Palin and Tebow: Future of pro-life?

I doubt these spokespersons have much pull with anyone who isn't already pro-life.

I prefer that the pro-life movement focus on influencing personal choices rather than imposing what should be a personal choice on everyone. I am politically "pro-choice" but personally I am invested in every parent and child feeling wanted, loved, and supported.

Let's get some good pro-family policies in place to help those who make difficult pro-live CHOICES tenable choices.

There is no "pro-life movement." There is an
Anti-Choice Movement, and one would hope that it would take more than Bristol Palin and Tim Telbow, though not necessarily anyone who can find Russia on a map.

This is ridiculous. PRO CHOICE means just that - choice. It's about women choosing to do what is best for them and their families. All the pro-life movement is about is anti-choice, about taking that choice away from women and their families and putting it in the hands of the law. Making the decision to have a baby is a VERY personal one. It's a multi-faceted decision, especially in the U.S. where there is so little support for mothers (there is no requirement for paid maternity leave; I work with women who have had to go back to work just a week after having a baby because they had a rent/mortgage to pay).

No woman ever wants to have an abortion. We sometimes chose to have abortions because we know the circumstances we are in are not right for a child or the children we already have. In addition, no woman can ever predict whether or not she will find herself in a situation where she will have to consider abortion. Rape, illness, unexpected financial circumstances, etc are not exactly things that we can plan for. I've known a lot of women who said that they were not strongly pro-choice until they found themselves in a situation where an abortion was necessary. Suddenly, the ability to make that choice was very precious.

Preserve choice and freedom.

The face of the pro-life movement needs a face-lift. Women do indeed lead the pro-life movement, but too often they are older women who won't give up control of something they started back in the 70s. It's time for new leadership---especially at National Right to Life Committee, the nation's largest pro-life group. The same "gang of 8" have led that group for three decades it seems! Pro-lifers are a diverse group and it's time for the world to see that rational, educated, compassionate, NORMAL people want to see the killing stop and women supported in their time of need.

"Ugh, how can they handle one thing after another? It looks like they got clobbered left and right."

Yes Bristol, you are white, wealthy and famous and people must really pity you and all your hardships. More playing the victim from the aristocracy. Get real. This is not the face of the typical woman or girl questioning whether to have an abortion or not.

I have no problem with the Palins and Tebows talking about how they CHOSE life. But they are wrong to assert that nobody else should get to make that choice.

The 'pro-life' movement needs to be more realistic. They're not going to be able to overturn Roe V Wade. They need to focus their efforts on offering real help to people facing the choice of whether or not to have an abortion.

Rhetoric slamming people for killing babies isn't going to change any minds, nor is forcing your moral values on others.

Solving the problem of unwanted babies began with Roe v. Wade. Want to stop abortions? Denying anyone the right to choose isn't the way to do it. Offer solutions. Access to birth control, education, resources for pregnant women who might not want the child (including adoption), all of these things will help. Attacking someone for considering abortion, which is a personal choice, will do nothing to help the situation or change anyone's mind.

The fact is, the pro-choice movement believes that WE HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AS INDIVIDUALS to "choose death" for another living human being. I wish those who were pro-choice would just be honest, not play the semantic game of "it's better off for the child" to be dead. It's the choice of life or death--not for oneself--but for another human. Sometimes the "best for them" (per STATS comments below) is to chose death for another.

Now, if this legal position doesn't scare the hell out of anyone who believes in protecting fundamental human rights, you are truly brain-dead.

Agree with a few writers, why Tebow? He plays football, will probably make millions and will never have to decide whether to have an abortion or not(except with his gf). Bristol, who flew all over the world with her mother while she campaigned. Sarah, who was seldom seen holding her baby(always seemed to be the young daughter holding the baby) are well off, political and not the brightest spokesperson. Why not pick an unemployed mom just getting by without family? And since it affects the mother(carrying the baby to term) they should have a choice. One of the leading groups is the catholic church and we all know about their past and belief.....It's ok for priests to molest young boys, just don't get caught. Oh, and let's not forget about those that kill/bomb an abortion clinics doctors in god's name and back right to lifers.... Just seems like odd bed fellows on the right to life movement.

I second all of the above discussion about choice: whether or not to have an abortion is an intensely personal one that legislation should not interfere with. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion; I am pro-choice and abhor the idea of an abortion - for myself. I don't pretend that I know what's better for another woman, and outlawing abortions means that we will go back to back-alley butchers and deaths.

I find it hypocritical of those who are pro-life (usually rich, white, and "moral") to turn around and advocate less government support for "welfare mothers" (often minority and poor). It is amazing to me that in a country that makes such a noise about family values, a framework of legislation more protective of parents is not in place.

On a different topic, those who are pro-life also often support the death penalty. "This baby needs to be born, but if he/she commits a capital offense, let's off him/her!" Please. At least the Catholic Church is consistent in that regard (not that I care for it much, but kudos).

I agree with the other posters here that the pro-life movement is nothing more than an anti-choice movement. Face facts, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Most Americans will not tolerate government intrusion in what is a very personal decision. Quit the sanctimoniousness. It has become so tiresome and has come to represent the anti-choice movement.

.
.
.

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

.
.
.
.

I think the zeal and fervor displayed by the commenters is admirable, but many aren't addressing the question. This is a necessary facelift for the "pro-life" movement. This helps move them away from the image of irrational zealots bent on violence. This makes them more palatable to a wider audience. The merits of "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" is another debate altogether.

I am wondering why this Pro-Life ad is allowed to air during the SuperBowl. It seems to me that liberal views on Pro-Choice and other issues have been refused in previous broadcasts.

That being said, I DO wish the press would stop buying into this 'Pro Life' sobriquet. Pro Choicers are not 'Anti Life'; these people should more correctly be labeled 'Anti Choice', as others have said.

When are the Anti-Choicers going to learn that this is not a public issue. Their hypocrisy stems from their support of Capital Punishment and killing foreign soldiers and citizens for 'just cause'. Murder is murder, if that is how you indeed define abortion.

Sarah and Bristol Pailin are welcome additions to the pro-life movement.

But as far as breathing "new life" into it...the pro-life movement is doing fine already. They enjoy the support of the majority of the American people and are poised to make sweeping changes to the current status-quo.

I find it fascinating how so many men(especially politicians) think/feel they need to chime in...The women should have the majority voice since it's their body. But here is a compromise. We make abortion illegal, however any woman who gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby, she has the choice of having the father castrated. Men seem to voice their opinion and are least affected. Perhaps if there were consequences, they might not think their opinion is most important on the subject.

Those who do not want to support choice need to put their money where their mouths are.

Let those who oppose choice pay for the care of the mother-to-be, rent, clothing, food, transportation, dcotors visits, sonagrams, vitamin pills, cost of delivery, cost of diapers, car seat, baby cloths, towels, baby bottles, baby blankets, towels, bibs, pediatric doctor visits, immunizations, and all else. Then, keep doing that for eighteen years for the child.

Anti-choice people should be willing to pay for the loss of "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" of another.

Many oppose the forced imposition of mandated health care - in the name of freedom. They don't want to have to pay for health insurance unless they want to.

Evidently, that freedom to live without imposed mandates does not apply to women who do not want to have a child.

More importantly, they presume to tell another human being how that person's body will be used. Just as the government cannot require me to donate a kidney to a dieing person, the government should not be able to require me to donate my womb.

It doesn't matter how young and handsome the pictures of those who are anti-choice, or emotional their personal stories. Until they are willing to assume responsibility for the child they force another woman to bear, they, and the rest of the anti-choice community, are cowards.

Cthulhu3: "It's the choice of life or death--not for oneself--but for another human." Yes, you're right. Sort of. I would say "another human to be."

You are going to tell a woman not to terminate her pregnancy (and I'm not going into the viability debate here or the extreme and marginal cases of late-term abortions) because you know better than she does. The bottom line is this for all the pro-legislation pro-lifers out there: YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER. You believe that a woman should bear the responsibility, with her life if need be, of a botched illegal abortion because she is somehow morally deficient. You believe that God "told" you to protect life (mother's life, anyone?), yet you do not want one red cent of your tax money going to support the child or his or her mother once he or she is born.

I will agree that we need to reduce the number of abortions in America, no question, but it's time to wake up and smell the coffee: it's not going to happen through your skewed vision of what is moral (read: no sex ed at all because it "encourages" kids to have sex - they don't need encouragement - or abstinence-only sex ed). Give out complete and scientifically accurate information to women, encourage them (I didn't say badger them) to keep their babies or give them up for adoption, but leave them the choice. If you don't, you'll have not only terminated pregnancies but also dead mothers on your hands.

Against abortion? Have a vasectomy.

To me the Palins are less the face of pro-life than they are examples of poor family planning. I would respect their anti-abortion messaging more if they also endorsed responsible sex ed for teenagers like Bristol and responsible family planning for older women like Sarah who are likely to bear children with Down Syndrome. But their rigorous avoidance of common sense led them to endorse the "abstinence (ignorance)-only" approach which CLEARLY DOESN'T WORK.

Why is it, Liberals believe they have the right to declare in a public forum the values they hold, but if conservatives like Tim Tebow wish to speak via a public forum the issue changes to intolerance, or freedom of choice?

Of course those who are Pro-Choice have the right to speak in the public forum. I also know the Constitution provides the exact same rights in the public forum for those of the persuasion of Tim Tebow and Sarah Palin.

"WE HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AS INDIVIDUALS to "choose death" for another living human being. I wish those who were pro-choice would just be honest"

why don't you be honest - a clump of fertilized cells that is completely dependent on its parasitic relationship within the body of the living human being it occupies and cannot live on its own is NOT a "living human being". Quit trying to impose your faulty reasoning and made-up definitions on the rest of us. Talk about "honesty" - sheesh...

Amelia45: Very well said.

It would be better for them to promote chastity, and if that is asking too much, safe, responsible sex. So Palin doesn't think she failed her daughter as a parent. First she failed to keep her daughter from conceiving a child without being married, then she callously paraded her daughter and the obviously unenthusiastic father for political ends and then cast the boy aside when he was no longer needed to keep up the facade for the family values crowd. She is a stone cold b, who is a user and a poser. Hopefully Scott Brown will dim her light. He seems to be the far lesser of two evils.

This is great for the "Pro-life" movement! Having wealthy white people extol the blessing of having children they can prance around in designer clothes makes me want to spend a whole day outside of a clinic spitting at the poor, minority, and/or rape/incest victims who can't see the light.

I often hear the slogan "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." I disagree. If men could get pregnant, there would never be an abortion. There would be mandatory paid paternity leave, all health insurance policies would cover prenatal care and nurse assistance for new dads, every workplace would have a day-care facility, and all corporations would have flexible work schedules for parents.

Instead of making the world - and especially the workplace - accommodate women and our children, however they are conceived and born, women have fallen for abortion as the solution to unwanted pregnancy. Instead of using our sexual and reproductive ability for power, we give it up.

Neither one will do anything to revamp the image of the pro-lifers because their ideology is based in ultra-conservative Christianity, which alienates anybody who considers themselves otherwise.

Furthermore, what are Palin's ideas on the death penalty? Or on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If one is truly pro-life then you have to be pro-life from conception until death which means no death penalty and no war.

Face facts, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.

Posted by: shewholives
*******************************************
Unfortunately, the right-wing zealots now in control on the Court are more than capable of overturning Roe Vs Wade and every other progressive-leaning decision of the court in the last 100 years. If they could come to a hair-brained decision like the one announced yesterday regarding campaign funding, those lying judicial activists are capable of anything.

May the National Catholic Reporter re-focus on changing the culture if it really wants to change lives by stopping abortion. The Pro-Life movement has been working on this effort for 37 years.

See, Sarah, Bristol and Tebow all had CHOICE. No one made them have an abortion. This is a wonderful thing and should make them all be Pro-Choice advocates. However, the Catholic Church has turned its followers into zombies. The Evangelicals have made it their cause to suck rational thinking from its adherents, with lock-step, zombie-like repetition of lies and phony social science. These Anti-Choice robots are also anti-democratic, anti-American and anti-reason storm troopers, no better than the Soviet-era thought police. These dangerous anti-Choice zealots will cause more desperation, more nightmares and more misery for the poor and downtrodden.

It angers me that abortion is even an issue to be debated in our modern society. With all the options for birth control the real choice is whether or not you even get pregnant.

It is selfish to terminate a pregnancy b/c it is 'unwanted'. Either get an IUD, get yourself on the pill, or face up to your responsibilities as a sexualy active human being and be prepared to become a parent.

If the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, or endangers the health of the mother and/or child, then that is another matter entirely and therein becomes a true 'choice'.

People are not able to be pragmatic when it comes to this issue. Everyone is so paralyzed by their opinions that they can't think rationally.

I just can't understand why every single woman who doesn't want to get pregnant can't have access to better birth control. It's maddening.

I think the most important word in the "In Touch" headline is CHOICE. If the Palin's truly believe that abortion is wrong, then they really did not have a choice.

Bristol Palin is a perfect poster child for the pro-life movement.

But how does that help the women that no one will ever make a poster of?

There is no "pro-life movement." There is an
Anti-Choice Movement, and one would hope that it would take more than Bristol Palin and Tim Telbow, though not necessarily anyone who can find Russia on a map.
Amen, Just we need phony self righteous hypocrites with no brains telling us what to do and Bristol as an example schtooping her boyfriend at 18 while mom was shooting wolves great example and that abstinence only worked well LOL

would of aborted sarah palin!
Posted by: rmk1122 | January 22, 2010 12:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If only we coould be so lucky

Groan- more sanctimonious, hypocrtical preaching from religious phonies who want to force their beliefs onto the rest of us.

If you don't agree with abortion, don't get one, but God doesn't need your ignorant preachy self-righteous behind to be his policeman. Worry about yourself, and let other people conduct their lives according to their beliefs, even if they are different from yours.

And quit projecting your fears of a cruel and vengeful God onto the rest us.

Is Bristol Palin a 'college student'? I wasn't aware. And is she a great example to our teens, having unprotected sex, a very public and ugly breakup with her boyfriend, and no evidence that she's reconsidered some of the CHOICES she made? I think not. But she'll make a pile of $$, along with that perky mom of hers.

We're Glad We Chose Life. Chose chose chose chose chose chose chose chose chose life. Glad she made the CHOICE.

I saw this in the supermarket, and nearly vomitted. palin has taken using your family as cheap political stage props to a new low, even for her.

And she is no doubt too stupid to realize what the headline in her little politically motived stunt means. She and her teenaged bim daughter HAD THE CHOICE to make. Not government. Not a bureaucrat. Not someone they never met. THEY got to make those very personal and difficult decisions. Of course, palin knows that she would make a better decision for you, or your daughter, or my daughter than we can make for ourselves about such a personal matter which is why she wants government to take away that choice. She is so slimy and gross it makes me spit up a little in my mouth just to see her face.

Doesn't anyone see the irony at all?

They "chose" life?! - Shouldn't it read "Glad we had the babies God gave us and we were just the vessels with no choice after conception?"

I could scream...

These hicks from the north will not move anyone outside the anti-choice movement to anything other than possibly retching in the checkout aisle.

I love it ... more white people trying to tell everyone else what to do.

Look at the faces of the rally today.

No brown or black faces.

And these people don't give a dime to D.C. restaurants. They'll take their buses and their boxed tuna hotdish home with them.

Perhaps they should protest somewhere else.

Like Gitmo.

Yeagh!

What is sad Is Sarah,Bristol, Tim are kinda like the Taliban believe what they believe or be dammed wow these right wing Christains are just plain looney tunes

ACTUAllY WORTH READING
------------------------------------------

Catholic bishops too powerful?

By Jon O'Brien
President, Catholics for Choice

It's rarely a pretty sight when the internal workings of the political process in Washington DC are held up to the light. But what has happened during the health care debate has been uglier than normal.

At the outset, a truce of sorts was declared. Pro-choice and anti-choice advocates had a tacit agreement that they would not use the debate over health care reform to further their own agendas. The agreement seemed to be holding until the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) decided it was not happy with the status quo and pressured Congress to further restrict access to abortion. Then, as the saying goes, all hell broke loose.

On many issues, including social justice, care for immigrants and the affordability of health coverage, the USCCB maintains sound positions. However, rather than using its political capital to ensure these issues were included in health care reform, the USCCB chose to hold the health care debate hostage over accessibility to abortion care for American women.

Hours before the House of Representatives was scheduled to hold a final vote on a health care bill that, according to the Democratic leadership, would not to include any last minute amendments, the USCCB's lobbyists swooped in and said they would not support any bill that did impose further restrictions on federal funding for abortion. Using a Catholic Democrat from Michigan, Representative Bart Stupak, to advance their cause, the bishops forced an anti-choice amendment to be added to the final bill. Rather than politely agreeing to disagree with the bishops and whipping members of the Democratic caucus to support the (pro-choice) party platform, the Democratic leadership caved and allowed an amendment that may severely impact the ability of many millions of women to purchase insurance coverage for a legal medical procedure.

As the day's negotiations stretched into the evening, we began to learn the full extent of the bishops' attempts to influence the debate. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick phoned Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from Rome to urge the inclusion of the Stupak anti-choice language. Another legislator was reportedly contacted by as many as three bishops. According to the Associated Press, Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley previously raised the matter with President Barack Obama while standing near the altar at Senator Edward Kennedy's funeral Mass in September. Before the vote and since, the bishops have sent letters to Congress and instructed parishes to drum up opposition to coverage for abortion. Their lobbyists were even allowed in closed-door sessions with the House Leadership on the day of the final House floor vote. In these meetings and conversations, the USCCB was threatening to bring the whole bill down unless their demands were met.

CONTINUED:

In the Senate, the bishops used a Methodist Senator from Nebraska, Ben Nelson. Originally, Senator Nelson maintained that the abortion language in the health-care bill was not a make-or-break factor in his vote. However, after pressure from the bishops, he hardened his stance on the abortion language, stating that he would not vote for a health-care bill unless the restrictions on insurance coverage for abortions were tightened. Senator Nelson even held up the submission of his amendment so that the bishops would have extra time to review its language before he brought it to the floor. Has the U.S. become a theocratic state?

Eventually, the Nelson amendment was voted down, 54 to 45, and compromise introduced by Senator Bob Casey was added to the bill, without the support of the bishops.

In a previous piece in On Faith, Sister Mary Ann Walsh noted correctly that serious problems are created when "the gamesmanship in Congress relates more to politics than health." Well, Congress is a political body but, as a representative of the USCCB, Sister Walsh should ensure that her own organization pays heed to that concern. In this process, the US bishops have been more focused on playing politics than the health and well-being of women.

In the politics-health dichotomy that Sr. Walsh suggests, an overwhelming majority of Americans stand on the side of health. After all, they know it is women, especially poor women, who will suffer most if the restrictions on abortion are increased in the final health care reform bill. Sr. Walsh laments an imagined outcome where doctors will be required to perform abortions over their personal objections to the procedure. Not a single voice in this debate is requesting this provision in health care reform. In reality, what the USCCB is demanding is a restriction of the rights of patients who know they need an abortion, and the rights of doctors who want to provide this legal medical procedure. This is hardly a respect for the conscience of patients and doctors that the USCCB purports to uphold. Again, it's politics trumping health care in the bishops' demands.

CONTINUED:

Sixty-four House Democrats did not stand on the side of women's health when they voted to include the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the bill. However, polling in the districts of four of those members who voted in favor of Stupak-Pitts showed that those members' votes did not reflect the views of the people who elected them. In Maine's 2nd (Michael Michaud), Ohio's 9th (Marcy Kaptur), Pennsylvania's 14th (Mike Doyle) and Texas' 16th (Silvestre Reyes) the results showed that combining those who either support direct federal coverage or private coverage that would be included in federal plans produce majorities that favor making abortion coverage available in a government-subsidized health insurance plan: Pennsylvania (69%), Maine (61%), Ohio (56%) and Texas (51%).

Allowing the bishops to wield power over Capitol Hill has proven dangerous this time, and it could prove dangerous again. Just imagine for a moment what health care will look like when the bishops are finished. There will be absolutely no access to abortion--even in cases of rape or incest. There will be no IVF. No contraception. No treatment for ectopic pregnancy or medical anomalies during pregnancy. No respect for your advance medical directives and no use of cures gained through embryonic stem-cell research. There will be nothing that doesn't meet the litmus tests prescribed by a small group of men who don't represent American Catholics, let alone the American people.

As the final negotiations take place on the health care reform bill, policymakers can consider the desires of the USCCB. However, they should only consider these desires alongside the opinions and needs of the American Catholics and the American people. If the policymakers, as well as the bishops, put politics aside for just a moment and considered the plight of many American citizens, I am confident that the need for women to access safe and affordable abortion would quickly be included in health care reform as was agreed when Congress began the debate. When the final bill reaches the president's desk, I hope it does.

Jon O'Brien is president of Catholics for Choice.

retard. its a retard. mother of retard. republican retard. first retard?

obamao clan will never be defeated by a retarded family.

Farnaz,

Then there's really no pro-choice movement, only an "anti-reponsibility" or "anti-accountability" movement.

Making the choice should be easy. Accept responsibility for our actions (like we do with most everything else) and ignore what is supposedly the quick and easy solution.

What is hard, sometimes, is accepting responsibility for our actions and living with the consequences.

What President put in place policies within the past 40 years that REDUCED abortions?

A: William Clinton

A pro-choice President who understood that offering alternatives to distressed women in difficult situations is what led more of them to CHOOSE LIFE.

Abortion rates spiked under the hyper-religious W Bush because he was all about taking away choices and sitting idle while the middle and lower class became more and more desperate every year. If you want the legacy of more abortions and more poverty then support a big business agenda and demand control over other people's bodies. It's a sure way to increase abortions.

The fact is, the pro-choice movement believes that WE HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AS INDIVIDUALS to "choose death" for another living human being. I wish those who were pro-choice would just be honest, not play the semantic game of "it's better off for the child" to be dead. It's the choice of life or death--not for oneself--but for another human. Sometimes the "best for them" (per STATS comments below) is to chose death for another.
Now, if this legal position doesn't scare the hell out of anyone who believes in protecting fundamental human rights, you are truly brain-dead.
Posted by: Cthulhu3 | January 22, 2010 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Wow you are quite scary if a fetus cannot live outside to womb it is not a life period use religion to rationalize all you want but it is NOT a life so there is no death or life debate and yes it is a choice if I had a 18 yr old daughter she they are now older but if they were that age and that stupid to get pregnant because there was no protection ( REALLY BRAIN DEAD) Then they need to choose whats best for them and at that age maybe better off not having and going through the circus or what it does to change your life at that age. AND AT LESS THEN 12 WEEKS EVEN LONGER NOT A LIFE

Both side use words to better frame their own arguements:

Pro-Lifers call Pro-Choice baby killers
and
Pro-Choicers call Pro-Lifers anti-choice

The whole arguement is pointless as the question about abortion is not the real question that should be asked.

The real question is:

Do you believe that a fetus is a living human being?

If you do... you are Pro-Life, because you believe all living things have a right to life.

If you do not believe its alive, then you believe a women can do whatever she wants with her body and are pro-choice

That is what the arguement is always really about. And the simple fact is that the two side can never reach a compromise because of this huge difference in understanding.

So stop name calling stop, and just agree to disagree. At some point in the future maybe we as a society decide that the fetus is alive, and abortion is illegal again, but until that super majority occurs it stays the same, and most likely will always.

I am not saying to not have the debate, or to try and convience a person to your side of the debate, but it does not mean the other side is dumb, stupid, or hypocrits, or liars. They just have a different point of view

LIDDG54 bloviates:

"the pro-choice movement believes that WE HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AS INDIVIDUALS to "choose death" for another living human being. I wish those who were pro-choice would just be honest, not play the semantic game"

Just who's playing the semantic game here? You want us to believe that a few fertilized cells dependent on a parasitic relationship with its actual "living human being" host's body is a real live "living human being".

Quit trying to force your delusions and special word definitions on the rest of us. You're the one who lacks honesty and is playing "semantic games" - get over your holier than thou self and quit lecturing others.

I wonder how many pro-life guys are delinquent on child-support payments. Pro-life folks SHOULD put their money where their mouths are. Set up a fund to pay for the needs of the unwanted children, or guarantee that they will be adopted by others. Yes, the black ones too. That is a pro-life policy I could be on-board with.

whoops- sorry LILDG54 - I thought you were saying that - I didn't realize until after I posted taht you were quoting someone else. (good idea to put quotes when posting whatever you are replying to) I totally agree with you - my point should have been addressed to Cthulhu3

GTCoker: The real question is:

Do you believe that a fetus is a living human being?

No, the real question is whether you believe your judgment is better than a woman's who is struggling with whether or not to have an abortion. THAT is the question.

See I disagree Claire...

See you only make that arguement if you believe the fetus is not living.

If you believe the fetus to be alive, you should fight for its right to live just as anyone else. And not allow anyone to take the life of another innocent human being.

Otherwise you could easily argue once the baby is born, if the mother cant handle it she could just kill the child... wait all the way up until she is an adult. Or you could choose to kill a aging parent because they have become a burdon upon you.

The simple fact is if you believe it to be alive, and have basic rights, then you have to be Pro-Life.

If you dont, it only makes sense to be pro-choice.

"Pro Life?" Who isn't "pro life?" I don't know anyone who isn't. I certainly know people who support a woman's right to control her reproductive life who oppose the death penalty, oppose wars, and whose lives are dedicated to improving the lives of those less fortunate than themselves. And I know people who are "pro life" who support the death penalty, urge us into war at every turn, and have never met a down trodden person worth helping.

"Pro life?" When are we going to have some honesty in this debate and call the two groups what they are: Pro Choice and Anti-Choice?

"I would respect their anti-abortion messaging more if they also endorsed responsible sex ed for teenagers like Bristol and responsible family planning for older women like Sarah who are likely to bear children with Down Syndrome."

So what IS responsible family planning for older women? Is artificial reproductive technology RESPONSIBLE when higher order multiples are conceived and born to the tune of millions of dollars of healthcare?

LIDDG54 bloviates:
"the pro-choice movement believes that WE HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AS INDIVIDUALS to "choose death" for another living human being. I wish those who were pro-choice would just be honest, not play the semantic game"
Just who's playing the semantic game here? You want us to believe that a few fertilized cells dependent on a parasitic relationship with its actual "living human being" host's body is a real live "living human being".
Quit trying to force your delusions and special word definitions on the rest of us. You're the one who lacks honesty and is playing "semantic games" - get over your holier than thou self and quit lecturing others.
Posted by: hohandy1 | January 22, 2010 1:08 PM

Excuse me who is holier than thou you are a frigin riot
real simple you want an abortion great you don't great but do not impose your backwards holier than thou views on me you self righteous phony bast*rd
My view it is a woman's body her choice find me a fetus that can survive on its own it cannot so not a life

GTCoker: oh, no, I do believe the fetus to be alive, but I also know it cannot survive without its mother and that it is not a human being (yet). My belief that it is alive, however, comes second to my belief that it is not up to me to judge or decide for a mother who decides to have an abortion, and that's where you and I differ. Would I rather she not have an abortion? Of course. Will I tell her that? No. It is her decision to make and it is not my place to interfere.

Careful, people...if you don't want government involved in your reproduction choices make sure you understand where your elected officials stand on prenatal testing. I'm seeing mandatory testing coming down the pike.

Intreging arguement claire, but I find that most pro-lifers that choose pro-life choose it because they believe the fetus to be alive, and that the right to life trumps all others. Its a human right, much more then the right to choose.

Personally I am pro-choice also, but I most of the time I can relate to and understand the Pro-Life arguement even if personally I disagree with it.

GTOKER:

You: If you believe the fetus to be alive, you should fight for its right to live just as anyone else. And not allow anyone to take the life of another innocent human being.

Me: I believe an ex-utero homo sapiens is a human being. This is a synthetic truth (Kant). And I believe it is up to all of us to fight for every human beings right to live.

I believe that in the US, where many who currently do not survive to to want of a kidney, compatible bone marrow, etc., legislation end this barbarity.

Therefore, I propose that all healthy boys and men be required to give bone marrow throughout their lives so long as they are healthy, and to be prepared to donate one kidney.

YOU: Otherwise you could easily argue once the baby is born, if the mother cant handle it she could just kill the child.

ME: Otherwise you could easily argue that a human being, easily helped, might just as well die, regardless of his/her age or potential. You could easily say a human life means nothing.

YOU: The simple fact is if you believe it to be alive, and have basic rights, then you have to be Pro-Life.

ME: You got me. I'm Pro-Life. I suppose we need to clue the Catholic Church in on this. Then write our senators, congressmen.

We'll have to take another census of all males in the US. I would imagine green card holders would be included.

I think it is helpful for the "anit-abortion" movement to have a "face-lift". I think that the pro-life movement has been seen as an issue only for older generations. I think having young people who have actually had to face the situation where they could have taken the easy way out can only help the pro-life movement. As another person posted, they may not change the minds of people who are stringent in their pro-choice views, but some may see that abortion isn't always the answer even if their situation is difficult. Bristol is fortunate enough to have a mother who is behind her and can help support her. But, that doesn't make her decision to keep the child any less difficult to make -- I would argue that her decision may have been more difficult. The extra pressure that she is under considering her mother's position would really complicate having a child. But she did so anyway. Anyone who has read the paper or watched the news in the last 2 years can see that she has been harped on for her decision and feedback has not been kind. I commend her for overcoming her particular situation with the decision to keep the child. It is interesting how so many don't want to hear about stories/situations that support the pro-life view but they sure want to be able to promote the pro-choice view. Both groups deserve to speak about it. Bottom line, I welcome the discussion and I am happy the the pro-life movement is bringing its views out into the open in a new way.

Pro-life people are mostly hypcrites.

Even to express a pro-choice opinion gets you called a baby-killer.

They are mean in spirit. They have no concern or care for anyone or anything, except the unborn.

After the baby is born, well then, it's good luck kid, you're on your own; we won't check back with you unless we need to try you as adult, give you a lethal injection, or use your body in a foreign war.

shewholives wrote:

Against abortion? Have a vasectomy.

__________________________

Are you saying you're a rabid feminist who thinks only men should be cut to take care of this problem? How about a tubal litigation or a hysterectomy?

I finally got a vasectomy after my ex-wife kept having abortions only for her convenience without telling me. I made a ton of money back then and could have easily supported five children but she kept murdering the without my permission or even talking to me about it. There was no medical necessity - only her selfishness (she was too lazy to use any form of contraception and I was willing to use condoms but she didn't like them). And, before you say it, I did help take care of the two children we had.

Your comment is as if it is only the man's responsibility.

nice language LILDC54 - you talk to your mother with that mouth?

I am impressed with the quality of the thoughts of the pro-choice commenters. They are in such contrast to the thoughtless comments of Palin and Tebow who fail to acknowledge the rights of those who might not share their religious convictions. The future of the world depends on more enlightened inhabitants for the survival of mankind.

areyousaying:

Are you saying you're a rabid feminist who thinks only men should be cut to take care of this problem? How about a tubal litigation or a hysterectomy?
---------------------------
A bit more involved than a vasectomy, no?

And she kept having abortions, did she? You, two, must have been very busy.

When did you have the time to make all that money you write about?

PS. I like how you begin your posts with your moniker. (Stylish)

Bumper sticker:
If you cannot trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

Someone tore it off and only the remnants remain on my rear window. :(

http://www.peaceproject.com/stickers/pcstickers.htm

Ohh I am not argueing one way or another Farna. I am just saying that their was justification on both sides. Their was a lot of hate early on and name calling, and I was trying to instead direct into a more civilized discourse, and you have some great points here. I was not saying that we should kill children, but was argueing that if you are willing to kill a fetus when you think its alive then you should be willing to kill almost anyone that is in a dependent situation. Which I do not believe, and was meant to be an obsurdity, which you agree with.

Now in reguards to your Bone-marrow arguement... I will have to think about that a bit more. That is an interesting question but not sure if iot fully parallels the abortion arguement.

GTCoker: I'm with you on that. You will see that I posted earlier that I abhor the idea of an abortion for myself because an abortion is terminating a life. To me, because this life is not "fully baked" (if you'll pardon the expression) or independent, then terminating it is not murder, but this termination has serious moral implications.

With that being said, I also believe very firmly that women who choose to have an abortion should be able to do so in a safe environment or we will return to pre-Roe back alley practices (when women don't try to make themselves abort alone). I also believe that it is not for me to judge a woman who makes that choice (although the Post had a piece several weeks ago about a woman who had fifteen abortions and claimed to be "addicted," and I was horrified).

This is why I believe that abortion is not about whether or not a fetus is alive (it is, but dependently so), but about whether some of us should have the right to negate a woman's right to choose.

GTCoker:

That is an interesting question but not sure if iot fully parallels the abortion arguement.
----------------------------
It's not an exact analogy, but it's close enough. ONe could surely argue that the life of a human being (outside of the womb) is AS valuable than a fetus.

More talk the talk but little walk the walk. We get to see a teenager who was either too lazy to use birth control or is a poster child for "ignorance only" sex ed and the crybaby football player who if he ever gets to play in the pros, will get something to cry about.
I agree, not going to persuade anyone who isn't already against reproductive rights. Might squeeze a few dollars out of those who really can't afford it but get suckered by the "saving babies" sales pitch. The anti-reproductive choice leaders must need some cash. And of course lady blah-blah and her daughter will be paid.

"We're so glad we chose life."

CHOSE
CHOSE
CHOSE

Notice the operative word here! What on earth are these two so insistent on taking this choice away from every other woman? If choosing to have their babies was what was best for them, I wish them well. May they be happy with their children. But please, for the love of all things holy and sacred, stop trying to take this choice away.

This is why I believe that abortion is not about whether or not a fetus is alive (it is, but dependently so), but about whether some of us should have the right to negate a woman's right to choose.

Posted by: clairemdc1
-----------------------------
I thank all extant Powers that I have never had to have an abortion, but, as you say, that is beside the point.

One thing that is on point is that the Catholic Church, "the bishops," of the article I posted have, in effect, legislated in the United States. What they have done is tantamount to establishment, and they did not do it alone. They were amply aided and abetted by right-wing Fundamentalist Christians.

That said, there should be a Special Prosecutor set up to investigate Sen. Ben Nelson and all others who caved in to the Religinists.

Further, nonprofit status for these institutions should be ended immediately. They are using our desperately needed money to interfere with the laws of this nation, to lobby, to organize marches, to propagandize, to harass the United Nations not to distribute condoms in AIDs ridden Africa.

These things they are doing with our taxpayer money in our time of economic distress.

They have no sense of decency, justice, principle. When they don't like a bill, they change it. They don't want to sell birth control, perform abortions, they legislate conscience clauses. There is a word for this: facism.

Thanks for making me almost want to throw up. Let's not forget that the Palins have money to take care of these children, especially the one with special needs. I think Bristol Palin is the poster girl for making bad choices and advertising them everywhere. She's a terrible role model-- giving young girls the impression that you can dump your stupid baby daddy and mommy's book advance money will help you live your life.

As for Tebow, yuck. Who cares.

Very few women get pregnant without the benefit of a sexual partner. Why not focus a great deal more attention on him?

Gentlemen, I have two phrases (four words) for you. Particularly those who are adamant about abortion being always wrong and want it illegal (again).

Superglue vasectomy. Completely reversible.

I'm strongly pro-choice (that means ALL choices) and believe that the "pro-life" movement needs an overhaul in leadership, tactics, and thinking. Consider the progress that could be made if instead of standing around with photoshopped fetus signs outside of clinics, these folks were pushing for maternity pay, flexible work hours for parents, affordable childcare/housing/transportation, and all of the other factors that play into a woman's decision to keep or end a pregnancy. The issue doesn't begin and end on the surgical table, at the Supreme Court, or in the legislative building. It's in women's day-to-day lives and the "pro-life" movement won't touch it.

I asked Joseph Schidler of the Illinois Right To Life Org. what his group does to support mothers who give birth to those "saved babies". He said, "nothing, that is the job of the mother. Once the baby is born, we do not feel we are responsible for anything that comes after". So, you must give birth to that fetus, but you are on your own, honey. This is the problem with these brainwashed, pseudo-Christians who preach, yell and scream "baby killers" at women who decide on abortion, yet clam up when asked to help poor, under-privileged teen girls and adult women with paying for the upbringing of that oh-so-important baby.
Funny thing, it is mostly older, white, under-educated Christian males who scream the loudest.

RCMann3 and Bruce19: Very well said.

How about starting with eliminating the "hit lists" of doctors who perform abortions? Not cheering when a nut job like Scott Roeder shoots a doctor IN A CHURCH! Allowing that sometimes abortion HAS to be an option in some cases? Providing financial support to those babies that you want to "save" AFTER they are born? Not wanting to completely ban abortion, even for rape, incest, life and health of the mother, or severe fetal abnormality? Not writing down the license plate numbers of clinic workers and clients, then calling them with anonymous death threats? Not setting bombs or vandalizing clinics?

Sensible people can disagree about abortion without resorting to violence and intimidation.

The real question is: "Do you believe that a fetus is a living human being"

----------------------

That is NOT the question because it DOESN'T matter what your definition of "life" is.

The ONLY thing that matters is your ability to understand responsibility. That's it. Period. End of story.

Nothing sacred here just another person born to unmarried parents, another illegitimate child, a bastard.

globalone

The ONLY thing that matters is your ability to understand responsibility.
-------------------------
Whose ability?

"The ONLY thing that matters is your ability to understand responsibility. That's it. Period. End of story."

And when a women does not believe that she has access to the resources (be that time, money, education, family stability and/or emotional stability) to become a parent, it may be her most responsible choice to have an abortion. Unless you're only equating responsibility to having a baby, which really just translates to "she deserves to be punished for her actions, and the proper punishment is a baby."

If Sarah Palin and Tim Tebow are the new face of the "pro-life" crowd than it won't be long before everyone in the world is pro-choice.

I just can't understand why every single woman who doesn't want to get pregnant can't have access to better birth control. It's maddening.
Posted by: kate19 | January 22, 2010 12:19
----------------------
Good point kate19, but the same folks that are anti-choice are also against birth control. For many in that movement, the goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade then make contraception difficult to obtain. They feel the use of contraception is interfering with god's plans.

"There is no "pro-life movement." There is an Anti-Choice Movement, and one would hope that it would take more than Bristol Palin and Tim Telbow, though not necessarily anyone who can find Russia on a map.Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1"

Okie Dokie: How about there is no "pro-choice" movement (what's with this "pro-choice" crap, deciding which flavor to order at Baskin-Robbins?) there is only a "pro-abortion-as-a-religion" movement.

There: that's better.

As for this:

"Sensible people can disagree about abortion without resorting to violence and intimidation. Posted by: Athena4 | January 22, 2010 2:10 PM "

I have been around every range of pro-lifers (from priests, nuns, rabbis, atheists, kids, adults, teen agers, Democrat, Republican, independent, white, black, hispanic, asian, you name it) for over thirty years and NEVER ONCE did I ever hear any of these people advocate harm or murder to anyone. Never: this is a myth encouraged if not goaded by pro-aborts.

Abortion is murder. Wome who abort their children are murders, and should get either life in prison or be executed by the state. Only when the law is changed to define abortion by mothers as murder will this enormous genocide of the unborn be stopped.

If Palin had aborted her son because of his mental defects, then she would be a murderer, too, and should be executed for murder.

funny how my Income tax forms seems to misstate when a child is born or is a child. If it were at conception, imagine how much money is due taxpayers, for my wife had a miscarriage(6 weeks in), and I have never received my dependent money. How would your right to lifers explain that one???? I can't wait, this should be good(just like OJ was innocent and Bill clinton not thinking he had sex).

Your comment is as if it is only the man's responsibility.
Posted by: areyousaying | January 22, 2010 1:35 PM
----------------------------
My comment "Against abortion?, Have a vasectomy" was not meant to imply that I view abortion as only a man's responsibility. My concern is that so many members of the anti-choice movement are men. Most of those men are more concerned with controlling women than are concerned about the unborn.

The issues you have with your wife, such as having abortions without your consent, has nothing to do with being pro-choice, but everything to do with your relationship with your wife.

(she was too lazy to use any form of contraception and I was willing to use condoms but she didn't like them). Posted by: areyousaying

You couldn't wear one without her permission?

"funny how my Income tax forms seems to misstate when a child is born or is a child. If it were at conception, imagine how much money is due taxpayers, for my wife had a miscarriage(6 weeks in), "

You bring up a good point, Larry - and my condolences to you and your wife on the death of your dream. But "pro-lifers" who want to treat a zygote/fetus as a "human life" with "rights" from the moment of conception miss a very important point - roughly 30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage (many times the woman didn't even know she was pregnant)through nobody's fault but nature. If we give "rights" to the zygote/fetus - then what happens when their is a miscarriage and that zygote/fetus "person's" rights have been violated? Will anyone who suffers a miscarriage then have to endure accusations, investigations, possible harassment and legal/civil liability for something that happens regularly in nature? It's one of those things where the religious right really is out to lunch and refusing to live in the real world.

nickthimmeschearthlinknet

Okie Dokie: How about there is no "pro-choice" movement (what's with this "pro-choice" crap, deciding which flavor to order at Baskin-Robbins?) there is only a "pro-abortion-as-a-religion" movement.

There: that's better.
--------------------------------
Okie Dokie: How about the Pro-Slavery for the Anti-Choicers? Yup, that's better. This isn't about keeping turtles pregnant.
It's about living human beings, women, whose bodies, the Pro-Slavers want to own.

Pro-Slavers.

Hmmm....Maybe Pregnancy Taliban.

Yup. That works.

Is this a joke? Did the Pro-Life side really think that showing a baby born to a teenage, immature, unmarried, unemployed, sexually promiscuous, irresponsible mom and a down syndrome baby for an older mother who already has 4-5 kids a blessing? For whom? Humans are not a species in danger of extinction. We are ruining this Earth by consuming all it's resources. Please - tell people to be more responsible instead of glorifying this kind of uneducated, backward, irresponsible behavior. Use condoms, and plan your life - you will then be both pro-choice and pro-life.

Pro-NaTaliban?

Jesus Jihadis?

Pro life is actually a true 'pro-choice'. Pro-death, hides under a pro-choice logo, they murdered babies. Terminology of pro-choice is cliche words, motive under that logo is pure evil. Hatres need 'No reason'.

Nazi-natalists?

A poster implied that the pro-choice movement is a carry-over from "older" women who "won't give up control of something they started back in the 70's." Perhaps we "older" women better remember when abortion was illegal. We remember back alley butchers, desperate women who hemorrhaged to death after botched procedures without medical expertise, the ruined lives of many who found their reproductive ability destroyed because of unqualified practitioners. Desperate women do desperate things. And, these desperate women were not primarily single women, but women with husbands and children. In 2010, abortion is legal. It should be between a woman and her doctor, and remain a medical procedure. Pro-choice means exactly that, a choice. It is a woman's body, a woman's choice. How dare anyone, a stranger, a lawmaker, whomever, believe they know a woman's circumstances better than she, and that they have a right to dictate what she must do. We must never regress to the back alley butcher ever again.

Palin is pro-death candidate.

Since you are here on this discussion board, you are a product of Pro-Life. Stop deceive yourself with pro-abortion or pro-choice stance. Probly the guilty consience made the pro-choice/abortion fight to make them 'look' legal in front of God...

jmardiwelch

We must never regress to the back alley butcher ever again.
---------------------------------
I was not part of that movement. However, I'm quite familiar with it, and grateful to every woman who struggled for Women's Rights in this country.

I am among young women every day. They cannot imagine that these rights could be taken from them. They have not lived through what you have.

When they discover what occurred, bleeding to death, for example, suicide, what their sisters, and they were our sisters, went through, they become enraged.

It's very important that they know, that they be aware that reactionaries are trying to turn back the clock on them and on many other people.

Many are unaware of the RCC and the Fundamentalist agenda, what they have already succeeded in doing to women and to gays.

They are horrified.

Pro-choice means exactly that, a choice. It is a woman's body, a woman's choice. How dare anyone, a stranger, a lawmaker, whomever, believe they know a woman's circumstances better than she, and that they have a right to dictate what she must do.
--------------------------------
You have this choice before you were born, did you choose to terminate yourself when you were in your mother's womb? Or did you have a choice to live?

Never: this is a myth encouraged if not goaded by pro-aborts.

Posted by: nickthimmeschearthlinknet |
----------------------------------------
WRONG. It's only you Nazi-Natals that want to see women bleeding to death from the mess made by butchers.

Yup, it's only the nazi-natals

If pro-lifers want more women to choose 'life', they should focus on making sure women can do that by making healthcare available to everyone who needs it, by offering women (and men) real maternity leave, and by significantly raising quality and significantly decreasing cost of daycare. But what would the Palin women know about any of this?

that's awesome - the poster children are a dude that has had major head injuries playing one of the more barbaric sports in the world and a teen-aged, whornicating mom holding a bastard child! keep it up!
focus on your own families!
stopping overpopulation and using birth control are what these people need to choose, not life!

hoangalexis hypocritically bloviates:

"they murdered babies. Terminology of pro-choice is cliche words"

Using terminology that equates a born baby with a bunch of fertilized eggs that constitutes nothing more than a zygote and then a fetus is pretty much "cliche words". You wanna talk about the meaning of words before you go accusing others of "murdering babies"?

It is a woman's body, a woman's choice.
-------------------------

It is indeed. Your body, your choice. Your mother respected your choice therefore you have life. Why have you betray your own fundamental?

fertilized eggs
----------------------
Didn't know we are all 'fertilized eggs'. Is this a new terminology? However you want to define it. It's a baby! Call these babies whatever you may. It will not change these babies to eggs... sorry

haha Hoangelexis - the substance of your replies shows how you take this stuff really seriously. The fertilized eggs are a zygote and then later in development a fetus - sorry if those words are too big for you. Something isn't a "baby" until after it is "born" - you are familiar with that concept, aren't you? it's the legal bright line of when the fetus actually becomes a "baby". Likening aborting a 2 week mass of fertilized eggs that is a zygote to actually killing a baby that has actually gestated and been born is the height of creating your own very special reality. But just because you insist on your own made-up reality, don't expect that to define the rights of others.

Abortion wasn't created with Roe v Wade. It has always been and always will be.For thousands of years women have terminated unwanted pregnancies, but most of the women who attempted to do so died, but they still tried. That should tell you something. Anti-choicers should devote their time and energy to a new cause because whether or not Roe v Wade remains the law of the land, there will always be abortion. Get over it. Focus your energy on helping all the poor unwanted children you want brought into the world. Oh wait, you're actually against that. It's a no win situation with you crazies.

sorry if those words are too big for you.
--------------------
Yes, these 'words' are big for sure. But that was only it, words.
Babies are babies. However big the words you defined it. It's was only reference. The value of these words are: "Babies"

"Yes, these 'words' are big for sure. But that was only it, words."

Funny Hoangalexis, you're the one up above sputtering about the "cliches" of "choice" while substituting your own words for what is actual reality and then hiding behind your own special definitions of words. Talk to any doctor - what is in the womb at 2 weeks, 2 months, or even 8 months is most definitely NOT a "baby" regardless of what you personally want to call it. Don't expect the rest of us to go along with your delusions and fantasies.

Kate: "It is selfish to terminate a pregnancy b/c it is 'unwanted'. Either get an IUD, get yourself on the pill, or face up to your responsibilities as a sexualy active human being and be prepared to become a parent."

IUD's, BCP's, condoms, etc. are not perfect. They can and do fail. The risk of an ectopic pregnancy is greater with IUD use, and any other medication that you take that affects the digestive tract (antacids, calcium supplements, antibiotics, etc.) can affect the absorption of BCP's, resulting in less than the full dose being metabolized, and allowing ovulation and conception to occur. Condoms can break, diaphragms can slip, some sperm may survive being doused with spermicide. It only takes one of the little buggers.
Women who ARE taking responsibility for their own sex lives can still find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Being pregnant is not a good reason to have a baby you don't want.

ah the abortion argument once again. One of my favorites!

As I see it, limiting the number of abortions in America takes a two pronged approach.

First the "retail" approach which requires us to convince individuals of the rightness of our position. This can be a tough sell and that is why the abortionists don't bother. They just have to influence nine men in black or a handful of legislators and they've "won".

next is the legislative approach. Since I believe that abortion is as fundamentally wrong as murder I support those organizations that are actively seeking to elect legislators who will do something to overturn Roe V Wade.
Another aspect of the legislative prong of this effort is the funding issue. We must insure that no tax dollars are used to fund abortions. Teh abortionists are clever at circumventing our efforts so we must remain vigilant.

to the blow hards here who insist that abortion is solely the women's choice, I simply don't agree. There are three parties to the decision: The mother, the father and the child. since the child cannot speak for itself, I will raise my voice on behalf of the unborn.

I Look forward to the heaps of vituperation that the intolerant left will throw my way. I wear in the insults like badges of honor. I know that the abortionists are wrong and that my position is right.

Skipsailing28 shows his tolerance: " Look forward to the heaps of vituperation that the intolerant left will throw my way. I wear in the insults like badges of honor.I know that the abortionists are wrong and that my position is right."

Yes - that tolerance thing is totally a two-way street. If you can't be tolerant of others, don't expect toleration in return - but then don't point the finger either, unless you are equally willing to point it at yourself.

Talk to any doctor - what is in the womb at 2 weeks, 2 months, or even 8 months is most definitely NOT a "baby"
---------------------
I am an obstetrician! Who are you fooling?

Kate: "It is selfish to terminate a pregnancy b/c it is 'unwanted'. Either get an IUD, get yourself on the pill, or face up to your responsibilities as a sexualy active human being and be prepared to become a parent."

I see that men are significant only by their absence. They have a responsibility to corral their semen too. Condoms aren't perfect, but they are useful. But I really want to know if the super glue vasectomy has taken hold (ha).

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/sex-science-and-superglue-718082.html

Ahh. More information. 500 000 chemical vas occlusions have been performed using a carbolic acidcyanoacrylate
glue (in China).

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120149313/PDFSTART

hoangalexis:

Talk to any doctor - what is in the womb at 2 weeks, 2 months, or even 8 months is most definitely NOT a "baby"
---------------------
I am an obstetrician! Who are you fooling?
=========================
Your wealth of medical knowledge is evident from your comment. I, myself, am a neurosurgeon, part-time Olympic swimmer, and Nasa space pilot (weekends only).

this is what i don't understand - if this is such a moral issue, why do the proponents of "pro-life" constantly feel the need to lie and be dishonest? It's like "the ends justifies the means", but the "means" really does show their true colors.

Hey Farnaz, if you were a man, I'd ask you if we could hang out sometime. Oh, wait, I'm married already. ;-)

"I have been around every range of pro-lifers (from priests, nuns, rabbis, atheists, kids, adults, teen agers, Democrat, Republican, independent, white, black, hispanic, asian, you name it) for over thirty years and NEVER ONCE did I ever hear any of these people advocate harm or murder to anyone. Never: this is a myth encouraged if not goaded by pro-aborts."

Refer to the post below yours, in which the poster advocates the death penalty for women who have abortions. Other than that, you obviously haven't been hanging around the fronts of clinics lately. Or reading these boards when Dr. Tiller was killed.

BTW, it's not just "women who don't take responsibility" (a.k.a. "s1uts") who have abortions. Sometimes women who DO want a child, and have severe complications have to have abortions, too. Can you imagine having to abort your wanted child, while a bunch of screaming protesters call you a baby-killer?

Also, you would be surprised at the number of those clinic protesters who take their daughters inside the clinics when their abstinence-only education fails them.

"There are three parties to the decision: The mother, the father and the child. since the child cannot speak for itself, I will raise my voice on behalf of the unborn."

Who says that the mother and the father want you in their business? What if it was you and your partner that had to make that decision? Would you want a stranger coming in to "speak for the unborn"?

Does our opinion serve in deciding if I have blocked coronary arteries or a carcinoma? Does the judge care how I felt when I pulled a parking meter out of the ground and beat a double-parker to death? Does NASA care that a number of Americans believe no one has landed on the moon or that the world is (still) flat. Should those who deny global warming prevent us from taking some measures to protect ourselves? Of course not.

And it matters not one whit what a woman believes or "feels" about the child within her womb at any stage of pregnancy Seeking out an abortionist to take that child's life is murder. And that woman will have to live with that the rest of her life.

Abortion is always murder. Anyone's feeling or opinion, or menstrual psychosis not withstanding, abortion is always murder. Period.

"There are three parties to the decision: The mother, the father and the child. since the child cannot speak for itself, I will raise my voice on behalf of the unborn"

actually, according to the law - and that's what counts here, doesn't it? - the Roe v. Wade framework (how many 'pro-life' types have even bothered to read Roe v Wade, anyway?) the parties are mother and the state. Legally, a child - nevermind a fetus which hasn't even been born yet - has no legal standing to represent itself. Therefore, after the beginning of the 2d trimester, the state may intervene on the behalf of the child - on a sliding scale, the earlier in the pregnancy before the zygote/fetus has developed, the mother's rights are paramount - as the pregnancy progresses and the zygote/fetus develops further, the interests of the state in protecting the fetus become equal to, and then in the third trimester, surpasses that of the woman so that the state may ban 3 trimester abortions except for exceptions of the life and health of the mother, which should always predominate.

The fact of the matter is, for those who actually are interested in and follow the law and the constitutional and legal arguments, rather than just spouting off in sense of self-righteousness mixed with the need to control women, it is most surely not the case that "since the child cannot speak for itself, I will raise my voice on behalf of the unborn". The interests of the fetus are being considered and represented - they don't need any ignorant self-righteous individuals appointing themselves as "morality police".

For those "pro-life" types who have never bothered to read Roe v. Wade - read it - see how the Supreme Court reached it's decision and what they condsidered and why and how Roe v Wade is actually a HUGE compromise where the Supreme Court tried to weigh and balance the needs and interests and "rights" of everybody involved. Then at least you can base your arguments on actual legalities that apply to ALL Americans rather than just the religious beliefs of some.

in reply to:
"Who says that the mother and the father want you in their business? What if it was you and your partner that had to make that decision? Would you want a stranger coming in to "speak for the unborn"?"

Let me just say a couple of things: we have laws in our land to insure civility. We agree to abide by these laws or suffer the consequences. By your "logic" it is none of my business if someone drives recklessly on the highway even if it threatens me. That makes no sense.

As another example, I may not be party to a domestic dispute that results in a murder, but the state will prosecute the perpetrator.

The basis of Roe V wade is a mythical construct of "privacy" which posits that no one has a right to interfere with the decisions a mother makes with her physician. Again, not so. I believe that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn child. It is a citizen, just like the victim in a murder.

And spare me the 'mass of tissue" nonsense. I simply see things differently. The abortionists see a choice of convenience. I see a miracle.

Abortion is always murder. Anyone's feeling or opinion, or menstrual psychosis not withstanding, abortion is always murder. Period.

Posted by: rossacpa
==========================
Murder is standing by and watching a child who needs a bone marrow transplant not get it, by your "logic," far more so.

Or not donating a kidney, when you can. I think many of my Pro-choice sisters and brothers would reconsider if all men (citizens and green card holders) were required to register for bone marrow transplants, and have them say, every four months as needed.

The kidney donation would be a one-shot deal.

In addition, I think we would require, but I'd have to check, that all anti-choicers be required to pay a percentage of their earnings toward the support of children whom of financially desperate women and men, who would otherwise have terminated the pregnancy.

That's the deal, Ross. Take it, or keep it in your pants at one end, and keep it shut at the other.

In other news today, Bristol Palin filed a demand with the Court, to require the alleged father, to pay a couple thou a month to support her child.

In other words she is relying upon the judicial bureacracy funded by taxpayer dollars to subsidize her poor planning and strong arm the young man she is pointing to, to give her cash.

Will someone explain to me how this is consistent with the Republican philosophy?

so do you have a ho handy? Just askin is all.

I disagree, Roe V wade doesn't resolve the issue of the nature of the fetus, that's why the debate rages on in America. Roe V Wade is based on a mythical right to privacy. I think that your entire argument rests on an incorrect understanding of the decision.

I don't see the need for the insults you hurl, but I recongize the pattern. Your words are pretty much in keeping with the tone and tenor of the abortionists in America. Such anger and hatred must take its toll on people like you. Why do you have so much venom for people who hold opposing points of view?

Your mention of control is amusing. As I noted civility requires that we agree to abide by certain laws, norms, customs, etc. These are necessarily restrictions on people's choices. Without them we'd have anarchy. If we could drive as we please, terminate the life of people we find inconvenient or help myself to their possessions we'd be living in barbarity. So spare me the crapola about "control". it is just more of the abortionists showing their lack of civility.

In other news today, Bristol Palin filed a demand with the Court, to require the alleged father, to pay a couple thou a month to support her child.

In other words she is relying upon the judicial bureacracy funded by taxpayer dollars to subsidize her poor planning and strong arm the young man she is pointing to, to give her cash.

Will someone explain to me how this is consistent with the Republican philosophy?

They will certainly be new identifiable faces for the Right-to-Life folks. Although they do not typify young, poor single people who have to grapple with the financial obligations of not aborting a baby, they do represent another group. Over the years I've heard of many extremely financially well-off women getting abortions because it was embarrassing or inconvenient to keep the baby. I guess Bristol Palin and the football player do sort of represent that group. As much as I dislike Sarah Palin, good for her--showing that it's OK for teen daughters of wealthy, powerful parents to keep the babies that they have out of wedlock.

clairemdc1
Hey Farnaz, if you were a man, I'd ask you if we could hang out sometime. Oh, wait, I'm married already. ;-)
===========================
Hi Claire,

I'm afraid I am too! What you posted earlier is terribly important. Very young women today cannot imagine being without choice, do not know what it was like before.

When they research it, they almost go into a kind of culture shock. I require that they look at archived newspapers, broadcasts, etc. Some, in their papers, have, in fact, used words like "fascism," "woman-hating," "misogynistic," etc.

Most of them are Christian, Lutheran and Roman Catholic, at least, in background. (Many of the Catholic students have pretty much lost faith in the Church at this point.) Regardless of the current state of their observance, when they discover the lobbying efforts of clergy, etc., they are almost sickened. I see this when they give their oral presentations.

I wish clergy could see what I do. I don't know if it would matter to them, but they ought to know the sense of betrayal they are engendering, and not only among young women.

They owe a great deal to you and to everyone else who struggled for Women's Rights in the US. So do I.

"so do you have a ho handy?"

you're a piece of work dude - you have no respect for others you deserve none yourself.

yo, farnaz, we already do fund the results of pregnancies. Been to the 'hood lately? Who the h word do you think is using food stamps and living in section 8 rentals? Where you been boy?

Oh wait, maybe you don't pay taxes. That would explain your demand for even more of my money.

Just a couple of questions farnaz: why are 60% of America's black children born to young single women?

Next question: how many more people would there be in America if there was no legal access to abortion?

If you want to social engineer and bloviate pal, why not look unflinchingly at what your politic philosophy has accomplished so far: the destruction of the family, the perpetual dependence on welfare, the full prisons, the young men and women will simply emulate their moms and lead lives far, far less than thier true potential.

that's the result of liberalism in America farnaz. If I thought what you guys proposed would work I would support it. I live in the 'hood son. I see the results of your sanctimonious moralizing.

No thanks.

Prevention of unwanted pregnancy is very much needed, not only in school, but some ways is to be found to reach people not in school. Unwanted pregnancy is often a tragedy. Also the Chatholic Church and other Churches should do more to teach the prevention of unwanted pregnancy beside abstinence. Barrier contraception don't kill.

When I see the party of inflexible old white men and well-coiffed white women help feed and educate the children of poor women, then I might believe their rhetoric.

Until then, it's obvious the Palins of America choose life...until after birth, and then buddy, you're on your own.

Farnaz:

I think you and I have discussed this old saw before. I have friends in the pro-life or religious communities that have voluntarily done each of the thinks you mention. I would advise you that repeat bone marrow transplants need more medical education than either you or I have. And we do even more through our corporate works of charity.

But as you already know, seeking to compel others to voluntary mitzpahs has been rejected time after time in the Angle-American judicial system. On the moral plane, just as a father cannot abandon the care of his own children when the care of someone else's is strictly voluntary, so a woman can never kill her unborn child, just because no one else will care for it.

And I have greater hope than ever that the Roberts USSCt may legally return us to those days soon.

...This is a necessary facelift for the "pro-life" movement. This helps move them away from the image of irrational zealots bent on violence. This makes them more palatable to a wider audience....Posted by: Tigobay1

Snort! Sarah Palin isn't an irrational zealot??? You are joking, aren't you?

To rossacpa

Countries where abortion is illegal have higher abortion rates than countries where it is legal. So you don't care if women have illegal abortions or die from them? Or that rich women will always be able to skirt the law and have abortions whenever they want?

Abortion is an issue that goes way beyond Roe v. Wade and until the religious communities and anti-choice people like yourself realize that you'll waste your life worrying about what other people do with their bodies.

wider audience = rich and white

skipsailing28:

Just a couple of questions farnaz: why are 60% of America's black children born to young single women?
--------------
First of all, Dear, I'm neither a sociologist nor a health care professional and, therefore, have no way of knowing whether your "statistic," is correct, vague and imprecise as it is.

However, I would recommend to Your Sweetness, "And the Poor Get Children," by the brilliant Lee Rainwater, a study that concerns not-so-young white women, most of them married.

Start there. Then, if you have access to an academic library, you might want to flesh out your "demographics," to begin with.

YOU: Who the h word do you think is using food stamps and living in section 8 rentals? Where you been boy?

ME: For awhile, I worked mainly in the five boroughs of New York City. There, I had students living in Section 8 housing. Young women had to leave COLLEGE an hour and a half before dark, since bullets fly at night. (I pay taxes. Where were the cops?)

Food stamps helped, but never enough. There was no way out. Mothers couldn't work much, or they'd lose their section 8. Meanwhile, they barely got by. The same holds true now. And the cops still don't show up until after the shooting has stopped.

I've been in these projects many times. They are a blight on humanity.

And, I'm neither black nor a man. I don't know what your point is. Poor young women who can't afford abortions, or who have been brainwashed by the church have children. They're warehoused in Secion 8.

Their children often grow up with disabilities and end up in jail. On that there are statistics.

How does that help Conservatives? 'Cuz, friend, I work for a living, and it doesn't help me, idiotic liberal, though I surely am.

"Just a couple of questions farnaz: why are 60% of America's black children born to young single women?"

Lack of access to contraception, cultural norms, and the abnormally-high incarceration rates of young Black men might have something to do with it. So does the lack of meaningful jobs, and a culture that looks down on staying in school and getting good grades as "acting white".

"Next question: how many more people would there be in America if there was no legal access to abortion?"

You say this like it's a bad thing. We have too many people in this country already. And in this world, for that matter. More of your money would be taken up for taxes to pay for Section 8 housing, food stamps, education, prisons, Medicaid, foster care, etc. than there already are. Or heck, let's just throw 'em all into orphanages and rent them out as cheap labor, like they did in the "Good Old Days".

RossaCPA

But as you already know, seeking to compel others to voluntary mitzpahs has been rejected time after time in the Angle-American judicial system. On the moral plane, just as a father cannot abandon the care of his own children when the care of someone else's is strictly voluntary, so a woman can never kill her unborn child, just because no one else will care for it.
--------------------
Ross,

I'm not referring to anything voluntary. Let me repeat. If you and your co-anti-choice men want to force women to become pregnant, in the interest of a born fetus, the very least you should do, in fact, you should first, demand legislation, REQUIRING
bone marrow transplant availability several times a year, kidney donation (once per lifetime), regular blood donations, etc.

And of course, additional taxes to be paid by you in the interest of supporting the children of financially strapped parents.

That should come first. The living and breathing come first.

Then we can discuss fetuses.

"On the moral plane, just as a father cannot abandon the care of his own children when the care of someone else's is strictly voluntary, so a woman can never kill her unborn child, just because no one else will care for it."

What color is the sky in your world? Are you living on Pandora or something? Because men abandon their own children all of the time! If they didn't, Jerry Springer would be out of business. :D And women DO abandon babies - for someone else to take care of, or not. If people make abortion illegal, you'll have more abandoned babies.

Ross:

"On the moral plane, just as a father cannot abandon the care of his own children when the care of someone else's is strictly voluntary, so a woman can never kill her unborn child, just because no one else will care for it."
=================
Ross, morally, men cannot, but they do. All the time. They disappear. They conceal their income.

You are talking about WOMEN, all you men. Sorta like whites talkin' bout what t'do about all them BLACK bodies out there.

The anti-choice crowd should be careful what they ask for.

If it is determined a zygote/fetus is a child with all the rights of a birthed citizen, then women can be held liable for any harm they do to that person.

Driving, working, walking on slippery or uneven surfaces, eating fatty foods, not exercising, too much exercising, etc. The anti-choice supporters should read The Handmaid's Tale.

LillyP said: "until the religious communities and anti-choice people like yourself realize that you'll waste your life worrying about what other people do with their bodies."

That presumes that everyone who marched today, plus others, are involved in only one dimension of the pro-life work. Today day is both our day of grieving for all the children that have died, and a celebration of out hope that no evil lasts forever. It is our little Easter proclamation that all life is all good all the time.

The other 364 days we do our daily work, whether it be defending the right to present our cause in the public square; helping mothers who decide to keep their babies financially, psychologically, spiritually, etc,; and providing post-abortion counseling services. Many of us do more generic work, or exercise ministries that overlap the prolife ministry.

We do not just march on 1/22, a single anniversary. We work for life the rest of the year. And we spend a good part of each 1/22 praying for the day when we will no longer have to march on 1/22.

rossacpa:

Ross, I honestly get the feeling you are a decent person. But you are so terribly blind, have seen so little of the horror of unwanted children.

I've seen Catholic children--eighteen-year-olds give birth. I recall this well. It occurred several times a year at one of the foremost Jesuit Universities in the United States.

These women were invariably poor, scholarship students, Latinas, devout. Nothing anyone could say would dissuade them.

A year later, after the "marriage" (and they often did marry the fathers, who were, of course, also children), had ended, they would frankly say, "I'm nineteen, and my life is over. I'm nineteen and I don't want my baby's life to be over."

What you are doing is so wrong, so very wrong. And in other communities, the fathers simply disappear.

No one wants an abortion. I've read essays written on the subject by students who had them. They had to. Their was no choice. They don't recover from them.

I accompanied a friend who went to have an abortion. I nearly passed out, myself, in the waiting room.

She and her husband, who was suddenly discharged to Iraq, had taken every precaution.

Nothing is foolproof. Thank God there were no demonstrators. I think I would have killed them.

Athena: All fifty states and the federal government have a compact that attaches the wages and governmental payments of dead-beat fathers, even in those cases where visitation rights are routinely violated. While every system has its kinks, and many fathers are out of work because of the economy, the system, in the main, works!

This is another excuse for women not taking responsibility for their own decisions -- unless you want to claim that you were all raped every time you got pregnant. And here's another aspect of responsibility -- get some education and a job so you don't need to depend on the fathers.

You're adults -- it's time to put on your big girl panties. You are literally demanding a right to commit infanticide, rather than take responsibility for your own behavior.

All the arguing will not dispute the fact that every abortion or spontaneous miscarriage is the death of a child at whatever age or stage. Those who choose to pay someone to kill a child because it's inconvenient to have the child should also be given the 'choice' of method they wish dispose of their child. Perhaps a saline solution which burns the child to death in the womb is a more 'humane' choice? What about the cutterage method that reduces the child to pieces which are then vacumed out and disposed of humanely in the room's discreet garbage can? Then there's the partial birth option -the child is partially 'born' but the head remains inside the birth canal, where the baby is turned over, and the child's neck is severed at the back? Should the mother contemplate funeral services, since in this case the child would be almost full term? In such a case, shouldn't she have the choice to consent where her child is sent after the operation - a stem cell research center, cosmetic research group, or to an organ donation harvesting company? These are only a few options when contemplating an abortion that any mother should seriously have the choice to consider as she would in undergoing any surgery. However, it's so much easier to just hand over a cheque and in a couple of hours, walk out of a facility after an abortion free as a bird - until the next time.

Sunnygirl1,

As opposed to growing up and being killed later by their parents? Have you read the stories lately of these people killing their kids? Funny i never see any pro-lifers around any of those courthouses.

ROSS:

Athena: All fifty states and the federal government have a compact that attaches the wages and governmental payments of dead-beat fathers, even in those cases where visitation rights are routinely violated. While every system has its kinks, and many fathers are out of work because of the economy, the system, in the main, works!

This is another excuse for women not taking responsibility for their own decisions -- unless you want to claim that you were all raped every time you got pregnant. And here's another aspect of responsibility -- get some education and a job so you don't need to depend on the fathers.

You're adults -- it's time to put on your big girl panties. You are literally demanding a right to commit infanticide, rather than take responsibility for your own behavior.
=====================
Ross, Dear, shouldn't men be keeping it in their pants?

As for my friend, she was thirty-four when she became pregnant. She cannot take birth control pills or wear an IUD. That left and her husband with condoms. Not good enough for her.

She also used foam and a diaphragm. She went insane when she took her home pregnancy test, went to the GYN, who went through this with her over and over.

Sh*T happens. Condoms slip. Foam is less than 90% effective. Diaphragms move.

Ross, take a Sex Education class.

But, you know what? All you've shown me is that no discussion is possible with anti-choicers.

So long as women work, and support old white guys like you who live off social security, our voice will count. Bet on it.

Farnaz:

I was my unmarried mother's 2nd son by her brother-in-law. I was born when she was age 16. I was placed for adoption despite having traumatic brain injury due to forceps and anoxia. So you are right: I see hard luck stories for what they are: excuses for not taking personal responsibility. (If you don't believe the bio, I wouldn't either, except I know me.)

So my motto remains: All life is all good all the time, but a sense of humor helps.

Good night all.

"We're glad we chose life." So choosing life brought us Tripp and Tim Tebow. And abortions have cost us others who could have contributed so much. But then again, how many mass murderers have abortions saved us from?

You are talking about WOMEN, all you men. Sorta like whites talkin' bout what t'do about all them BLACK bodies out there.

Posted by: Farnaz

-------------------------------

Are you saying "ALL" you men? Are you doing the same thing you are quick to judge and rabidly admonish others for in you posts spewing unjust stereotypes? Are you the proverbial pot calling the kettle black?

Are you saying "ALL" you men? Are you doing the same thing you are quick to judge and rabidly admonish others for in you posts spewing unjust stereotypes? Are you the proverbial pot calling the kettle black?

Posted by: areyousaying |
--------------------------
Hi, areyousaying,

Yes, I think I am doing all that. Is there some way to work geese and ganders in here?

rossacpa

was my unmarried mother's 2nd son by her brother-in-law. I was born when she was age 16. I was placed for adoption despite having traumatic brain injury due to forceps and anoxia. So you are right: I see hard luck stories for what they are: excuses for not taking personal responsibility. (If you don't believe the bio, I wouldn't either, except I know me.)

So my motto remains: All life is all good all the time, but a sense of humor helps.

Good night all.

==================================
Goodnight, Ross. I understand better now. I just wish you could see what I have. You cannot force this on people.

Farnaz,

I think you and I might make good correspondents.

Good night

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, "GET REAL GUYS & GALS" KILLING A BABY IS MURDER, READ THE BOOK THAT HOLDS THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH AMERICA WAS BUILT. THE GOD OF THE BIBLE RULES IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN & WOMEN. OUR CULTURE HAS TURNED IT'S BACK ON THOSE PRINCIPLES AND THAT GOD. WE ARE REAPING WHAT WE HAVE SOWED AS A NATION AND AS INDIVIDUALS. MAY THE GOD OF THE BIBLE BE MERCIFUL TO EACH OF US. WE MAY NOT ALL HAVE KILLED A BABY, BUT AS CITIZENS OF A DEMOCRACY WE ARE ALL ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN DAILY.

"God has richly blessed us with things that perhaps look less than ideal."

Like you time as Governor

People neeed to realize that their "choice" - is choosing to kill a human life. Pro life is just that, it is for life and against murder. Whether you choose to shoot someone in the head or choose to kill your own child before they are even born, it amounts to the same thing.

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, "GET REAL GUYS & GALS" KILLING A BABY IS MURDER, READ THE BOOK THAT HOLDS THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH AMERICA WAS BUILT.
Posted by: wbgood

The Federalist Papers don't mention abortion.

fr rossacpa:

>...Abortion is always murder. Anyone's feeling or opinion, or menstrual psychosis not withstanding, abortion is always murder. Period.

If YOU don't like abortion, then by all means don't HAVE one.

>...I see hard luck stories for what they are: excuses for not taking personal responsibility. (If you don't believe the bio, I wouldn't either, except I know me.)...

Gads. Grow UP and get a flippin' life. Stop trying to deny a woman the RIGHT to decide what happens with her own body.

The Tebows are another Palin-type of family who were duped by Mullah Dobson to be the faces of a theocratic and dangerous religious movement. Hopefully, they will wake up. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

"This is another excuse for women not taking responsibility for their own decisions -- unless you want to claim that you were all raped every time you got pregnant. And here's another aspect of responsibility -- get some education and a job so you don't need to depend on the fathers.

You're adults -- it's time to put on your big girl panties. You are literally demanding a right to commit infanticide, rather than take responsibility for your own behavior."

I'd rather put on my big girl panties than be forced to change diapers for a kid that I didn't want. I feel sorry for you that you think that all women who have had abortions are irresponsible s1uts. Maybe someday you'll get a real girl and you can control her childbearing. Until then, stay out of mine and my husband's lives.

"The other 364 days we do our daily work, whether it be defending the right to present our cause in the public square; helping mothers who decide to keep their babies financially, psychologically, spiritually, etc,; and providing post-abortion counseling services. Many of us do more generic work, or exercise ministries that overlap the prolife ministry."

Plotting to bomb abortion clinics, tracing license plates of clinic clients and harassing them, putting up doctors' names and addresses on "hit lists", etc. is NOT "putting yourself out in the public square". It is terrorism.

"Those who do not want to support choice need to put their money where their mouths are."

Maybe we ARE, Amelia. I have been pro-life since I was a little girl -- almost as long as Roe v. Wade. I have heard facetious arguments like yours ever since, and as soon as I reached adulthood I vowed to do my part to "put my money where my mouth is."

Although my husband and I have the full capacity to have biological children (we have two), we paid nearly $20,000 to adopt a child domestically. His mother is my HERO who chose homelessness and joblessness and the loss of her boyfriend to bring him into the world, over a birthfather who insisted that she abort the amazing human being who I now call my son.

This little boy is now 2 years old, and I thank God every day that she made the choice not to take his life away. And I thank God every day that I made the choice to "put my money where my mouth is" and fill my home not with things, but with the greatest treasure one could ever hope to have, a child.

Tim Tebow is a spokesman not because he is pro-life, but because he is an example of what the world could have lost if his mother had aborted him. My son -- my hilarious, outgoing, loving little boy -- is no different.

PS -- How many women have you personally helped in your life?

It would take all the fingers and toes in my entire family for me to count the baby showers I've thrown, the single moms I have visited in the hospital, the rape and incest victims I have mourned with, the listening ear I have offered to those struggling with abortions even 30 years in the past, the clothing and diapers and baby items I have donated, the food I have purchased, the bills I have helped to pay.

I am the rule, and not the exception.

So actually talk to a pro-life person civilly for once in your life, and maybe you'll find out who has been supporting these women in crisis for the past 30 years.

Whoever coins these phrases: pro-choice, pro-life, etc., is not too bright! Unless a woman is raped, every second of the entire sequence is pro-choice! The woman has chosen or refused to choose birth control. She has chosen to have sex instead of abstaining. She has chosen to maintain the pregnancy or chosen not to. She has chosen to let her baby live or she has chosen to abort her child. Every single step is pro-choice unless someone is standing there with a gun or worse threat and forcing the woman into some action she does not choose. Pro-life is a choice! Abortion is a choice! In this country, murder is a crime punishable by life in prison or death. However, when we kill an unborn baby, we don't like to use the word "murder", so we call it "abortion", which sounds nicer and more innocent. In some abortions, the baby is murdered while it's still inside the uterus and it's skull and shoulders are crushed, so it can be sucked out easier with the vacuum suction. If this same activity were done to this infant (no doubt in a viable stage in this day and age) OUTSIDE the uterus, it would be called murder. However, clever documentation on the progress notes will make the first murder, within the uterus, legal! However, all these procedures, including the birth or the abortion, are "pro-choice" as they were "CHOSEN" by the pregnant woman! It is simply semantics, playing with words, to make a wrong sound right!

I seriously doubt all this commotion helps unborn anyone.

If these people sincerely want to help future generations to be born why not put all this money they use for advertising, publicity, and political donations into a charitable fund that assists individuals in dire straits so that these individuals can carry pregnancies to term they could not otherwise support.

After hearing the same thing from this group for thirty or forty years, it ends up being, just so much noise.

It saddens me greatly to listen to the killing of children referred to as a choice. It saddens me greatly to refer to wars as "just", especially those wars not involving self defense, but instead involving the accumulation of wealth, influence, and power. And why the death penalty is pursued by people who have other pro-life positions is a puzzlement. By the end of your life, you need to see that life is precious, and we all need to act accordingly and love one another, including especially the most innocent among us.

I grieve when I understand that these positions are reinforced and publicized by a wealth-driven and politically-connected, controlling elite. These false leaders do not want to follow God's ancient truths of life and respect and love for one another, and instead push people into following the rules that they make up themselves to make life more pleasurable for themselves.

God allows choice, and satan influences the world to make the wrong choice. Unfortunately satan's influence seems strong, for now, but in the end, God and life are eternal, and will bring joy for those who make the right choice.

Why would CBS air an anti-choice commercial during the Super bowl? That makes no sense to me.

Elizabeth Tenety,

If this weren't so sad, I would laugh. Your poster mom, Bristol, is going to court to sue your poster Dad, Tim, for child support in the amount of $1750 per month.

Elizabeth, open your eyes. Have some coffee. Take a walk around whatever city you live in. You are a WOMAN. WAKE UP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202917.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Well if Roe was ever overturned, they'd have nothing left to yell about. I doubt they really want it overturned.

Persuading people (a better move in any case) will allow them to advance the pro-life cause AND keep Roe on the books.

Persuasion (instead of legal force) is the way this conversation should be had, anyway.

Anti-choice is accurate. However, I think "forced-birthers" really puts a fine point on it. They want to FORCE women to give birth.

"Okie Dokie: How about the Pro-Slavery for the Anti-Choicers? Yup, that's better. This isn't about keeping turtles pregnant.
It's about living human beings, women, whose bodies, the Pro-Slavers want to own.
Pro-Slavers. Hmmm....Maybe Pregnancy Taliban.Yup. That works.Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | January 22, 2010 3:03 PM"

Actually, "Farnaz": I oppose any criminalization related to abortion. Always have: always will. Within the pro-life movement, this has always set me apart: I also oppose the death penalty except for treason (then it should be public hanging at Freedom Plaza). The answer to abortion is now and always will be what's in your heart. And God's law supercedes all else.

nickthimmeschearthlinknet:

Actually, "Farnaz": I oppose any criminalization related to abortion. Always have: always will. Within the pro-life movement, this has always set me apart: I also oppose the death penalty except for treason (then it should be public hanging at Freedom Plaza). The answer to abortion is now and always will be what's in your heart. And God's law supercedes all else.
----------------------
Yes, well, "Nick," I'm not sure what you mean by the "criminalization of abortion." Are you saying that you think it should remain legal, i.e., that the law should remain as it is?

Just as being an American is a state of mind (witness an "American" like Major Nidal Malik Hasan vs. any immigrant who seeks to become one and is "proud" once they become one) not a "status", so too is abortion. Criminalizing any aspect of this, one of the most grizzly procedures known to "medicine", be it the "abortion provider" (historically, not always a medical doctor) or the woman is not only futile, it does nothing to retify the situation (i.e. what kind of mother would a woman be denied an abortion and required to give birth). There is no "law" that makes abortion "legal": Roe vs. Wade DOES NOT address the actual act of abortion: it simply enables individual states to set & enforce OR NOT ENFORCE so-called "laws" regulating the act of abortion. And just as surely as the state enacting the death penalty (even putting people to death the state worries absurdly about whether certain aspects are "cruel") is a matter of what's in the people actually executing's hearts, so too is the act of abortion: if the "abortion provider", the woman and yes, even the biological father do not feel it is the taking of a human life, then that lie to them is meaningless compared to their own beliefs and wishes. That is why there are so many woman who regret having had abortions, sometimes YEARS after the act: they have a change of heart and realize it was a human life (I can't tell you how many woman I know who were once ferverent abortion proponents, became mothers, and now oppose and regret abortion). As for all this nonsense about a fetus -- at any stage -- being a "viable tissue mass" or a "parasite" that cannot survice outside of the womb: so too is ANY baby just born. Any baby, infant, toddler, hell, even tweener cannot survice without the love and support of a fellow human being, be it their parent(s) or total strangers.

So yeah: go ahead and ask the simplistic and inane question "Are you saying that you think it should remain legal, i.e., that the law should remain as it is?" I'll bite: yes, "it" is not something well suited to man's laws as "it" is impossible to control. Is it matter of the heart and of God's law? You bettcha!

I will never shed a tear for a proven, convicted and surely guilty murderer put to death: do I mourn and oppose the taking of that human life? Yes. Just as I will never criticize those who support the right to life (ala Palin, Reagan, et al)who seek criminalization (which as I have said, is a mistake): but do I believe their hearts are in the right place: You bettcha!

I don't know what Hasan has to do with this.
Although he is a murderer, to the best of my knowledge he has never had an abortion. Neither have you, I would wager. The arrogance of men like you astonishes me, but I'll let that pass.

One thing I will say since you don't seem to understand very much at all about what's at issue is that no woman wants an abortion. No woman I know has ever forgotten it.

What no woman needs is thousands of lunatics screaming in Washington. That however can be addressed with organized counter-demonstrations and marches.

In the meantime, since you think you have the right to do what you want with the bodies of women, allow women the same rights regarding men.

1. Right your representatives demanding registration that all healthy male citizens above the age of twelve be registered bone marrow donors, prepard to donate five times yearly.

2. Demand the same with respect to kidney donation.

The lives of ex-uterine homo sapiens must take priority over fetuses. Start by avoiding the passive murder of thousands of men, women, and children, in the manner I describe, and get back to us.

"The arrogance of men like you astonishes me, but I'll let that pass."

Now what on Earth is arrogant about anything I said: I clearly state that I oppose any criminalization of any aspect of abortion (you apparently do to, are you "arrogant"?), I oppose the death penalty (even if my child was raped and murdered, which I would assume you do too) and I believe BOTH of these "issues" are matters of both the heart and God (obviously, you believe in neither). The callous meaness of you pro-aborts astounds me: what gives?

Perhaps retro-active abortions for folks like you?

Nick, I notice you skipped over points one and two. The callousness of you pro-deaths astounds me.

Are you so-called "pro-lifers" saying that God hired Republican K-Street lawyers to write a disclaimer to the Sixth Commandment with an * that says:

*with the exception of capital punishment, pre-emptive war, and any other reason religious or civil authorities deem appropriate for committing such killing.

"pro-lifers" who conveniently believe in this imaginary disclaimer are not really "pro-life" at all but only exploit the issue of abortion for their political agendas.

Killing is killing. There is no difference between abortion and capital punishment or pre-emptive war.

Jesus continues to weep.

"1. Right your representatives demanding registration that all healthy male citizens above the age of twelve be registered bone marrow donors, prepard to donate five times yearly.

2. Demand the same with respect to kidney donation."

How is the average person going to donate five kidneys a year?

"Jesus continues to weep."

Why doesn't he just stop crying and do something, already?

"1. Right your representatives demanding registration that all healthy male citizens above the age of twelve be registered bone marrow donors, prepard to donate five times yearly.

2. Demand the same with respect to kidney donation."
______________________________

Is the man-hating, feminist princess Farnaz saying that this should only apply to men?

Sorry, I don't have five kidneys a year to donate.

Farnaz wrote:

"1. Right your representatives demanding registration that all healthy male citizens above the age of twelve be registered bone marrow donors, prepard to donate five times yearly.
m not referring to anything voluntary. Let me repeat. If you and your co-anti-choice men want to force women to become pregnant, in the interest of a born fetus, the very least you should do, in fact, you should first, demand legislation, REQUIRING
bone marrow transplant availability several times a year, kidney donation (once per lifetime), regular blood donations, etc."

2. Demand the same with respect to kidney donation."

"You are talking about WOMEN, all you men. Sorta like whites talkin' bout what t'do about all them BLACK bodies out there."
----------------------------------

Are you saying in your emotional and irrational rants in this blog against ALL men, Farnaz, you are a misandrist, no better than the men you judge and condemn for their misogyny or than those you quickly label as hateful and anti-Semitic bigots? It is very obvious from you posts here that you have shown your true colors while self-righteously claiming to hate no one.

The Defense rests.

Are you saying in your emotional and irrational rants in this blog against ALL men, Farnaz, you are a misandrist, no better than the men you judge and condemn for their misogyny or than those you quickly label as hateful and anti-Semitic bigots? It is very obvious from you posts here that you have shown your true colors while self-righteously claiming to hate no one.

The Defense rests.
---------------------------------
Areyousaying, your a bit ungrammatical here--what happened? No, there is no misandry, Defense, merely an effort to generate some self-reflection on the part of those men who cavalierly pronounce their views on what should be done with women's bodies and lives, assuming they are entitled to do so, in the interest of "life."

As I pointed out earlier, the lives of extra-uterine homo sapiens, those who have survived delivery must take priority over fetuses. Since "life" is the priority of "pro-life" men, it is correct that we, as a nation, require them to put their organs where their mouthiness is before they opine on women.

Once the "pro-life" men begin agitating for the kind of legislation I suggest, no one could legitimately fault them for their pro-fetalism.

I find it odd that my proposals are not met with great enthusiasm by the male pro-fetalists.

Very odd.

Sorry, about the confusion re: kidneys. I had posted correctly earlier; however, the point is quite clear.

1. Right your representatives demanding registration that all healthy male citizens above the age of twelve be registered bone marrow donors, prepard to donate five times yearly.

2. Demand that men register for kidney donation. (One, per individual lifetime may be required.)

Jesus welcomes the prospect. He smiles.

Psolus:

"Jesus continues to weep."

Why doesn't he just stop crying and do something, already?
------------------------------
Yes, excellent question!

Psolus,

Agreed. Jesus should strip away all free will because too many people have decided that taking responsibility is only needed when it doesn't inconvenience them.

"Agreed. Jesus should strip away all free will because too many people have decided that taking responsibility is only needed when it doesn't inconvenience them."

Why, then, does he not stop blubbering and do it?

Yes, let's take away everyone's free will. Then they can all be Jeebus-worshipping zombies, just like the ones in the churches. Was that a "March for Life" on Friday, or a zombie walk? Isn't that what the communists wanted, every one to be the same with no free will?

Psolus,

Because, unlike a lot of us, He holds himself accountable for the words He speaks and the actions He takes.

"Because, unlike a lot of us, He holds himself accountable for the words He speaks and the actions He takes."

Then why is he weeping?

It appears to me that he realizes that he really screwed up creation, and that he is now powerless to do anything about it.

Perhaps you should believe in a more competent god.

Actually, "March for Life" probably isn't the best approach. "Life" would take care of itself if the problem of irresponsibility and lack of accountability would be addressed.

The problem is that too many people have entrenched themselves in a sort of 5th grade mentality of whining to the teacher about a bad grade on a test they didn't study for.

If we can move parents beyond liberal vs. conservative, democrat vs. republican, or Christian vs. Atheist, and focus instead on teaching our kids right from wrong (as opposed to "what's in it for me"), we might regain our foothold on ethical behavior.

I find it ironic that the same people who say that women who have abortions are irresponsible whiners are the same ones who refuse to teach them about birth control. Abstinence-only education doesn't work!

The pregnancy rate among 15-to-19-year-olds increased 3 percent between 2005 and 2006 —the first jump since 1990, according to an analysis of the most recent data collected by the federal government and the nation's leading reproductive-health think tank. The abortion rate also inched up for the first time in more than a decade — rising 1 percent — intensifying concern across the ideological spectrum.

Oops.

According to the CDC, "... on average, condoms failed to prevent the transmission of the HIV virus between 15 percent and 31 percent of the time."

Yeah, keep living inside your box.

And if you don't believe true sexual abstinence programs don't work, I suggest you look up the success rate of these programs:

"Not Me, Not Now" in Monroe County, NY.
"Operation Keepsake" in Cleveland, OH.
"Abstinence by Choice" in Little Rock, AR.
"Postponing Sexual Involvement" in Atlanta, GA.
"Project Taking Charge" in Delaware and Mississippi.
"Teen Aid Family Life Education Project" in California, Idaho, Oregon, Mississippi, Utah, and Washington.

The new year approaching, click in. Let's facelift bar!
===== HTTP://itemtolive.com ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

UGG BOOT $50

Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35

Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

FREE sHIPPING
====== HTTP://itemtolive.com =====

The new year approaching, click in. Let's facelift bar!

===== [link title="http://www.itemtolive.com"]http://www.itemtolive.com[/link] ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

FREE sHIPPING

====== http://www.itemtolive.com ====

The new year approaching, click in. Let's facelift bar!

===== [link title="http://www.itemtolive.com"]http://www.itemtolive.com[/link] ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

FREE sHIPPING

====== http://www.itemtolive.com ====