ON THE ISSUES: Abortion - Page 4

In closing, for those that are pro-choice consider this as you have your next abortion — Just 18 days after conception, the baby's heart begins to beat. At six weeks, brain waves can be measured. At eight weeks the vital organs are functioning and fingerprints have formed. At nine weeks, the unborn baby is able to feel pain. There is no difference between a 4 month old fetus and a 20 month old baby except for their developmental status. Just like there is a difference between a one year old and a five year old. It doesn't mean that the 1 year old is less alive because he/she can't walk. Sorry pro-choicers. For rape, incest or emergency I think an abortion should be available but abortion is not birth control. If killing a 1 year old is illegal, then so is killing a 6 month old fetus. It's as simple as that.

We just need to work in the real world on this issue and figure out the best way to deal with it. I don't believe that Bush is the choice on this issue. I believe that his plan will only make the problem worse in the near future. Kerry lives in the real world and he will do everything he can to spread the word that abortion is wrong and try to make real progress over the next 4 years.

Page 1Page 2Page 3 — Page 4

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • No image found
  • No image found

Article comments

  • 1 - Bryan

    Oct 22, 2004 at 11:22 am

    Is there a difference between a 7 month old baby in the womb and a seven month old baby after birth? Sure, it has simply had seven more months to develope. It doesn't matter if that child is in the womb or not, it is just a different way for it to rely on its mother and for the mother to protect it. From the moment of conception, the fetus has its own DNA structure, and all of his or her basic human characteristics.


    This is by far one of the best arguments I have ever heard for those that are PRO-Abortion. Its just great.

  • 2 - Shark

    Oct 22, 2004 at 12:30 pm

    I'm for mandatory post-partum abortions for all Fundamentalist Christoids and Right-Wing Republicans.

    But I'm kinda liberal on that subject: I say using a coat hanger to do it is optional.

  • 3 - RedTard

    Oct 22, 2004 at 1:09 pm

    That is an interesting viewpoint. You seem to say that abortion is murder, but you are OK with it anyway.

    I wonder if that is the same sort of "logic" that the Germans citizens had during the holocaust.

    Drop the Pro-Life act and come on over where you belong.

  • 4 - Yensid Tlaw

    Oct 22, 2004 at 1:22 pm

    No, I am absolutely against abortion as is our candidate Kerry. The difference is that we are a little bit more logical than the right wing fanatics that want to make it illegal tomorrow. It will take some time and a plan. I am absolutely against abortion except when it might endanger a womans life or if she was raped. Then she has the choice to save her own life. If I understand the pro-choice arguement that is what they want. In reality though the left wing fanatics want to preserve abortion as birth-control and that is wrong in my humble opinion.

  • 5 - Claire Robinson

    Oct 22, 2004 at 1:40 pm

    Yensid...I appreciate your convictions. You are wrong in your adamancy against abortion, but I still appreciate your opinion.

    As I have said before, one shouldn't "place" their vote on this issue. Any president which we elect isn't going to be able to stop it. The current President, although opposed to it, can't do anything about it. The other candidate is in complete favor of it.

    A fetus is not a human being until a certain point in gestation. And as a "potential human being", it does not have the rights of an existing, living, breathing human being.

    I appreciate your logical thinking. What you have said supports what I just said. I have to quarrel with you on the abortion stats. Abortions are not on the decline. They are on the upswing. You are right, legalized abortion does not encourage the problem. Illegal abortion is a heinous thing.

    But do NOT lay this at the feet of the current president. He has not wanted, for obvious reasons, to discuss this problem during election times. And you are RIGHT, but you undermine your own argument.

    Education is ABSOLUTELY the way. Sex education in schools, condoms being freely dispensed, But in truth and fact, the dispensing of condoms doesn't stop sex, it just stops UNSAFE sex...which we must take some comfort in.

    You are right, education is the key. I disagree with the permission thing, but it is a small cog in a bigger wheel.

    W does NOT have the power, as much as I love him, to stop abortion. It is with us, it will continue to be with us, and that is insufficient reason to withhold your vote from him. Vote against him on things he has control of....he can't stop abortion. Abortion is here to stay.

    While it might not be my particular choice, it is absolutely necessary for it is many women's ONLY choice. I support it completely. Women have a right to do what they choose with their bodies.

    I appreciate your blog, and your considered opinions.

    Claire

  • 6 - RedTard

    Oct 22, 2004 at 1:46 pm

    The Pro-Choice camp and the Kerry Democrats have no intention of ever limiting or banning any type of abortion. If you believe that they do, you are not using as much "logic" as you claim to possess.


  • 7 - Yensid Tlaw

    Oct 22, 2004 at 1:58 pm

    thanks for your comments and they are appreciated. I must clarify that I am not voting for Kerry on this one issue alone. I have many issues with Bush and I believe in the vision on John Kerry. My point is that a lot of people ARE voting for Bush on this one issue and as you state abortion will be around for some time. It is a waste of your vote if you don't look at the big picture how it relates to you and then make an educated decision about how that person will further your life for the better.

  • 8 - Yensid Tlaw

    Oct 22, 2004 at 2:02 pm

    Retard,

    If you read my column you would see that I really don't believe Kerry will pursue outlawing any type of abortion. As for Bush the reality is that he won't either. Kerry in my opinion will (in the grand scheme of things) as far as eduction, etc. (as mentioned above) will serve us better in reducing abortion as a whole.

  • 9 - Yensid Tlaw

    Oct 22, 2004 at 4:53 pm

    Claire, to address your concern over my stats:

    Abortions by year:

    1973: 744,000
    1990: 1,609,000
    2000: 1,313,000

    The population of our country has also increased during this time so yes, abortions are going down not up. Sorry to bust your bubble. FYI, your blog URL is whacked out on the blogcritics.com site link above your post.

