Can You Say, "Wedge-Issue"? (Abortion)

[Nbadan]

Miss. House committee votes to ban most abortions
Associated Press


JACKSON, Miss. - A Mississippi House committee voted Tuesday to ban most abortions in the state.

The only exception would be if the life of the pregnant woman were in danger. There would be no abortions allowed in cases of pregnancy caused by rape or incest.

(snip)

Sun Herald (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/13984316.htm)

The GOP knows that if they out-law abortion they'll be out on their asses faster than Yonivore can bend over for W, so they go along for now, draw the Fundies to vote GOP in the 06 midterms, then drop this issue like a hot potato after the election. Expect more Red-states to come up with these legal challenges that will go no-where.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think they're doing this now b/c they feel like the recent SCOTUS additions give them the numbers on the issue of whether individual states can ban abortions.

Edit: In other words, I don't think this is a stunt. I think states like SD and Miss. (and prolly TX) have been waiting for a shift in the court that the addition of Alito may have caused.

[Peter]

"Wedge-issue" = anything that helps GOP candidates. Whereas enviromental issues, civil liberties, school lunches, Medicare, Social Security, etc...are simply valid concerns.

Got it.

[Nbadan]

"Wedge-issue" = anything that helps GOP candidates. Whereas enviromental issues, civil liberties, school lunches, Medicare, Social Security, etc...are simply valid concerns.

Got it.

Those aren't wedge-issues, they are the Democratic Platform.

When was the last time W and the Republican-controlled Senate and House threw the full force of the FEDS into outlawing abortion? Never.

[Peter]

Like I said.

[Nbadan]

Like I said - wedge issue.

[smeagol]

It's funny how selfish human beings are. They produce a human being and decide they can’t live with the consequences so they abort a life.

And people support this.

[Nbadan]

Right, better to over-populate the world and help to foster hunger, poverty, death, war and pandemics that kill billions more than abortion.

:rolleyes

[Peter]

Right, better to over-populate the world and help to foster hunger, poverty, death, war and pandemics that kill billions more than abortion.

:rolleyes

That sounds familiar.

[Peter]

Like I said - wedge issue.

Right, both parties have 'em.

[Mr. Peabody]

It's funny how selfish human beings are. They produce a human being and decide they can’t live with the consequences so they abort a life.

And people support this.

It's also funny how egotistical people are. They choose to adhere to a certain set of beliefs and then decide that their beliefs should become universal law for all to obey.

Yep, it's a funny world.

[Phenomanul]

It's also funny how egotistical people are. They choose to adhere to a certain set of beliefs and then decide that their beliefs should become universal law for all to obey.

Yep, it's a funny world.


Life >>> The freedom to kill at your own whim....

Standards and beliefs exist to establish order.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Life >>> The freedom to kill at your own whim....

Standards and beliefs exist to establish order.


so long as they don't ask for welfare, or let teh gays adopt their babies.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Life >>> The freedom to kill at your own whim....

Standards and beliefs exist to establish order.

Ok great, the fundies are finally comming around to ending capital punishment right?


ahhh no. Funny how scalia is such a gung ho catholic yet he picks and chooses which set of church beliefs he feels like enforcing through the supreme court.

Look, a woman has the right to choose whether or not to carry a non living organism and society does not have the right to control the womb. That's ethical barbarism.

[Phenomanul]

Ok great, the fundies are finally comming around to ending capital punishment right?


ahhh no. Funny how scalia is such a gung ho catholic yet he picks and chooses which set of church beliefs he feels like enforcing through the supreme court.

Look, a woman has the right to choose whether or not to carry a non living organism and society does not have the right to control the womb. That's ethical barbarism.


Just for the record, I'm against the Death Penalty too.

[smeagol]

Look, a woman has the right to choose whether or not to carry a non living organism and society does not have the right to control the womb. That's ethical barbarism.
When does this non-living organism become a human being?

When it comes out of the womb?

When is it right to kill this "thing"?

Eighth month into pregnancy? Seventh? Sixth?

Enlighten me.

[Phenomanul]

And for all the 'ideologies' people in here like to criticize... when was the last time you tried to "reach out" to people in our prison system? Genuine concern goes a long way in helping them change their outlook on life. Why do you think the Federal Government helps subsidize this sort of ministry? Because the re-incident rate for these people is much lower than those who were not ministered.

[Oh, Gee!!]

When's the last time you adopted a baby?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I'm a pro bono lawyer for juveniles, i do a lot of reaching. That doesnt mean i have to support your forced christianization of america and the invasion of a woman's right to her own body

[Dre_7]

Ok great, the fundies are finally comming around to ending capital punishment right?


ahhh no. Funny how scalia is such a gung ho catholic yet he picks and chooses which set of church beliefs he feels like enforcing through the supreme court.

Look, a woman has the right to choose whether or not to carry a non living organism and society does not have the right to control the womb. That's ethical barbarism.

Non-living?? I am no scientist, but I do recall the pregnancy to childbirth unit I had in 11th grade biology. A fetus is living. To call a fetus "non-living," whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, is just inacurate.

[Mr. Peabody]

When does this non-living organism become a human being?

When it comes out of the womb?

When is it right to kill this "thing"?

Eighth month into pregnancy? Seventh? Sixth?

Enlighten me.

40th trimester

http://hasnie.com/blog/images/cartman.jpg

[smeagol]

40th trimester

http://hasnie.com/blog/images/cartman.jpg
Huh?

[gtownspur]

I'm a pro bono lawyer for juveniles, i do a lot of reaching. That doesnt mean i have to support your forced christianization of america and the invasion of a woman's right to her own body


Get bent on my shaft homo! :lol

Quit acting like supporting anit abortion measures is such an oppressive thing. It's not like you're a fucking female.

[gtownspur]

^i see you're excited....

what a fairy.

[gtownspur]

Who's Midgetonadonkey?

[Nbadan]

http://c.myspace.com/Groups/00003/98/37/3747389_l.jpg

:lmao

[Mr. Peabody]

Huh?

Sorry, it was a reference to an episode of South Park.

[smeagol]

Sorry, it was a reference to an episode of South Park.
So are going to answer the question. I've asked it on another thread and Manumania took a shot at the question by saying that six weeks was acceptable because before that there is no brain activity.

I replied what if that particular kid developed brain activity early? Manumania never responded.

So what is your view? At what moment in the pregnancy is OK to abort?

[gtownspur]

There is no point. Peabody will stick with mindless one liners ala his jedi master oh gee.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

So are going to answer the question. I've asked it on another thread and Manumania took a shot at the question by saying that six weeks was acceptable because before that there is no brain activity.

I replied what if that particular kid developed brain activity early? Manumania never responded.

So what is your view? At what moment in the pregnancy is OK to abort?
I didn't answer because I didn't read it. To answer your question, I don't think there's been a case where that has happened, but in any case, I believe that to be an acceptable risk. What you are implying is like when a person is medically brain dead, with practically no hope of reviving, it is acceptable to pull the plug, and yet there are people who still believe that person is capable of recovery.

If you can find a case where brain activity has developed prior to six weeks, then maybe I'd reconsider

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Get bent on my shaft homo! :lol

Quit acting like supporting anit abortion measures is such an oppressive thing. It's not like you're a fucking female. you have to be the lowest piece of shit in this forum I swear! waht the fuck is going through your head when you post shit like that is beyond me!

[smeagol]

I don't think there's been a case where that has happened, but in any case, I believe that to be an acceptable risk. What you are implying is like when a person is medically brain dead, with practically no hope of reviving, it is acceptable to pull the plug, and yet there are people who still believe that person is capable of recovery.

Your logic is flawed. Pulling the plug on a person who is medically brain dead is no where remotely the same as killing a baby who will be a human (according to you brain activity definition) in a couple of days (if he already isn’t a human, again, according to your definition).

In the first case, you are killing somebody who probably has 0.0001% chance of recovering. In the second case, you are killing somebody who has all his life in front of him.


If you can find a case where brain activity has developed prior to six weeks, then maybe I'd reconsider

I’m no a scientist nor expert in this field but the problem I have with putting maximum dates to when abortion is allowed is always tricky because it is very difficult to know when the conditions you were expecting from the fetus have been met or not.

And by the way, 88% of abortions are performed between weeks 6 and 12.

http://www.agi-usa.org/

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Your logic is flawed. Pulling the plug on a person who is medically brain dead is no where remotely the same as killing a baby who will be a human (according to you brain activity definition) in a couple of days (if he already isn’t a human, again, according to your definition).

In the first case, you are killing somebody who probably has 0.0001% chance of recovering. In the second case, you are killing somebody who has all his life in front of him. You also are forgetting the woman's right to choose. My point is even if there is a chance that the fetus develops brain waves before that time, it is a risk worthwhile taking, as opposed to bringing yet another unwanted, unloved child into the world. There are a lot of aspects to take into account, not just wether or not the fetus could develop brain waves before 6 weeks.

I see the problem being that apparently you believe the woman's right to choose what to do with her own body is not as important, whereas I believe it is paramount. However, I do believe abortions should be limited to the first weeks.

[Phenomanul]

You also are forgetting the woman's right to choose. My point is even if there is a chance that the fetus develops brain waves before that time, it is a risk worthwhile taking, as opposed to bringing yet another unwanted, unloved child into the world. There are a lot of aspects to take into account, not just wether or not the fetus could develop brain waves before 6 weeks.

I see the problem being that apparently you believe the woman's right to choose what to do with her own body is not as important, whereas I believe it is paramount. However, I do believe abortions should be limited to the first weeks.

Other than the extreme cases where the pregnancy poses a considerable risk to the mother's health, or in the case of incestuous rape, that choice was already made... want to enjoy the pleasures of sex??? Then live with the consequences.

Life >>>>>> the want to preserve status, an 'unnecessary financial burden', or inconvenience.

The underlying problem has always been that people don't want to be told to curb their extramarital sexual activity.... the other 5% of cases would then be evaluted on the grounds of health related issues and not 'inconvenience' related issues.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Other than the extreme cases where the pregnancy poses a considerable risk to the mother's health, or in the case of incestuous rape, that choice was already made... want to enjoy the pleasures of sex??? Then live with the consequences.

Life >>>>>> the want to preserve status, an 'unnecessary financial burden', or inconvenience.

The underlying problem has always been that people don't want to be told to curb their extramarital sexual activity.... the other 5% of cases would then be evaluted on the grounds of health related issues and not 'inconvenience' related issues. I suppose you believe that the only acceptable result of sex is pregnancy? Seriously, my cousin was pregnant, who the fuck are you to tell her she has to give up her future just because of your beliefs? huh?

[xrayzebra]

I suppose you believe that the only acceptable result of sex is pregnancy? Seriously, my cousin was pregnant, who the fuck are you to tell her she has to give up her future just because of your beliefs? huh?

You keep referring to this incident with you cousin. We have no idea
what the circumstances of her becoming pregnant. And it is none of
our business. If it was recreational then why didn't she use protection
herself or make her partner use some. If they didn't want to why didn't
they suffer the consequences and get married and raise a family. They
liked each other well enough to perform one of the most intimate acts two
people can with each other. Abortion should not be birth control.

[Phenomanul]

I suppose you believe that the only acceptable result of sex is pregnancy? Seriously, my cousin was pregnant, who the fuck are you to tell her she has to give up her future just because of your beliefs? huh?


I supposed she didn't have an in-vitro fertilization (artificial insimination) procedure performed on her.... I will assume (given the context of your reply) that she was impregnated via sexual intercouse (the same way as 99.9999999999% of the population)....

Did she willingfully have sex? (That I cannot assume)

But if she did, you would have to think that she knew the associated risks involved.... you would be naive to think otherwise.

Again... her right to 'pleasure' does not trump another human's right to 'live.'

Strict beliefs... maybe. Or is it that with every passing generation we are slowly desensitizing ourselves to this atrocity in favor of selfish needs? Know this; more people will die this year from abortions than the combined casualties of all the world's wars....

And one more time, there is no need for unwarranted insults.... this is a discussion... not a street fight.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

You keep referring to this incident with you cousin. We have no idea
what the circumstances of her becoming pregnant. And it is none of
our business. If it was recreational then why didn't she use protection
herself or make her partner use some. If they didn't want to why didn't
they suffer the consequences and get married and raise a family. They
liked each other well enough to perform one of the most intimate acts two
people can with each other. Abortion should not be birth control.
I believe they were using birth control pills. However, the pill is not 100% effective. This is why she got pregnant.

[xrayzebra]

I believe they were using birth control pills. However, the pill is not 100% effective. This is why she got pregnant.

So she was using abortion as a birth control method. I don't buy it. Sorry.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I supposed she didn't have an in-vitro fertilization (artificial insimination) procedure performed on her.... I will assume (given the context of your reply) that she was impregnated via sexual intercouse (the same way as 99.9999999999% of the population)....

Did she willingfully have sex? (That I cannot assume)

But if she did, you would have to think that she knew the associated risks involved.... you would be naive to think otherwise.

Again... her right to 'pleasure' does not trump another human's right to 'live.'

Strict beliefs... maybe. Or is it that with every passing generation we are slowly desensitizing ourselves to this atrocity in favor of selfish needs? Know this; more people will die this year from abortions than the combined casualties of all the world's wars....

And one more time, there is no need for unwarranted insults.... this is a discussion... not a street fight.
again, it boils down to wether or not you believe the fetus to be a living being

[MaNuMaNiAc]

So she was using abortion as a birth control method. I don't buy it. Sorry.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif It doesn't matter if you buy it or not, you have no right to make her have the kid, period!

[xrayzebra]

^^OKay, I will ask you. How many weeks/months was she along when she
had it? Feel free to tell me it is none of my business, but you keep bring the
subject up about time. How do you feel about it. Obviously it bothers you.
And I know you care about her also. So, how long should it be. I have no
idea. I just know in my heart of hearts someone has to speak for the unborned,
the innocent. Someone has to speak for them.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

^^OKay, I will ask you. How many weeks/months was she along when she
had it? Feel free to tell me it is none of my business, but you keep bring the
subject up about time. How do you feel about it. Obviously it bothers you.
And I know you care about her also. So, how long should it be. I have no
idea. I just know in my heart of hearts someone has to speak for the unborned,
the innocent. Someone has to speak for them.
I'm not really sure how many weeks. You say someone has to speak for the unborn, but that also has to have limits, or else preety soon, women won't have the right to "tie their tubes" crudely speaking, because what about her unborn children? what about them? don't they deserve a chance to life?

My point is there is a point in the pregnancy where the fetus is not yet a living thing. It does not feel, move, breath etc. In my opinion that fetus is NOT alive. It will be, but it is not yet.

[xrayzebra]

I really don't think birth control, as birth control, tubes tied, the pill or even
the rhythm method is the question, never has been. I think the thing is once
conceived the child must have some rights. It is the innocent victim. The
consequence of two peoples actions, over which it had no control. Someone
has to take responsibility. It is not just a dead piece of flesh. Obviously, we as
two individuals don't have all the answers, but I think history as pass down through
the ages has some answers and the answer then was to take that responsibility.
That said, let me say something else. We have so many cases where children
once born are murdered now days. Society must find an answer. But we cannot
let society slid into where we kill people on both ends of the spectrum. Life must
be respected otherwise we are just like animals.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Xray probably thinks "pulling-out" is birth control.

[xrayzebra]

^^NO, I don't. And those who pratice it must be a whole lot like Clinton. :lol

[Phenomanul]

I'm not really sure how many weeks. You say someone has to speak for the unborn, but that also has to have limits, or else preety soon, women won't have the right to "tie their tubes" crudely speaking, because what about her unborn children? what about them? don't they deserve a chance to life?

My point is there is a point in the pregnancy where the fetus is not yet a living thing. It does not feel, move, breath etc. In my opinion that fetus is NOT alive. It will be, but it is not yet.


That right there is well within a woman's rights...

Once life (even at the zygote level - of genetic uniqueness) is conceived, however, it shouldn't be eliminated... especially not out of the sheer inconvenience the life may or may not pose.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I really don't think birth control, as birth control, tubes tied, the pill or even
the rhythm method is the question, never has been. I think the thing is once
conceived the child must have some rights. It is the innocent victim. The
consequence of two peoples actions, over which it had no control. Someone
has to take responsibility. It is not just a dead piece of flesh. Obviously, we as
two individuals don't have all the answers, but I think history as pass down through
the ages has some answers and the answer then was to take that responsibility.
That said, let me say something else. We have so many cases where children
once born are murdered now days. Society must find an answer. But we cannot
let society slid into where we kill people on both ends of the spectrum. Life must
be respected otherwise we are just like animals.
but if the fetus is not "alive" then it is not "killing", therefore it all boils down to that question. If it does not feel, breath, move, its heart is not pumping etc, what makes you think it is living? You're arguing that eventually it will live, but that brings other issues as well.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

That right there is well within a woman's rights...

Once life (even at the zygote level - of genetic uniqueness) is conceived, however, it shouldn't be eliminated... especially not out of the sheer inconvenience the life may pose.
there is a point very early in the pregnancy where the fetus is not alive, that is what I'm arguing here. If it does not feel, think, breath, move and has no brain activity whatsoever, it is not alive.

[Phenomanul]

but if the fetus is not "alive" then it is not "killing", therefore it all boils down to that question. If it does not feel, breath, move, its heart is not pumping etc, what makes you think it is living? You're arguing that eventually it will live, but that brings other issues as well.


Where are we as humans if it has indeed boiled down to the above question? Does murder 'on technicalities' justify an ends to anything???

When this question arises simply because people want to engage in extramarital sex without reproof of their actions it beckons the question. Has the sanctity of life been thrown out the window over selfish ends?

[smeagol]

there is a point very early in the pregnancy where the fetus is not alive, that is what I'm arguing here. If it does not feel, think, breath, move and has no brain activity whatsoever, it is not alive.
I found (and linked) a site where it says 88% of the pregnancies are terminated between the 6 and 12 weeks.

I did some research and I found that by the 12th week, that kid is approximately 8 cms (3 inches) long, has a beating heart, eyes are well formed, fingers and toes have soft nails, his ears, ankles and wrists have formed.

[smeagol]

there is a point very early in the pregnancy where the fetus is not alive, that is what I'm arguing here. If it does not feel, think, breath, move and has no brain activity whatsoever, it is not alive.
By the 25th day the heart starts beating. That is a good definition of "Alive".

By the end of the 2nd month, the fetus looks more like a person than a tadpole.

[smeagol]

Where are we as humans if it has indeed boiled down to the above question? Does murder 'on technicalities' justify an ends to anything???

When this question arises simply because people want to engage in extramarital sex without reproof of their actions it beckons the question. Has the sanctity of life been thrown out the window over selfish ends?
It's not always extramarital sex, Hector. Sadly enough many married couples perform abortions simply because they want to postpone having kids. Talk about selfishness.

[xrayzebra]

I found (and linked) a site where it says 88% of the pregnancies are terminated between the 6 and 12 months.

I did some research and I found that by the 12th month, that kid is approximately 8 cms (3 inches) long, has a beating heart, eyes are well formed, fingers and toes have soft nails, his ears, ankles and wrists have formed.

Might want to edit the above posting. Think you mis-spoke: Months?

[smeagol]

Might want to edit the above posting. Think you mis-spoke: Months?
Thanks. I have writing dislexia. A terrible desease.

I also confuse pro life advocates with pro choice advocates.

Sad. :lol

[Mr. Peabody]

So are going to answer the question. I've asked it on another thread and Manumania took a shot at the question by saying that six weeks was acceptable because before that there is no brain activity.

I replied what if that particular kid developed brain activity early? Manumania never responded.

So what is your view? At what moment in the pregnancy is OK to abort?

It depends on the circumstances. Is the need for abortion due to a risk to the mother's health? If that's the case, then anytime up until the mother is no longer at risk is acceptable.

If there is no danger to the mother and there are no severe abnormalities in the baby, I would say the four or fifth month would be an appropriate limit.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

By the 25th day the heart starts beating. That is a good definition of "Alive".

By the end of the 2nd month, the fetus looks more like a person than a tadpole. was I not clear about how I felt about the 6 week deadline?? I told you I support abortion prior and up to 6 weeks. What are you trying to point out??

(ofcourse, that is without taking into account any risk to the mother, because in that case I believe there is no deadline, the mother takes prescedence.)

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Where are we as humans if it has indeed boiled down to the above question? Does murder 'on technicalities' justify an ends to anything???

When this question arises simply because people want to engage in extramarital sex without reproof of their actions it beckons the question. Has the sanctity of life been thrown out the window over selfish ends?
what the hell does marriage have to do with anything?? What if I don't ever get married? should I refrain from having sex all my life because your beliefs frown upon it?? Furthermore if I have safe sex, but something goes wrong, and the woman I'm having sex with gets pregnant, are we (the woman and I) obligated to throw our lives and dreams away and have a child that was not born out of love, but rather out of lust? I'm sorry, just because you believe the fetus to be alive at conception does not make it a fact, and there in lies the issue.

[Peter]

There's already a choice made when it comes to being pregnant.

Make the exceptions life or health of mother, rape, and incest. It's a pity that anyone should terminate what is otherwise a normal pregnancy here in the wealthiest nation on earth.

[Phenomanul]

There's already a choice made when it comes to being pregnant.

Make the exceptions life or health of mother, rape, and incest. It's a pity that anyone should terminate what is otherwise a normal pregnancy here in the wealthiest nation on earth.


:tu :tu

[Oh, Gee!!]

:tu :tu

:td :td

[smeagol]

If there is no danger to the mother and there are no severe abnormalities in the baby, I would say the four or fifth month would be an appropriate limit.

Are you a father, Mr P?

I cannot believe that a father, after going through the entire pregnancy and seen, heard and felt his son/daughter develop in his/hers mother's womb, tells me they support terminating a life in it's fifth month of a pregnancy.

Have you ever seen a sonogram of a five month baby? There are babies that are prematuraly born on the fifth month and are able to survive.

[smeagol]

was I not clear about how I felt about the 6 week deadline?? I told you I support abortion prior and up to 6 weeks. What are you trying to point out??

I'm trying to point out that you arbitrary 6 week limit has it's flaws. One obvious one is the heart of the fetus beating in day 25.

[smeagol]

:td :td
:td :td :vomit

[Mr. Peabody]

Are you a father, Mr P?

I cannot believe that a father, after going through the entire pregnancy and seen, heard and felt his son/daughter develop in his/hers mother's womb, tells me they support terminating a life in it's fifth month of a pregnancy.

Have you ever seen a sonogram of a five month baby? There are babies that are prematuraly born on the fifth month and are able to survive.

That's the thing smeagol, I don't "support" it, as you say. I think terminating an otherwise healthy pregnancy is a selfish act and I have nothing but contempt for those that use abortion as a means of birth control. However, I don't think that my beliefs and opinions should keep another person from exercising control over their own body.

What gives me, you or anyone else the right to tell a woman that she must carry a child to term?

[Yonivore]

That's the thing smeagol, I don't "support" it, as you say. I think terminating an otherwise healthy pregnancy is a selfish act and I have nothing but contempt for those that use abortion as a means of birth control. However, I don't think that my beliefs and opinions should keep another person from exercising control over their own body.

What gives me, you or anyone else the right to tell a woman that she must carry a child to term?
At what point -- in your humble opinion -- does an unborn child become a person deserving the protections guaranteed by the fourth and other amendments to the U.S. Constitution?

[scott]

When they can start making rent

[Yonivore]

When they can start making rent
So, a mother can exercise her right to abort until the child is able to "make rent?"

Wow! A lot of moms with couch potato kids will love to hear that.

[scott]

And then I make oil out of them. 3 birds killed with one sharp object designed to puncture the skull.

1) deadbeat kids
2) global over-population
3) global energy needs

Send my check now

[Yonivore]

And then I make oil out of them. 3 birds killed with one sharp object designed to puncture the skull.

1) deadbeat kids
2) global over-population
3) global energy needs

Send my check now
Okay, you probably shouldn't post when you've been drinking.

[scott]

You probably shouldn't post ever, so what's your point?

[Yonivore]

You probably shouldn't post ever, so what's your point?
That [I believe] you're stupid...just more so when you've apparently been drinking or are otherwise impaired. (Just remember, you asked.)

[smeagol]

That [I believe] you're stupid...just more so when you've apparently been drinking or are otherwise impaired. (Just remember, you asked.)
:lol

This is even funnier because Yoni hardly ever makes me laugh.

[Mr. Peabody]

At what point -- in your humble opinion -- does an unborn child become a person deserving the protections guaranteed by the fourth and other amendments to the U.S. Constitution?

Why? Are you about to argue that the President also has the authority to wiretap unborn children?

[Oh, Gee!!]

At what point -- in your humble opinion -- does an unborn child become a person deserving the protections guaranteed by the fourth and other amendments to the U.S. Constitution?


after birth

[Phenomanul]

what the hell does marriage have to do with anything?? What if I don't ever get married? should I refrain from having sex all my life because your beliefs frown upon it?? Furthermore if I have safe sex, but something goes wrong, and the woman I'm having sex with gets pregnant, are we (the woman and I) obligated to throw our lives and dreams away and have a child that was not born out of love, but rather out of lust? I'm sorry, just because you believe the fetus to be alive at conception does not make it a fact, and there in lies the issue.


Yes.... that was the risk you were taking. Let me rephrase your question, "should I commit murder because I don't want a child around who will hamper my style, my finances, and take a considerable chunk of my time away?" No matter what you say (and not to say that you are not entitled to your own opinion) that's a selfish attitude.

[smeagol]

after birth
So one hour before that kid is born, it's alright to kill him.

I get it now.

[Oh, Gee!!]

So one hour before that kid is born, it's alright to kill him.

I get it now.


I don't know. I was answering the question of when the unborn child's 4th amendment rights kick-in.

[Phenomanul]

I don't know. I was answering the question of when the unborn child's 4th amendment rights kick-in.


I guess "Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" only applies to the selfish mother...

[smeagol]

Bottom line is that abortion, in the immense majority of the cases, is due to a selfish act of two (or one) human beings who were not able to live with the consequences of their acts.

In a perfect world, abortion would not exist. And that shows you why abortion is wrong.

[Mr. Peabody]

In a perfect world, abortion would not exist. And that shows you why abortion is wrong.

That's a ridiculous argument. In a perfect world medicine would not exist, so is medicine wrong?

[Peter]

what the hell does marriage have to do with anything?? What if I don't ever get married? should I refrain from having sex all my life because your beliefs frown upon it?? Furthermore if I have safe sex, but something goes wrong, and the woman I'm having sex with gets pregnant, are we (the woman and I) obligated to throw our lives and dreams away and have a child that was not born out of love, but rather out of lust? I'm sorry, just because you believe the fetus to be alive at conception does not make it a fact, and there in lies the issue.


Well, you have the "risk" of pregnancy when you engage in intercourse. You already have a choice.

In addition, if you don't want the kid, give it up for adoption.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I guess "Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" only applies to the selfish mother...


and persons born

[Darrin]

It's funny how selfish human beings are. They produce a human being and decide they can’t live with the consequences so they abort a life.

And people support this.

I am ardently anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-assisted suicide. I wouldn't ever want my girlfriend to abort a baby. That being said, out-lawing this practice won't stop it from happening. The law was not designed to be an instrument of social change. When the law gets ahead of the societal movement, the law cannot be enforced because the laws govern the minority, not the majority.

For instance, it is morally reprehensibile to kill another human being to collect his life insurance policy. We have laws in place to stop such things from happening, and when some of us do (say less than 1% of the population), we "bring them to justice."

However, alcohol prohibition did not work because the percentages were flipped. We had law enforcement officers going to speak easys. We allowed the black markets and the mob rise up and fill the appetite for alcohol.

Given these two scenarios, I believe the nation is closer to alcohol prohibition than murder when it comes to the issue of abortion. Change coming in our laws will simply put more lives as risk, and ultimately put more people on the government payroll we call prison. The avenue to changing this practice is to make it morally irresponsible in our society, and then let the law do what it is supposed to do - police the fringes of what is considered the norms of our society.

[smeagol]

That's a ridiculous argument. In a perfect world medicine would not exist, so is medicine wrong?
Brilliant analogy you pulled out of thin air Peabody.

Equating unborn children with a desease.

[Darrin]

This is a wedge issue, and it's used by both sides as we can see in this thread.

[Phenomanul]

I am ardently anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-assisted suicide. I wouldn't ever want my girlfriend to abort a baby. That being said, out-lawing this practice won't stop it from happening. The law was not designed to be an instrument of social change. When the law gets ahead of the societal movement, the law cannot be enforced because the laws govern the minority, not the majority.

For instance, it is morally reprehensibile to kill another human being to collect his life insurance policy. We have laws in place to stop such things from happening, and when some of us do (say less than 1% of the population), we "bring them to justice."

However, alcohol prohibition did not work because the percentages were flipped. We had law enforcement officers going to speak easys. We allowed the black markets and the mob rise up and fill the appetite for alcohol.

Given these two scenarios, I believe the nation is closer to alcohol prohibition than murder when it comes to the issue of abortion. Change coming in our laws will simply put more lives as risk, and ultimately put more people on the government payroll we call prison. The avenue to changing this practice is to make it morally irresponsible in our society, and then let the law do what it is supposed to do - police the fringes of what is considered the norms of our society.


Interesting viewpoint with much unfortunate truth. Again, this speaks volumes of where we as humans are going... when the decadence of society can not be stopped who will oppose the mainstream current???

[Mr. Peabody]

Brilliant analogy you pulled out of thin air Peabody.

Equating unborn children with a desease.

Where did you get that? Your statement was -


In a perfect world, abortion would not exist. And that shows you why abortion is wrong.

I was merely showing you that merely because an action or item does not exist in a "perfect world" it does not make that action or item imperfect or wrong.

In a perfect world, there would not be abortion, not because abortion is wrong, but because there would be no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy. There would be no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy, not because everyone would want to be pregnant, but rather because people who did not want to become pregnant would not get pregnant.

Medicine is similar. It would not exist in a perfect world, not because it is wrong or imperfect, but because no one would get sick in a perfect world.

[Peter]

Interesting viewpoint with much unfortunate truth. Again, this speaks volumes of where we as humans are going... when the decadence of society can not be stopped who will oppose the mainstream current???

The 'pro-choice' argument I've yet to see which I feel is the strongest is that without it being legal, a woman would have to prove she was raped. By this standard what is required? Is it merely notifying the authorities?

[Darrin]

Interesting viewpoint with much unfortunate truth. Again, this speaks volumes of where we as humans are going... when the decadence of society can not be stopped who will oppose the mainstream current???

The only way to change the majority is to not be a part of it and to realize that not all things are solved in one lifetime.

I think judgement is the most dangerous thing we can do. As animals, our baser instinct of survival is not challenged everyday in this nation. If you look at the generally accepted morals of most cultures - murder, suicide, incest, and homosexuality - these things are in place because if 100% of the population indulged in them, the species would ultimately not survive.

Historically speaking, as pleasure becomes the motivator for actions over survival, these activities are indulged by a small segment of the population. These activites have been used in art, especially in Christianity, and depitcted as evil acts.

Has anyone seen "The Devil's Advocate?" What does Al Pacio, who plays Satan, ultimately want - he wants his son, Keanu Reeves, to have sex with his biological sister to birth the anti-Christ. And this is but the latest juxtaposition of these immoral acts, in this case incest, and evil in art.

I'm all over the map here, but the basic concept is: "If it's wrong to you, don't do it. You can preach a better sermon with your life than with your words. Don't pass judgement on others."

The most challenging thing I have ever had in my life to be there for others, give them solid advice, and not judge them if they don't take it. And that's all you can do. You can't change the actions of everyone across this country, just do you and be in position to help the rest.

[Peter]

Jumping ahead from my immediately prior post, if a woman is raped but there is a doubt as to whether she was impregnated by the rapist or her spouse/lover, would she still be free to terminate the pregnancy?

[Darrin]

Jumping ahead from my immediately prior post, if a woman is raped but there is a doubt as to whether she was impregnated by the rapist or her spouse/lover, would she still be free to terminate the pregnancy?

That is a good question: What is the burden of proof, and who does it lie with?

[Peter]

That is a good question: What is the burden of proof, and who does it rely with?

The burden as well as the degree. Must the rapist be caught, tried and convicted before she can proceed?

[Darrin]

The burden as well as the degree. Must the rapist be caught, tried and convicted before she can proceed?

This is definitely a male society.

[Mr. Peabody]

The burden as well as the degree. Must the rapist be caught, tried and convicted before she can proceed?

That would be nearly impossible, as we are dealing with, at most, a nine-month window of opportunity. I would hope that the allegation would be enough.

Also, there is the additional problem of most rapes never being reported.

What happens if a woman is raped, doesn't report it, and months later, finds out she is pregnant? Do you punish her for not reporting the rape initially?

[Phenomanul]

You see.... that's why I've been saying it all along... the lie detector test they developed at MIT would eliminate perjury or at least detract others from attempting to do so.

[Peter]

Here's another: incest. If I am not mistaken, incest is illegal in most states (save for Arkansas). Does a woman have to admit committing a crime in order to be able to seek an abortion?

[Phenomanul]

The only way to change the majority is to not be a part of it and to realize that not all things are solved in one lifetime.

I think judgement is the most dangerous thing we can do. As animals, our baser instinct of survival is not challenged everyday in this nation. If you look at the generally accepted morals of most cultures - murder, suicide, incest, and homosexuality - these things are in place because if 100% of the population indulged in them, the species would ultimately not survive.

Historically speaking, as pleasure becomes the motivator for actions over survival, these activities are indulged by a small segment of the population. These activites have been used in art, especially in Christianity, and depitcted as evil acts.

Has anyone seen "The Devil's Advocate?" What does Al Pacio, who plays Satan, ultimately want - he wants his son, Keanu Reeves, to have sex with his biological sister to birth the anti-Christ. And this is but the latest juxtaposition of these immoral acts, in this case incest, and evil in art.

I'm all over the map here, but the basic concept is: "If it's wrong to you, don't do it. You can preach a better sermon with your life than with your words. Don't pass judgement on others."

The most challenging thing I have ever had in my life to be there for others, give them solid advice, and not judge them if they don't take it. And that's all you can do. You can't change the actions of everyone across this country, just do you and be in position to help the rest.

Again though, it's not about judging the mother but rather about saving an innocent life... And I would hope that the latter have some weight over the former.

[Darrin]

Again though, it's not about judging the mother but rather about saving an innocent life... And I would hope that the latter have some weight over the former.

This is about the mother. This is about the decision to give that child a loving home for 20 years and the added burden that places on that woman. This is the added financial responsibility. This is about having to look into the face of your rapist every single day as you care for this child. The arguments for abortion are about the life of the mother and the quality of life for the child.

We can't poo-poo that away to save what some see as an "abstract" baby in the sticky argument of "where does life begin?" This is especially true if you are male. It's too easy to assume that some abstract moral stance by a man is simply another case of the discrimination of females in this society. Like it or not, in order for an anti-abortion movement to take place and really change society, it's the concerns of the mother that will have to be addressed.

[Phenomanul]

This is about the mother. This is about the decision to give that child a loving home for 20 years and the added burden that places on that woman. This is the added financial responsibility. This is about having to look into the face of your rapist every single day as you care for this child. The arguments for abortion are about the life of the mother and the quality of life for the child.

We can't poo-poo that away to save what some see as an "abstract" baby in the sticky argument of "where does life begin?" This is especially true if you are male. It's too easy to assume that some abstract moral stance by a man is simply another case of the discrimination of females in this society. Like it or not, in order for an anti-abortion movement to take place and really change society, it's the concerns of the mother that will have to be addressed.

While I may agree with most of what you just said... I believe it is not a matter of abstractness... either the baby is alive or it is dead. So if there were scenarios that would cause undue burden to the quality of life for the child that's where the adoption token should be used. Unfortunately, the regulations governing adoption make it so difficult, time-consuming, and expensive for the families that are trying to adopt to succeed. Many times those families get so frustrated with the whole process that they don't continue to pursue it.

Anyways... rape is one of the extreme cases that would require some allowance especially if the woman were underage. But more often than not (and the statistics for something like this would be hard to come by or even guage) abortions are being performed for reasons other than health, rape, or incest. Those using it for birth control should be put in jail. We should start acting more 'humane' and less like animals.

[Jekka]

So if there were scenarios that would cause undue burden to the quality of life for the child that's where the adoption token should be used.

Adoption still involves going through an entire nine months of pregnancy and childbirth - forcing a woman to go through that is abusive. On the other hand, coercing a woman into having an abortion would also be abusive.

I agree that using abortion as an only method of birth control is incredibly irresponsible, but as a last resort it needs to exist. If you take away the option of legal abortions, you are going to see a huge increase in numbers of women arriving at emergency rooms with all kinds of sharp objects lodged in their uterus and infections to boot. It is not always a feasible option to go through a pregnancy, and any woman with a conscience making the choice knows just as much if not more of what's given up in an abortion than any man arguing that she shouldn't have the option.

I am a product of infant adoption - I know that adoption works and that it is an option for some people. But not for everyone. It takes a certain kind of person to be able to give up a child that they've carried inside them for so long, and not everyone can do that. Not every woman can put their life on hold to go through a pregnancy - especially young women who are in school because who knows when they will get a chance to finish? And what kind of jobs will they be able to hold to provide for the child without those degrees? It's not realistic to assume that the man involved in the pregnancy will stick around and support the hypothetical child until he/she turns 18.

And I'm so tired of hearing that anything negative that happens to a sexually active person is what they deserve. Accidents happen, no matter how prepared you try to be, and sexuality is an aspect of human nature that shouldn't require a marriage license and economic stability to be enjoyed. The option of legal abortion for every woman needs to exist - not because it's a good thing, but because it's necessary.

[thispego]

I agree^

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Jekka]...any man arguing that she shouldn't have the option... Adoption still involves going through an entire nine months of pregnancy and childbirth - forcing a woman to go through that is abusive... sexuality is an aspect of human nature that shouldn't require a marriage license .
The arguement against abortion is promoted by both men and women.
That so called "abuse" pales in comparison to the abuse of an abortion that results in the death of the unborn.
Woman: "I just can't go through with carrying you to term my child, "I" am just not up to it at this time so tough luck for you little one, "I" am going to have to take your life from you...ah, but at least "I" can finish "my" schooling and on top of that "I" got to enjoy non-commital sex so it wasn't a total loss"






I agree that using abortion as an only method of birth control is incredibly irresponsible, but as a last resort it needs to exist. If you take away the option of legal abortions, you are going to see a huge increase in numbers of women arriving at emergency rooms with all kinds of sharp objects lodged in their uterus and infections to boot. It is not always a feasible option to go through a pregnancy, and any woman with a conscience making the choice knows just as much if not more of what's given up in an abortion than any man arguing that she shouldn't have the option.
A last resort, and most people with a conscience agree, means the life of the mother is at stake, rape and incest which constitutes less than 2% of all abortions. Those with a conscience and a high regard for the sanctity of human life (a conscience and high regard for the unborn go hand in hand) wouldn't have an abortion under any other circumstances.





Not every woman can put their life on hold to go through a pregnancy - especially young women who are in school because who knows when they will get a chance to finish? And what kind of jobs will they be able to hold to provide for the child without those degrees?
The option of legal abortion for every woman needs to exist - not because it's a good thing, but because it's necessary.
The opinion that putting a job or schooling on hold takes on more importance than the life of a child is the pinnacle of selfishness and self absorbtion. This philosophy of I'm the most important person in my life is known as "watching our for number one" and is the antithesis of love in it's purest form.


-Esteem others as better than yourself.

-Let no man seek his own but every man another's wealth.

-No greater love is there than that a man would lay down his life for his brother.

-Bible-

Those are the true meaning of love

[boutons_]

Rove has already announced that the wedge issue for the Repugs will be national security/war on terror.

Since the Repubs absolutely can't run (honestly) on the horrendous dubya/dickhead record, Repugs will be scaring The American People with all kinds of "national security" lies, in direct continuity with preceding lies about WMD, Iraq as immediate threat to USA, Saddam-Qaida links, Saddam-hit-WTC, etc.

[Jekka]

[QUOTE]
The arguement against abortion is promoted by both men and women.
That so called "abuse" pales in comparison to the abuse of an abortion that results in the death of the unborn.
Woman: "I just can't go through with carrying you to term my child, "I" am just not up to it at this time so tough luck for you little one, "I" am going to have to take your life from you...ah, but at least "I" can finish "my" schooling and on top of that "I" got to enjoy non-commital sex so it wasn't a total loss"

The argument against abortion is promoted by more people than you think - I say this because pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion - most women would advocate to have the child if it is possible. Most women do only use it as a last resort. It's unfair to paint the picture that every women stepping into an abortion clinic is a selfish whore.


A last resort, and most people with a conscience agree, means the life of the mother is at stake, rape and incest which constitutes less than 2% of all abortions. Those with a conscience and a high regard for the sanctity of human life (a conscience and high regard for the unborn go hand in hand) wouldn't have an abortion under any other circumstances.

Alright, from the social point of view - if you want to make it illegal for women to have abortions unless it's a case of the mother's health, rape, or incest, how do you propose that all women find the means to get adequate prenatal care - who is going to pay for a hospital delivery when so many of these women don't have health insurance? Who is going to adopt all of these babies that women can't care adequately for? Yes, there are a lot of people waiting for infants, but not as many families to make up for the number of abortions. What happens then?


The opinion that putting a job or schooling on hold takes on more importance than the life of a child is the pinnacle of selfishness and self absorbtion. This philosophy of I'm the most important person in my life is known as "watching our for number one" and is the antithesis of love in it's purest form.

Your view of love is just your view - you may judge others based on this view, but you shouldn't legislate by it. This isn't just the child, it's the mother, too, and she needs to have a say in what happens to her body, no matter what circumstance led to her situation. She should have all of the information and be well educated in her options, and ultimately it should be her decision.

[Peter]

There are plenty of instances in which the state regulates what we do with our bodies. That's not exactly the most compelling argument.

[MannyIsGod]

There are plenty of instances in which the state regulates what we do with our bodies. That's not exactly the most compelling argument.There are plenty of instances when the state regulates matters they have no right to regulate.

[Peter]

So all regulation should be removed?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Jekka]The argument against abortion is promoted by more people than you think - I say this because pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion - most women would advocate to have the child if it is possible. Most women do only use it as a last resort. It's unfair to paint the picture that every women stepping into an abortion clinic is a selfish whore.
With all due respect for you Jekka I've heard the arguement before and frankly being pro-choice and against abortion falls under the category of hypocrisy IMO. If you can't take a stand against something as tragically final as abortion then you fall into the category of those that support it by default.
I don't know who these people are that paint those getting abortion as selfish whores but I'm not among them. It's the abortion for convenience and the abortion activists that I have a problem with

If the abortion is for reasons of the life of the mother only the insane would be against that. In the case of incest or rape I'm also against it, why should the baby receive the ultimate punishment because of the crime of the father? The baby has an absolute right to life regardless of the circumstances under which he/she was conceived. The woman is still the babies mother and if after birth she doesn't want anything to do with it then that's where adoption becomes the option.






Alright, from the social point of view - if you want to make it illegal for women to have abortions unless it's a case of the mother's health, rape, or incest, how do you propose that all women find the means to get adequate prenatal care - who is going to pay for a hospital delivery when so many of these women don't have health insurance? Who is going to adopt all of these babies that women can't care adequately for? Yes, there are a lot of people waiting for infants, but not as many families to make up for the number of abortions. What happens then?
Prenatal care being unnaffordable is cited by 20% of women for having an abortion. It's not like we're talking about getting a new car or buying a house here, we're talking about terminating a life because of cost? :vomit
I wonder how many of these women (men are behind the scenes in most abortions so they too are implicated) rack up credit card for something far less important than a human life...? Who knows how many women would keep the baby if they carried it to term instead of aborting it and who says there wouldn't be enough adoptive families for those that decided they didn't want to keep the baby?





Your view of love is just your view - you may judge others based on this view, but you shouldn't legislate by it. This isn't just the child, it's the mother, too, and she needs to have a say in what happens to her body, no matter what circumstance led to her situation. She should have all of the information and be well educated in her options, and ultimately it should be her decision.
It's the view I have and it's shared by many. The view I have is authored by one far greater than me and I don't put myself in the place of their judge as ultimately the issue will be between them and their Creator. As I've shared before in this forum I have a sister who had an abortion 20+ years ago and is at times still haunted by it. She's asked for and thereby received God's forgiveness and she's never received anything but spiritual and emotional support and unconditional love from her family.

[scott]

With all due respect for you Jekka I've heard the arguement before and frankly being pro-choice and against abortion falls under the category of hypocrisy IMO. If you can't take a stand against something as tragically final as abortion then you fall into the category of those that support it by default.

I don't think people who automatically assume an agenda when encountered with any opinion which looks like it might counter their own (which we can see in fine form here: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35100&page=3) and then offer up "proof" in the form of writings from their belief system/religion should go around casting the hypocrisy stone.

[Jekka]

I don't know who these people are that paint those getting abortion as selfish whores but I'm not among them.

Well, you called them selfish, and you called them sexually irresponsible, so while the language may have been more graphic than you would have used, essentially that's what you said.


If the abortion is for reasons of the life of the mother only the insane would be against that. In the case of incest or rape I'm also against it, why should the baby receive the ultimate punishment because of the crime of the father?

That's punishing a woman for being raped, which is misogyny if I've ever seen it. Tell me, if she was wearing a red dress when it happened was she asking for it?


Prenatal care being unnaffordable is cited by 20% of women for having an abortion. It's not like we're talking about getting a new car or buying a house here

Without the benefit of health insurance, which many women in this situation do not have, the cost of prenatal care and a hospital birth could in fact cost as much as a new car. And if anything happens to the baby during delivery, or if he or she is born prematurely, then, yes, it could cost as much as a house.


I wonder how many of these women (men are behind the scenes in most abortions so they too are implicated) rack up credit card for something far less important than a human life...?

I'll be the first to agree that America has a credit problem, but I'm pretty sure that most women don't make the decision to abort based on whether or not they'll be able to charge a Louis Vuitton bag next month after they make the minimum payment on some Manolos.


It's the view I have and it's shared by many. The view I have is authored by one far greater than me and I don't put myself in the place of their judge as ultimately the issue will be between them and their Creator. As I've shared before in this forum I have a sister who had an abortion 20+ years ago and is at times still haunted by it. She's asked for and thereby received God's forgiveness and she's never received anything but spiritual and emotional support and unconditional love from her family.

You "don't put yourself in the place of their judge"? I think your argument thus far has been pretty judgemental. You want to punish women for being raped and you've called every woman - excuse me, every women except for those whose health was at risk - who has had an abortion selfish.

I think your sister was incredibly brave for sharing her experience with your family - if I was her I wouldn't have wanted to tell that to someone like yourself who so blatantly disapproves of her decision.

And really, if you can't make an argument without gagging (":vomit") perhaps you should refine it.

[MannyIsGod]

So all regulation should be removed?When it comes to peoples bodies? Yes.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Jekka]Well, you called them selfish, and you called them sexually irresponsible, so while the language may have been more graphic than you would have used, essentially that's what you said.
Let's be fair here jekka, I haven't twisted or grossly exaggerated your words and perhaps you can offer me the same treatment.



That's punishing a woman for being raped, which is misogyny if I've ever seen it. Tell me, if she was wearing a red dress when it happened was she asking for it?
No crime was committed by the baby so why destroy him/her because of the crime of some idiot? Misogyny? Woman in a red dress asking for it? You really should aim those misguided barbs at someone who's posted something that would call for that type of comment, I've posted nothing deserving of either.
You won't win any talking points with undue criticism or exaggerations or sarcasm.





Without the benefit of health insurance, which many women in this situation do not have, the cost of prenatal care and a hospital birth could in fact cost as much as a new car. And if anything happens to the baby during delivery, or if he or she is born prematurely, then, yes, it could cost as much as a house.
So the life of a human being isn't worth the price of a car of a house? That's defined as extremely low regard for the sanctity of human life...but to each his/her own.






You "don't put yourself in the place of their judge"? I think your argument thus far has been pretty judgemental. You want to punish women for being raped and you've called every woman - excuse me, every women except for those whose health was at risk - who has had an abortion selfish.
Where did I say that I wanted to punish every womanor where I stated that every woman who had an abortion is selfish? If you can't back up your arguements with facts you may be better off reading without replying. A very high percentage of your arguements are based on the opinions some have on abortion but clearly have nothing to do with the content of my posts.







I think your sister was incredibly brave for sharing her experience with your family - if I was her I wouldn't have wanted to tell that to someone like yourself who so blatantly disapproves of her decision.
It's an understatement for me to say that your comprension skills need an overhaul. I clearly stated that my sister received nothing but emotional and spiritual support and unconditional love.
For what it's worth, my sister would be 100% behind my position on abortion and totally against yours.





And really, if you can't make an argument without gagging (":vomit") perhaps you should refine it.
While the life of a child apparently has little value to you it definitely sickens me to know that a segment of our society can discard him or her like a piece of trash. If that bothers you so be it.


Feel free to further distort my arguements you will have at least labeled yourself as being consistent in posting style.