.
As if God needed a majority on the Supreme Court to take the idea of abortion out of people's hearts and minds.
And that he was so weak and non existant that he was dependant upon our craven polticians to being about his plans.
He is after all, the first Libertarian.
102 - Randy Kirk
The pro lifers had their way until Roe. We didn't have a taliban society. What a crock.
Visit the homes for unwed mom's. Find out what happens there. You will find a loving environment that tries to help sustain life, and then HELPS the woman find adoptive parents.
THERE IS A HUGE WAITING LIST for babies.
Go to an abortion clinic. I have many personal friends who have told about the process. It is cold, uncaring, clinical.
103 - todd
We didn't have a federal Gov't as powerful and far reaching, even in 1973, either.
And the assaults on federalism and liberty via the Civil Rights Act of 1965 had only begun to make to trickle down.
You would have been considered a nut if you had predicted national seat belt laws, throwing people in jail for trading music, and national ID cards in 1973.
Zealous Religous people always kill their enemies and detractors when they get political power, if you can name one case in which this HASN'T happened throughout history, I would be pleased to hear about it.
After all, the Pilgrims left Europe partly because they couldn't kill heretics and witches like they wanted to.
104 - Randy Kirk
Gee Todd, maybe we're actually on the same side here. I hate seat belt laws (even though it helped me get in the habit), I don't think anyone should be thrown in jail for trading music (although I would fine the heck out of them for setting up systems to steal from creative talent), and I certainly don't want a national ID program (but we've had one for over 50 years...344-54-3944.
There is no way to disprove your case regarding zealotry. The sentence still reads perfectly if you take out religious. However, I would point to the US, England, and most of the Western European nations as examples where Christian governments which were sometimes actual theocracies, had really good track records compared to irreligious countries around the globe.
105 - todd
Uh, if you are referring to the RC hegemony of Europe, known as the DARK AGES for a very good reason, I would have lived under the Ottomans anyday
England under Cromwell or Berne under the Reformers, same deal, those guys were loons, and the repression in Jesus name made it that more intolerable and heinous.
Even jews did better under the Muslim rule than under the Xtian rule, for the most part, anyways.
106 - Temple Stark
Um, Randy I hope that isn't your SS number. If so, do you want it edited out?
Your choice (ironically)
107 - Randy Kirk
C'mon Temple. I'm trusting to a fault, but not that big a fault.
Sure, Todd. You can think those things.
108 - Anthony Grande
>>The basic FACTS are that pro-choicers want the person most closely involved - the woman - to have access to a variety of choices.<<
The basic FACTS are that pro-lifers DO give the women a variety of choices, like pills, not sleeping around or making sure partner is using condom.
Todd, how in the world does the Patriot Act take your rights away. Alls they want to do is look at library records of suspected terrorists. That way they can't look at how to make bombs and such. I would not give a f*** if someone in the FBI looked at my library books that are usually about history or organized crime. The only people who should offended by this is the terrorists who check out suspicious books. What do you check out Todd? Why are you soooo offende? I highly don't you are a suspected terrorist on the FBI list so don't worry if anyone is going to look at your porn books or whatever it is you check out.
109 - Randy Kirk
As a right winger, I think the library thing is questionable choice of benefit vs reduction in liberty. However, I also think the left is making a mountain out of a molehill in order to score political points or raise money in their email campaigns.
110 - famous_amos
The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business. Over 60% of thier revenue comes from abortion. They claim to provide "counseling for all potions." This is complete bullshit. Planned parenthood will do anything to geta woman to have an abortion so they can make money. This has been proven many times in cases where Planned parenthood has provided abortions for very young girls 13-14 without informing the parents or the authorities as most state laws require. If planned parenthood did this they might lose out on that sweet sweet profit that comes from ending an innocent babies life. Planned parent commits infanticide for profit. They are disgusting and anyone who defends them with this they provide options bullshit is a dumbass. May they all rot in hell for eternity with Bill and Hillary.
111 - Natalie Davis
Makes me want to give up chocolate-chip cookies.
112 - KYS
Natalie, there's always Mrs. Fields...