  • 10 - Dawn

    Oct 22, 2004 at 5:42 pm

    I think it's "Redtard" not "retard" which is an entirely different thing altogether.

    Either way, glad you are voting for Kerry, as I don't think this country can handle another four years of Bush hell.

  • 11 - Big Time Patriot

    Oct 22, 2004 at 11:33 pm

    When Bush was asked in the last debate if he would select Supreme Court judges based on their views on overturning Roe V. Wade, George Bush said he would NOT apply a litmus test.

    Didn't you hear him? You can read the transcript. Yet people who are anti-abortion are voting for him precisely because they think he WILL apply such a litmus test.

    So anti-abortion people, voting for George Bush, are voting for him BECAUSE THEY THINK BUSH IS LYING.

    Just think about that for awhile, is that really a reason for someone who is anti-abortion to vote for someone? Because you have FAITH that a candidate IS lying when it comes to your most important voting issue?

  • 12 - bob2112

    Oct 23, 2004 at 6:51 am

    Bad economy=More Abortions

    Don't make the mistake of letting the mess in Iraq/Afganistan & who's watch we were under on 9/11 take precedence over the same old abortion issue, the gay marriage distraction, & the no one cared about the 40 year Tuskegee Syphillis experiment-now we give a fuck about the government spending tax dollars on the hope that a nameless frozen embryo may cure someone!

    Vote these stupid creeps, who failed us all, out of office, period!

  • 13 - brown_boognish

    Oct 23, 2004 at 1:07 pm

    You are a terrible writer.

  • 14 - Al Barger

    Oct 23, 2004 at 2:07 pm

    Yensid, this is a very thoughtful and well written essay. People often tend to be particularly prone to reactionary non-thinking on the topic of abortion, both pro and con.

    On the other hand, it seems like you're somewhat jumping through hoops to make excuses for Kerry because you would otherwise tend to favor his politics. Best I can tell, Kerry has never heard of an abortion he didn't like.

    However, on the third hand, I'd use the third hand to cut off the other hand before I'd use it to vote for this anti-American socialist dirtbag. So perhaps I don't have an entirely open heart towards assuming the best intentions from the guy.

    Just because he lies about everything else doesn't necessarily mean that he's lying about being religious and not believing in abortion.

  • 15 - Hal Pawluk

    Oct 23, 2004 at 4:38 pm

    Nicely reasoned, Al:

    this anti-American socialist dirtbag

    Glad to see you improving your skills.

  • 16 - bhw

    Oct 23, 2004 at 4:50 pm

    And then there's this:

    Best I can tell, Kerry has never heard of an abortion he didn't like.

    Best I can tell, Al will make a great politician, because he has already figured out how to turn truth into fiction and spin it in a catchy little phrase.

    Kerry votes against laws that would prevent women from getting abortions or that would allow the government undue intrusion into a woman's decision to have an abortion. Ironically, the LIBERTARIAN on this thread doesn't seem to like that -- I guess he'd rather have more government intrusion in the private matters of female citizens. Convenient, since those laws wouldn't affect him directly.

    I am sooooo tired of the juvenile complaint that people who believe in a woman's right to control her own body -- and want as few laws on the books as possible about that subject -- somehow like or enjoy abortion. It's just absurd and also shows how Al himself is prone to "reactionary non-thinking" on this topic.

  • 17 - Al Barger

    Oct 23, 2004 at 6:24 pm

    BHW! You might note that I am in fact pro-choice. I just have a short patience for people who carry on about how much they supposedly think abortion is so bad, while adamantly opposing even the most modest restrictions.

    There are plenty of people like me who support legal abortion, but are seriously troubled by it. I just don't think Kerry's one of us.

    It's not particularly that being pro-choice or pro-life are unacceptable choices. It's what I perceive as the dishonesty of someone like Kerry that annoys me.

    And thanks for praising my rhetorical skills.

  • 18 - Big Time Patriot

    Oct 23, 2004 at 7:20 pm

    Yeah, "perceived" dishonesty is bad, better vote for the "WMD" man...

  • 19 - bob2112

    Oct 24, 2004 at 5:18 am

    I rite about da kids! What the kids be abortion writes. Me angry. Vote jon edward. brown booginsh oprah now!

  • 20 - jack e. jett

    Oct 25, 2004 at 4:26 pm

    i attended the funeral of a very dear aunt over the weekend, in a small east texas town. i was even more saddened when the preacher started discussing abortion......at a funeral. my aunt was not a political lady at all and i found this really offensive.

    he stated that when people die and go to heaven..everyone is 33 years old because that is the age that adam was when god created him. therefore even babies will be 33. he then stated that all the aborted babies will be 33 years old and that the "aborters" will be burning in hell.

    i kept thinking i was in some robert duvall film.

    jack e. jett

  • 21 - bhw

    Oct 25, 2004 at 4:52 pm

    jack e., that's seriously fucked up.

  • 22 - Al Barger

    Oct 25, 2004 at 7:10 pm

    Yet if Jack E had gone up after the services and kicked this preacher in the nuts like he so richly deserved, they'd end up making it out that Jack was somehow the bad guy.

  • 23 - zlatzob

    Oct 29, 2004 at 2:59 am

    "There is no difference between a 4 month old fetus and a 20 month old baby except for their developmental status. Just like there is a difference between a one year old and a five year old. It doesn't mean that the 1 year old is less alive because he/she can't walk."

    Exactly the same argument I present to the "pro choice" people in Slovenia.
    I couldn't agree more.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs