Pro-lifer catching heat

[skibunny4dean]

I have a friend who is a HUGE pro-life. I mean you don't get very much more pro-life than this guy. But, yesterday he was catching heat because he had one reservation. He said "I can't fault a woman for getting an abortion if the pregnancy endangers her very life. But beyond that..." then everybody jumped on him calling him a hypocrite. What do you all think?

[onebigbadwulf]

1. It is hypocritical.

[buddhamama]

2. hypocrite.

playing *god* too, he'll decide when it is right and when it is not, and whose life is more important the Mother's or the baby's.

[RC]

3. & that depends a lot on who the father is.

[buddhamama]

5. true. so true

eom

[LeahMira]

68. Not a competition...

playing *god* too, he'll decide when it is right and when it is not, and whose life is more important the Mother's or the baby's.

Well, a lot of arguments are positioned that way... placing one life in competition with another. I think it's best not to argue that way because the fact is that we have capital punishment and wars and such which place relative values on human lives and have some lives come out wanting.

We do have a right to defend our own lives and so if anyone, born or not born, threatens my life (physical or mental) I think I have the right to defend my life effectively.

Actually, I even go so far as to think that the earth is so overpopulated that humans are running out of resources that we need and it's time we start encouraging people not to have so many children so that future generations will be able to live and survive.

[Lars39]

4. Is this the weekly abortion thread?

[Scott Lee]

6. "Pro-Lifers" draw a line just like everyone else

I's just that they try to deny it, or come of as a "moral absolutist" and this is what gets your friend in trouble.

The harsh fact is that we all have our lines in the sand when it comes to supporting human life. I think of myself as a humanist, but I tell you without shame that if someone were threatening the life of me or a loved one, I'd have no second thoughts about killing. That's my "line".

The real buggaboo with the prolifers, war supporters or others often on our ideological opposite front are that these folks so often try to submit themselves as moral absolutists. No gray area. No difficult philosophical conundrums that would make their positions difficult. In fact, life is grey area, and "moral relativism" is more the rule than the exception.

[Malva Zebrina]

63. I think you are right

either you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being with a life that has a right to progress through the developmental stages of pregnancy unhampered, and that doing anything at any time to stop that progression is tantamount to killing a living human being or you do not. There IS no grey area. That is why any other stance, such as saving the life of the mother, is inconsistent.

[bandy]

7. I think

it's none of his business why a women would seek an abortion!

[Jane Roe]

60. Sounds like you don't identify very strongly with the fetus.

[dsc]

8. That is no more hypocritical than denouncing murder

while permitting self defense.

[Malva Zebrina]

64. yes it is

self defense is an action that involves a living human being being murdered. A fetus/embryo is not a living human being. There are some who say that an abortion is an act of self defense. What do you think?

[MojoKrunch]

9. Ya know, we were just talking about the "rape exception"

espoused by the majority of Anti-chociers on another board and a fellow PCer made this argument against that position:

"Anti-choicism is rooted entirely in misogyny, and the demand for control over women and especially women's reproductive processes.

Abortion cannot be allowed because it removes men's control over "their" women and those women's reproductive processes -- control over women's activities in general, and reproductive activities in particular, being necessary in order for patriarchal power to be preserved and exercised, and for the property-ownership organization of a patriarchal society to be maintained.

The "rape exception" is consistent with those goals and methods. A woman who is raped is a woman over whom a man's "legitimate" power has been usurped by another man exercising "illegitimate" power. Another man's seed has been planted in the lawful owner's garden.

THAT is why the "rape exception" is initially made. It does have to do with the whole "women aren't supposed to enjoy sex" mindset in that they both come from the same root: women's sexual activities, including women's reproductive functions, are meant to be for the benefit of men, and specifically the men whom society recognizes as exercising legitimate power over individual women. In the case of rape, the woman's sexual/reproductive services have been stolen by someone other than the man with that legitimate power.

Any sane woman would therefore *want* to abort the resulting z/e/f, because if she didn't, she would be the proverbial damaged goods. She would have borne a child who did not belong to her (present or future) "legitimate" male "head" (to use St. Paul's word, I believe).

Like so many other mechanisms for controlling women, it is possible to portray this one - the "rape exception" - as being intended for women's benefit, as arising out of a well of compassion for the poor vulnerable woman. Just like imposing curfews on women "for their own good", or prohibiting them from working in certain occupations "for their own good". It is a control mechanism disguised as a benefit.

If abortion were outlawed with a "rape exception", do we not think that husbands would pressure their wives to have abortions if they became pregnant as a result of rape? And fathers their daughters, who would then be less marketable?"

Ask him if he makes the "rape exception" as well.

He said "I can't fault a woman for getting an abortion if the pregnancy endangers her very life. But beyond that..." then everybody jumped on him calling him a hypocrite.
Ask him if it is ok to torture someone instead of killing them.
Or withhold medical treatment to alleviate pain just because it isn't needed to save their lives.

I've always found it curious that Anti-choicers have no problem with *women* suffering.
But boy, don't even *think* about letting men, who don't want a woman to abort *THEIR* child, suffer.
Hypocrites all the way around.
And typically, damned illogical as well.

Feh.

Mojo

[dsc]

10. If you are going to characterize people's views

it might help to know what they actually are. As a pro life DUer I actually don't favor the rape exception but have said that if it took permitting one to get the rest of abortions outlawed that I would accept it. In short, I am willing to deal.

[MojoKrunch]

11. Better than mischaracterizing other peoples views.

Which is what I face almost every time I debate someone about abortion and reproductive rights.

If you are going to characterize people's views it might help to know what they actually are.
Were you the person being talked about?
If so, please explain what you find objectionable about what I posted.

Or are you working under the assumption that I don't know what the Anti-choice position entails and are simply challenging my statements?

IMO, the people who want to make abortion completely illegal, with no exceptions are only slightly higher on the fascist chart than those who will make exceptions for rape or maternal death.
But at least those truly fascist Anti-choicers are honest about their goals of controlling women.

What I want to know, as a fellow DUer, is why you feel the need to involve the government in what is intrinsically an extremely personal situation.
Do you support forcing people to be organ donors?

At what point does your distaste for abortion become meaningful for other people?
Because I support your right to be personally anti-abortion.
I support the right for you and every other American to *NEVER* be forced to abort.
I support the right to all reproductive freedoms, even as I am concerned about the rising US population and the enormous amounts of resources used because of that.

What I want to know is how you justify making it the governments business to take away individual rights.

As a pro life DUer I actually don't favor the rape exception but have said that if it took permitting one to get the rest of abortions outlawed that I would accept it. In short, I am willing to deal.
That's awful flexible of you.

Are you always so cavalier about killing innocent human beings?

I mean if I thought that prenates were human beings worthy of the same rights that you and I share now, and I thought that aborting them was murder, as someone deliberately killing you or I would be, I'm not sure I could be so nonchalant as to say, "It is very bad to *murder* another human being, but what the heck, you can kill the one inside you, pregnant lady, since you were raped or because you may die from it and that's ok. But not any of you other pregnant women!"

I just can't wrap my head around the logic behind that sort of position.

Mojo

[dsc]

12. There are currently 1.5 million abortions

rape might make up something like a thousand abortions a year. Yes, I will take saving 1 million 499 thousand lives over saving 0.

[veganwitch]

13. unless you are willling

to adopt or help pay for the future care of those 1 million 499 thousand.....

[dsc]

14. and you know I don't

by mind vibes? I will put my history of donations when I was doing well financially against yours or anyone else's in that regard. I was pretty much banned from adopting for several years. (gays had great difficulty getting aproved for adoption in my state) I could now and might in the future.

[MojoKrunch]

17. Amazing.

A gay Anti-choicer.

Reminds me of some African Americans who can't see that gays are fighting the same fight for social acceptance the Civil Rights movement fought last century.

I just don't get it.

I don't get what your motivation could possibly be, politically I mean, to support the Anti-choice movement.
You are aware that *YOU* can be anti-abortion, right?

Are you comfortable with using the government to force morality on people?

Are you comfortable knowing the vast majority of people who make up the "Pro-Life" movement would consider your sexual orientation just as distasteful as abortion?

What could possibly motivate you to support such an anti-woman, fascist mindset?

Mojo

[economic justice]

18. Please remember

Before you send DSC off to Tolerance Training Camp (to teach him that his intolerant views won't be tolerated) that in your grandparents lifetime the very thought of legal abortion was reprehensible. I, personally, am pro-choice....but I respect like hell the guts to stand up when so many of our fellow "tolerant" Democrats are so damned intolerant of anyone who doesn't walk in lock-step. That you seem to not be able to understand at all just shows how much thinking has changed in this country. It used to be a last resort after it was made legal. While I am pro-choice, I think it's scandalous that it has become a backup birth control option. But, don't question DSC's values and commitment just because this guy doesn't agree with every single thing you do. To DSC: Kudos to you for the adoptions! It's not easy for gays, especially. You are a hero as far as I'm concerned.

[MooPie]

33. Just for the record

Abortion has not become a "backup" birth control option. I am very involved on a national level with abortion rights, and can say with authority that for the most part it is a last resort. That being said, even if it should be "backup birth control", it's still a personal decision which doesn't deserve your judgmental opinion. As stated earlier, restricting a woman's reproductive freedom stems primarily from misogyny.

[MojoKrunch]

45. Shhh... don't confuse them with facts...

It only enrages them.
:D

Mojo

[MooPie]

49. Yes

But that's the fun part, seeing them squirm.

[MojoKrunch]

41. Oh my... how quickly we judge.

Before you send DSC off to Tolerance Training Camp (to teach him that his intolerant views won't be tolerated) that in your grandparents lifetime the very thought of legal abortion was reprehensible.
And still hundreds of thousands of women got them even when the odds of medical complications were horrendous.

I, personally, am pro-choice....but I respect like hell the guts to stand up when so many of our fellow "tolerant" Democrats are so damned intolerant of anyone who doesn't walk in lock-step.
As I said, I support the right for all Americans to be anti-abortion.
Personally.
This is what individual freedoms are all about, after all.

That you seem to not be able to understand at all just shows how much thinking has changed in this country.
I don't disrespect DCS for being anti-abortion, but I do for being *Anti-choice* and seemingly unable to defend his position.
Two completely different things.
One can be Pro-choice and anti-abortion.
If one is going to jump into a discussion, one really should be able to explain ones position and defend it.

It used to be a last resort after it was made legal.
Oversimplifying, aren't we?

While I am pro-choice, I think it's scandalous that it has become a backup birth control option.
Scandalous?
Are you always so judgmental?
Or is it just special thing with abortion?

But, don't question DSC's values and commitment just because this guy doesn't agree with every single thing you do.
Do you always enjoy telling other people what to do?

I question values that require the government to infringe individual liberties.
Period, full stop.

To DSC: Kudos to you for the adoptions! It's not easy for gays, especially.
Too bad he can't move to a state where it is easier for him to adopt.

You are a hero as far as I'm concerned.
No offense, but your definition of "hero" leaves much to be desired.

Mojo

[dsc]

19. Two reasons

One I am firmly convinced that fetuses are life and two I am convinced there is a gay gene and gays will be slaughtered in the womb when it is discovered.

[MojoKrunch]

22. Hey, an *answer*!

Sort of.

One I am firmly convinced that fetuses are life
Umm... since they have to be killed to be removed how could they *not* be alive?

Rhetorical question.
I know what you are trying to say is that you are "firmly convinced" that fetuses(how about we use the word prenate since it covers the gamut?) are human beings.
And some people are firmly convinced their pets are little children and exactly the same as human beings.
Unfortunately there is no consensus from this society to support either belief.

But as I've already pointed out, you don't really believe this, because if you actually *valued* human beings, as you seem to be saying, you wouldn't so easily give over those poor innocent babies to be aborted just because it was conceived by rape or might bring about maternal demise.
I mean, heavens man, even the *most rabid* Pro-Death-Penalty fanatic understands that there has to be a fair trial by jury *before* judgment is passed and an execution carried out.
Whereas you would seemingly condemn and put these tiny, defenseless human beings to death without so much as a logical reason.
Not good.

and two I am convinced there is a gay gene and gays will be slaughtered in the womb when it is discovered.
Wow.
Ok, now *that* sort of paranoia needs professional help.

You do realize that a pre-natal test to determine something like genetic homosexuality is so far fetched and in the distant future as to be a less than worthless reason, right?
Seriously... that is just odd.

Mojo

[economic justice]

25. What I find odd is you won't tolerate his OPINION! Get off his back!

You are crossing the line by saying his opinion needs "professional help."

[MojoKrunch]

43. Is this where I squeeze your head for more?

What I find odd is you won't tolerate his OPINION! Get off his back!
What I find odder still is how angry some people get when their vapid opinions are challenged.

He responded to *ME*, bud.
Are you one of those people who ignore the "don't feed the tiger" signs and then whine about getting your arm bitten off as well?

I have no problem with his "opinion".
What I have "problems" with are the *reasons behind* his opinion.
If this is too difficult for you to deal with, ignore it.
Or be an adult about it and attempt a discussion.

Screaming at me will accomplish nothing.

You are crossing the line by saying his opinion needs "professional help."
Don't worry, I'd offer the same advice to any rampant racist or gender bigot who offered their "opinion" as well.
Anyone who justifies *their current opinion* based on *some paranoid future fantasy*, IMHO, needs professional help.
The *type* of help is their business.
Frankly, I'd just as soon he talk to a philosopher.

Cope.

Mojo

[dsc]

26. Oh really?

That is what was said, not to long ago, about Down's Syndrome. There is now a definative test for that. That is what was said, not too long ago, about several other defects for which there is a test. There have been several reports of gay genes, and yes we are mapping the human genome as I type. While it is not just around the corner, it isn't all that far down the street.

[MojoKrunch]

44. Yes really.

That is what was said, not to long ago, about Down's Syndrome.
Did "they" really?
Funny, I'm 40 and I don't recall much talk from "they" about testing for Downs Syndrome just so "they" could abort.

What a load.

There is now a definative test for that.
And how many years did it take from determining that Downs was a genetic disorder to the creation of the pre-natal test?
(which, bw, isn't always accurate and isn't always done because there is a slight but definite risk involved.)
Don't go blaming a diagnostic test for your fascist opinions, bud.
That is just weak.
Take responsibility for yourself.

That is what was said, not too long ago, about several other defects for which there is a test.
Blah, blah, blah.
And when or if such a test is *ever* developed, you can panic about it then.
Using it as a justification for your opinion *NOW* is a cop out and meaningless.

There have been several reports of gay genes, and yes we are mapping the human genome as I type.
Sheesh.
Had you actually *read* any of those reports you'd understand just why determining a "gay gene" will be an incredibly difficult task, if it ever gets accomplished *at all*.

Again, an absolutely bullsh*t reason on which to base a *current* opinion.

While it is not just around the corner, it isn't all that far down the street.
And yet you have no problem with supporting a fascistic government infringing on reproductive freedom *NOW*.
Why is that?

Hell, why not support rounding up all the homosexuals and having them sterilized *NOW*, since they may discover the cause is *GENETIC* at some point in the future?

I'd accuse you of being illogical, but from the defense you've presented thus far that would be a step *UP*.

Feh.

Mojo

[dsc]

48. My mom was in her late thirties

when she was pregant with my sister, and even then, over 20 years ago, they were running tests to detect genetic abnormalities. And yes, if one is detected, abortion is the recommended option. (I was 11 when she was pregnant with her and therefore did understand what was going on). While I haven't exactly kept entirely up on this I know that in the last 20 years these tests have gotten way more sophisticated and thus easier to use for that purpose.

As to the gay gene. I didn't say, despite your delusional post, that one has been found now. But one will be found and when it is gays will be slaughtered in the womb. I don't care if that is 10 to 20 years from now, like I would guess it to be; or if it is sooner or later. That doesn't alter the simple fact that it would exist.

[MojoKrunch]

53. Talk to your mom, then. Please.

My mom was in her late thirties when she was pregant with my sister, and even then, over 20 years ago, they were running tests to detect genetic abnormalities.
And quite obviously you never really looked into just what those tests entailed.
The majority of them are for abnormalities incompatible with life.
IOW, the pregnancy won't carry to term because the fetus is so terribly deformed.
Not because they have a club foot or a cleft palette.
Sheesh.

And yes, if one is detected, abortion is the recommended option.
Recommended, not *mandatory*.

(I was 11 when she was pregnant with her and therefore did understand what was going on).
As opposed to what?
Your "depth of knowledge" now?

While I haven't exactly kept entirely up on this I know that in the last 20 years these tests have gotten way more sophisticated and thus easier to use for that purpose.
Do me a huge favor.
Go get a bit more information.
Thanks.

As to the gay gene. I didn't say, despite your delusional post, that one has been found now.
So I'm "delusional" now because *YOU* said, and I quote, "two I am convinced there is a gay gene and gays will be slaughtered in the womb when it is discovered."????
Did *I* say anything about one being found *NOW*?

Look DSC, it is obvious this is an emotional topic for you and all, but you're going to do nothing but embarrass yourself further if you continue on.
If nothing else, step back and assess your position.

But one will be found and when it is gays will be slaughtered in the womb.
Damn, he doesn't read minds, but he can tell the future.
Can I be your manager?
I'd laugh but at this point that would just be cruel.

I don't care if that is 10 to 20 years from now, like I would guess it to be; or if it is sooner or later. That doesn't alter the simple fact that it would exist.
Your not caring is quite obvious, DSC, given that you've used what *may* happen as a justification for your current opinion on determining what the government should be involved in what *other people* should do.

Ridiculous.

Mojo

[dsc]

57. Please point out where I said cleft pallet

in my post? Please point out where I said club foot in my post? And if you think Down's Syndome is simalar to those you are a way bigger idiot that you think I am. BTW I am quite familiar with Downs Syndrome. My dad was the principal of the local school for the mentally retarded when I grew up. I have met several dozen people with Downs' syndrome. It isn't club feet or cleft pallet. And as late as the early 1970's doctors routinely recommended straving Down's babies to death after they were born on the grounds that their lives weren't worth living.

And you said this:

and two I am convinced there is a gay gene and gays will be slaughtered in the womb when it is discovered.
Wow.
Ok, now *that* sort of paranoia needs professional help.

You do realize that a pre-natal test to determine something like genetic homosexuality is so far fetched and in the distant future as to be a less than worthless reason, right?
Seriously... that is just odd.

Maybe you meant to say something else. But the clear implication of what you posted is that you feel one will never be discovered. And that you think I think that such testing is current. While the first implication obviously can't be proven the second clearly is non sense.

I was looking for a poll to back me up on the idea that people might abort gay kids but couldn't find one. I did find the following though:

This is from the person who discovered DNA.

Canadian Member of Parliament and Reform Party Justice Critic Myron Thompson stated that "I don't hate thieves; I hate stealing. I do not hate murderers; I hate murdering. I do not hate homosexuals; I hate homosexuality."<103> The Nobel laureate who discovered DNA, the human genetic code, suggests that women be allowed to abort a foetus if the unborn child is found to be carrying the gene responsible for homosexuality. James Watson is quoted as saying that "parents have a moral responsibility to make sure their babies are born as healthy as possible". He further stated:

Some day a child is going to sue its parents for being born.
They will say: 'My life is so awful with these terrible genetic defects and you just callously didn't find out. Or, you knew and didn't do anything about it. Or, this disease was in the family and again you didn't do anything about it.'<104>

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n2/banks62_text.html#t104

Then there is this from an admittedly gay pro life editorial but it does sight a readily available gay book as its source.

And such fears are anything but exaggerated. For example, John Fortunato, in Embracing the Exile, recounts that after a young man named Tim came out to his parents, ". . . his mother approached him. She put her arm around his shoulders. Tim took this to mean that she was going to accept him. 'Tim," she said, 'I've made only one mistake in my life.' Tim asked her what she meant. 'Twenty-two years ago,' she said, 'I should have had an abortion.' This is no isolated instance. In the now-famous report on teen suicide that Dr. Louis Sullivan suppressed during his tenure as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, there is an account of a gay teenager who was thrown out of his home when his parent's discovered his sexual orientation. When he tried to reconcile with his parents by calling them from a pay phone, the boy's mother told him point-blank that had she known when she was carrying him that he would grow up to be homosexual, she would have aborted him then and there.

A rare case, you say? Enlightened, liberal, and well-meaning parents wouldn't dream of doing such a thing? It's comforting to suppose so, but I wouldn't bet on it. In fact, some might very well decide that aborting their unborn gay child would be in the child's best interest. As one woman I know put it: "Why should I bring a child into the world whom I know is going to have to deal with all this bigotry and hate? Why bring up an innocent child to face that? So, yes, I would have an abortion if I knew my child would grow up to be homosexual."

In other words, "Trust me, dear, you're better off dead."

http://www.plagal.org/op-ed/1-20-97a.html

In short, this isn't the fantastic notion you make it out to be. I do vividly remember reading a poll when there was first talk of a gay gene stating that well over 50% of people would abort gay children. While I don't think that is the case now I also don't think it is some trivial number. I wish I could find that poll but it was long enough ago it probably isn't on the net.

[MojoKrunch]

70. Are you serious?

Please point out where I said cleft pallet in my post?
Those were examples *I* provided of genetic disabilities (well ok, a club foot isn't really genetic) that aren't *life threatening*.
Since you *admitted* to not knowing what you were talking about when it came to prenatal genetic testing.

Get it?

And if you think Down's Syndome is simalar to those you are a way bigger idiot that you think I am.
Oooo... now *I'm* the idiot?
My oh my how quickly we point fingers.
I'm not the one misreading and dancing around the issue, am I?

And as late as the early 1970's doctors routinely recommended straving Down's babies to death after they were born on the grounds that their lives weren't worth living.
Citation?
Or do you really think I'm going to take your word for that given your recent track record?
My natural skepticism tells me this is just another urban myth.
Feel free to change my mind.

Maybe you meant to say something else.
Nope.
I say exactly what I mean to say.

But the clear implication of what you posted is that you feel one will never be discovered.
And your ability to comprehend what you read is again put into question.

And that you think I think that such testing is current.
Wow... are you actually *READING* what I write?
Or just pretending?
Because I neither wrote nor implied such a thing.
In fact, the point I was making was just how stupid it is to base a *current* opinion on some less than probably *future* happening.

Take a few more moments and reread everything I've posted.
Stick to what I'm actually saying and not what you believe I am saying.
That'll help.

While the first implication obviously can't be proven the second clearly is non sense.
DSC, your entire characterization of what I wrote is complete nonsense.

Unless information on pursuit of the "gay gene" has progressed in some positive manner within the last 2 years, the last thing I recall reading on it was almost entirely speculative.
It grow increasingly likely that a cluster of genetic markers will *one day* be found to indicate homosexuality(and how exactly will that be defined and delineated is unclear) but that day is nowhere close and even less close is a *pre-natal test* to determine such a thing.

I was looking for a poll to back me up on the idea that people might abort gay kids but couldn't find one.
And this would prove what, exactly?
That stupid people believe stupid things?
Of that I have no doubt, whatsoever.
Again, what people *say* and what people *DO* are ofttimes quite different.
And as I pointed out in another post here, I surmise that anti-gay fundamentalists would be, contrary to their avowed "Pro-life" stance, the ones most likely to vow to abort "gay prenates".
But given the emotional/psychological such people inflict on their straight children, is it a "good thing" they raise children who are "genetically" gay?

This is from the person who discovered DNA.
And I'm quite certain you can find any number of prominent scientists and politicians with similar opinions.
So?

What does this have to do with the *FACT* that your avowed position is based, in part, on something that does not yet exist?
Nothing whatsoever.

Then there is this from an admittedly gay pro life editorial but it does sight a readily available gay book as its source.
A "gay" science book?

'Twenty-two years ago,' she said, 'I should have had an abortion.'
Gosh.
You mean *STRAIGHT HOMOPHOBIC* people have *GAY* children?
::feigned shock::

Why does what some homophobic, hate-filled minority *might* do play such a *HUGE* part in why you profess to be Anti-choice?
Or even anti-abortion?
I'm still not seeing your reasons or even rationalizations for this.
Why not?

A rare case, you say? Enlightened, liberal, and well-meaning parents wouldn't dream of doing such a thing? It's comforting to suppose so, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Especially since that won't sell any books.

In fact, some might very well decide that aborting their unborn gay child would be in the child's best interest. As one woman I know put it: "Why should I bring a child into the world whom I know is going to have to deal with all this bigotry and hate? Why bring up an innocent child to face that? So, yes, I would have an abortion if I knew my child would grow up to be homosexual."
Oh my... Writing 101.
I'd call this fear-mongering via hyperbole and selective quote.
Gah... bad thinking leads to bad writing.

Learn to understand when a writer is trying to manipulate you, DSC.

In other words, "Trust me, dear, you're better off dead."
Don't worry DSC, you can always move to China.
Last I heard the boy to girl ratio there is climbing steadily because of all of the female infanticide and gender-biased abortions.
Plenty of gay guys to go around.
Hell, if you're going to wander off topic, so am I.

In short,
"In short"?
You think you've *proved* something?
Holy shit.

Give it up, DSC.
Accept that you're a raging fascist with misogynist tendencies and get help with defending your position.
I recommend you talk to the "Pro-Life" terror groups out there for help.

this isn't the fantastic notion you make it out to be.
Now if *only* you'd actually posted something that would disabuse me of that notion, DSC, you might have a point.

Sad to say, with all of your hard work, you have not even come close.

I do vividly remember reading a poll when there was first talk of a gay gene stating that well over 50% of people would abort gay children.
Sigh.
Never. Ever. Base your opinions on polls, DSC.
The sheeple are fickle and polls are almost never worded properly.
And in the end, actions speak louder than words.

While I don't think that is the case now I also don't think it is some trivial number.
And since such a thing is not currently possible, nor will it be in the conceivable future, the point is less than moot.
And in the end, the fact that you claim to base your reasons for being Anti-choice on such a thing is demonstrably ridiculous.

I wish I could find that poll but it was long enough ago it probably isn't on the net.
Spare me please.
Millions of people believing a stupid thing does not make that thing any less stupid.

IOW, evoking the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum will accomplish nothing.

Mojo

[dsc]

75. I will answer only two points

and after that you can have the last word. The reason it matters how many people believe that aborting fetuses for being gay is acceptable is that these are the people who would be doing that. Of course you know that. The simple fact is that many, many people would abort gay fetuses if they could. You may not give a damn about that but I for one do.

Secondly, I have two sources for the Down's Syndrome babies being starved. One is my dad who used to have to argue against doing this in his job as principal of the local school for the mentally retarded. The other is J Everert Coop, former SG of the US, who testified about his in his Congressional confirmation hearings. You can look up the second one. It should be noted that my dad is actually pro choice not pro life.

[MojoKrunch]

80. Oh I love that dodge... "you can have the last word"... LOL

IOW, "you've backed me into a corner and I have nowhere else to go but run away".
Whatever.

The reason it matters how many people believe that aborting fetuses for being gay is acceptable is that these are the people who would be doing that.
So they *say*, DSC.
In a *poll*, no less.
About a hypothetical situation which probably won't happen in my lifetime.
And in the end, would it be a *bad thing* if virulent homophobes did not inflict themselves on their "gay" children?
An entirely different discussion as well.

Again, and for the last time apparently, an absolutely *RIDICULOUS* reason to base a *CURRENT* opinion on.

Of course you know that.
He *DOES* read minds!
I *KNEW* it!
Tell my future now, DSC.
LOL

In fact, I've been quite clear about casting doubt on these peoples responses to your supposed poll.(which is just about as ephemeral an aspect of this discussion as there can be)

The simple fact is that many, many people would abort gay fetuses if they could. You may not give a damn about that but I for one do.
What a massively steaming pile of SH*T, DSC!
There *ARE* no "simple facts" because the procedure DOES NOT EXIST.
IT MIGHT NEVER EXIST.
And those supposed people who might supposedly abort a possibly "gay" child are not *IN THAT SITUATION* so they really *DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WILL DO*!
Holy crap, man, do you *really* define your reality using *POLLS*??

No *wonder* you come across as so terribly confused.

Secondly, I have two sources for the Down's Syndrome babies being starved. One is my dad who used to have to argue against doing this in his job as principal of the local school for the mentally retarded. The other is J Everert Coop, former SG of the US, who testified about his in his Congressional confirmation hearings. You can look up the second one. It should be noted that my dad is actually pro choice not pro life.
Sigh.
If you can't actually debate, DSC, just say so.
Yes, of course I can do your work for you.
That isn't the point.
The point is that if you are going to *make claims* you should be able to *substantiate the claim*.

No wonder some of you routinely get your asses kicked by the Repukes.
Sheesh.
That is just weak.

Ok, back to your supposed sources... anecdotal evidence is exactly what it is.
It isn't, unfortunately, proof of anything meaningful.
One wonders just who exactly was recommending that Down Syndrome children in a school(which means they are at least what... 5 years of age?) be freaking *starved to death*.
I've heard of a great number of atrocities committed by the establishment in this country in the name of "righteous" causes... sterilizing black men and women against their will, poisoning black servicemen, using prisoners for medical experiments, and perhaps such things as starving the profoundly retarded *were* done at an institutional level.
In which case, I'd prefer to see the documentation which *must* accompany such things before I accept their validity.

And if Dr. Coop did in fact testify before Congress on such a thing, you should have *no* problem finding that testimony.

Neither of which actually supports your original assertion, however.
To wit; "And as late as the early 1970's doctors routinely recommended straving Down's babies to death after they were born on the grounds that their lives weren't worth living."

"Doctors *routinely* recommended".
“On the grounds that their lives weren't worth living.”
Prove it.

Or retract it.

I can't stand people who perpetuate lies and myths and I can only pity people too lazy to do their own work.

Oh, and DSC, I don't suffer fools lightly.
You may run away now.

Mojo

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calimary]

35. Actually, dsc's point about a gay gene and some people's wish to slaughter

it IS a reasonable point to make.

Let me say for the record that - AS a mother of two AND a lifelong (albeit lapsed) Catholic, I am ARDENTLY pro-choice. Both my pregnancies were difficult and painful and had to be shortened by two weeks because my toximia was deemed to be approaching life-threatening status. I was already pro-choice, but this convinced me even more adamantly that it's NOBODY'S business but the woman whether she should carry a pregnancy to term. No one, no man, no religioso, no mullah, no priest, no government bureaucrat, no NOBODY has the right to compel her in this most private, intimate, and most personal matter. NO ONE has the right to force himself into a woman's nether regions physically OR ideologically, without the woman's consent. Where I come from, any forcible entry into a woman's privates is called RAPE. And the rethugs and other knee-jerk anti-choicers are nothing more than would-be body-snatchers.

But I have talked with people who have declared that - if they knew they had a Down's Syndrome baby, they'd abort. It would not surprise me in the least to find that this would start happening, even among fundies (no, ESPECIALLY among fundies) if medical science were ever able to determine a gay gene. In fact, I'd bet money that there'd be lots of closet abortions among the Bible-belter set if they realized they were carrying one of those dreaded "abominations." I'd not only expect it, I'd bank on it. The so-called "Christian" right has no difficulty with the issue of hypocrisy - doesn't phase them in the least.

Even so, I am resolutely pro-choice. It is a non-negotiable issue, a woman's territory exclusively. It is up to the individual woman to decide and it's nobody else's DAMNED business! It is a huge, sometimes cataclysmic decision and it should be entered into VERY thoughtfully. But it's still a woman's own private business. I would think it'd be an integral part of any conservative's belief system (because after all, don't conservatives believe fervently in getting the government OUT of your personal life?). But it seems more important to many to reserve a woman's body as the property of her designated male. My attitude is simple: when men can get pregnant, they can weigh in with credibility on this issue. I'd venture to guess that if men could get pregnant, we wouldn't even be having such a discussion.

on edit - grammar corrections required

[MojoKrunch]

51. Oh there is no doubt in my mind that some nutty people have

said these things out loud even.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated exactly as silly as it is.

Why do Downs Syndrome children even *exist* since abortion is legal and pre-natal tests are available?

Do you honestly think people will suddenly start aborting *THEIR* children just because a freaking *TEST* was positive?

And quite frankly the kinds of people who would abort a "gay fetus" shouldn't freaking be *PARENTING* a homosexual-to-be, should they?

Actually, dsc's point about a gay gene and some people's wish to slaughter it IS a reasonable point to make.
As justification for being *Anti-choice*!
No freaking way.

I couldn't buy that no matter how you gussied it up.
Sorry.

But I have talked with people who have declared that - if they knew they had a Down's Syndrome baby, they'd abort.
Did they?
Because I've talked to a number of people who *SAY* things they never do.

It would not surprise me in the least to find that this would start happening, even among fundies (no, ESPECIALLY among fundies) if medical science were ever able to determine a gay gene.
Look, I'm of the opinion that fundamentalists should only be allowed to parent under govt supervision in the first place, so I *expect* them to be the first to *ABORT "GAY" FETUSES*.
Which tells you everything you need to know about fundamentalist "Pro-Lifers", doesn't it?

But it seems more important to many to reserve a woman's body as the property of her designated male.
I concur.
So at what point will DSC come to this realization and admit it out loud?

Mojo

[Nikia]

104. Actually tests are done and abortion is recommended

My mother had a baby two years ago at 40. The doctor had her go through a genetic test to see if the fetus had Down's syndrome and said that most women choose to abort fetus's that have it. The fetus did not have Down's syndrome and my mother said that she would have had it anyway since her new husband, who never had been a father before, really wanted a baby. An article ran recently in the paper about Down's syndrome children and how they are now living longer, more productive lives now. Some parents said that they still ran into people who asked them why they didn't have the good sense to abort. When I took moleculear biology a few years ago, we spent a class period on talking about the ethics of genetic testing. We saw a video about genetic tests for cystic fibrosis and one families decision to have the babies (twins) anyway but their decision to abort when the next pregnancy also came up poitive. Really, I don't think that it is being overly paranoid to be afraid of this happening. I think that if there is a gay gene that it probably really is more complex than just one gene. As more tests become more often used, genetically undesirable fetuses being aborted will become more of an issue and more popular. Unfortunately, in China and India, undesirable female fetuses are being aborted. I think that this is better than infanticide which is also common. It is just too bad that potential children are terminated because they aren't exactly what the parents want.

[MojoKrunch]

113. "My mother had a baby two years ago at 40."

Tells me everything I need to know about why she was tested.
I forget the exact numbers but the odds for genetic abnormality increase for women over 35.
Modern medicine and such testing make it so that women can conceive using their own eggs until almost 50... but the odds are not good.

That reminds me of the women who go through IVF procedures and then *don't* abort the majority of implanted eggs as the procedure calls for... so you have these litters of children with half developing gestational abnormalities due simply to the fact that human women aren't designed to bear 4+ fetuses.

The doctor had her go through a genetic test to see if the fetus had Down's syndrome and said that most women choose to abort fetus's that have it.
At her age or in general?
And so what if they do?
Why is it anyone else's issue but theirs?

The fetus did not have Down's syndrome and my mother said that she would have had it anyway since her new husband, who never had been a father before, really wanted a baby.
Great to hear.

An article ran recently in the paper about Down's syndrome children and how they are now living longer, more productive lives now. Some parents said that they still ran into people who asked them why they didn't have the good sense to abort.
Thank modern medical science and some people insist on saying uncouth things.
What can you do?

When I took moleculear biology a few years ago, we spent a class period on talking about the ethics of genetic testing. We saw a video about genetic tests for cystic fibrosis and one families decision to have the babies (twins) anyway but their decision to abort when the next pregnancy also came up poitive.
So by extrapolation some people will only abort half of their "gay" children?
Let me address for just a second the *massive* difference between *genetic abnormalities* leading to profound medical situations and resource intensive parenting versus being... well "gay".
On one hand... expensive medical bills, high insurance rates, extraordinary parenting commitments.
On the other... a sensitive kid who likes to play dress up and sing along to Streisand?
No comparison, really.

Really, I don't think that it is being overly paranoid to be afraid of this happening.
Is it just paranoid enough?
:)

You folks seem to be missing the initial point I made to DSC about using *something that hasn't happened yet* as a basis for his opinion *now*.

Such a test *may* in fact happen.
So what?
How will this be any different from a woman choosing to abort because she wants to finish school?

The *reasons* for the choice don't particularly matter to me.
To each their own, I say.

I think that if there is a gay gene that it probably really is more complex than just one gene.
From what little I've read on it, I can guarantee it isn't a single gene.
And what exactly is being searched for?
What does being "genetically gay" mean?
Are bi-sexual men "genetically gay"?
Or men who will get blow-jobs from other men but not give them "genetically gay"?
Or are we only talking about men who *only* love other men?
And what about lesbians?
Or trans-gender folk?
Will there be "testing" for that as well?
How far will the "deviant sexuality" defining and testing go?

As more tests become more often used, genetically undesirable fetuses being aborted will become more of an issue and more popular.
Possibly.
And why is this a bad thing?
We make choices about every other aspect of our lives, why not that as well?

Unfortunately, in China and India, undesirable female fetuses are being aborted. I think that this is better than infanticide which is also common.
Yea... the fallout from a 5 to 1 male to female ratio is going to be really interesting to watch over the coming years.
I suspect China will be fighting quite a few border wars to thin the herd, so to speak.

It is just too bad that potential children are terminated because they aren't exactly what the parents want.
You do realize the reasons girl fetuses/babies are killed off is the economic factors, right?
In China parents live with their sons as they age.
In India girls must still be doweried off and can cost for more than some families are willing to spend.

I say deal with the root causes, not the symptoms.

Mojo

[Malva Zebrina]

118. I don;t care what anyone says

if I were carrying a child that had Down's syndrome I would abort that as soon as possible. I would not be willing to bring a child into this world with that handicap, period. I have seen many and have worked with many for several years--it would not be for me, that much I knowl I am not enamored of the current popular gushing over the extraordinary lives of these children if we would only birth them and allow them to exist and if we would only allow them to drain us of our very own life, as we know it, to give them a semblance of life, which at best has to be a life of dependancy. It is not for me and I would support any woman who chooses not to birth a child with Down's.

If you want to birth that child then you do, but it is not "extraordinary" as I see it.
There are no medals to be given, as far as I am concerned. Sorry, but if the choice would be mine, I would not choose to bring a sub standard in intelligence child into this world where I would be burdened, my marriage would be burdened and my other children would be burdened by it. That is quite arrogant, some may think==others may applaud this control over one's own life and family.

[loyalsister]

110. gay gene

You should look into some study on the subject. It is less finite than you imply in insisting there would be a gene that determines sexuatlity. Behavioral scientists have concluded that there is a lot of gray area. Individuals vary by degrees - from those who knew from childhood that they were attracted to members of the same sex to those who engage in homosexual behavior only under extreme social conditions (ie prison). So, basically it's all just a matter of how much preference as opposed to either or.
Look into work by Kolata and and anthropologist named Helen Fisher.

[MojoKrunch]

114. Thanks... I'd read similar things but didn't have references.

Are you familar with the line of thinking that says there are as many as 10 different sexualities?

Mojo

[Liberator_Rev]

73. He's not the ONLY "gay anti-choicer" at DU

It's against the rules to "call out" people by name, but unbelievable as it may sound, there's more than one very vocal "gay anti-choice" man like DSC here at DU.

Meanwhile, we "Liberals Like Christ" argue for justice for gays at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/equality4gays and take on "churchmen" at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChurchvsGays .

[MojoKrunch]

79. No doubt.

I'm quite certain there are many folks here who express what I believe to be are irrational, contradictory positions.
And more power to 'em, I say.
Just don't pretend that I have to find it rational and acceptable when it looks to infringe on Constitutionally protected individual rights, ok?
I mean, is that not fair?

It's against the rules to "call out" people by name, but unbelievable as it may sound, there's more than one very vocal "gay anti-choice" man like DSC here at DU.
No one is being "called out", Liberator, so relax.
DSC engaged *ME* first.
People seem to forget that.
And I'm sorry, but when deliberately provoked for *MY* opinion, expect to be provoked right the hell back.
Quid pro quo.

Meanwhile, we "Liberals Like Christ" argue for justice for gays at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/equality4gays and take on "churchmen" at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChurchvsGays.
Excellent.
And if you ever want to discuss the philosophical aspects of religious belief, I'm always available.
:D

Mojo

[Alenne]

59. Now you can adopt

You say pretty much banned, does that mean you were personally turned down or you just didn't try. I could now and I might doesn't mean you will.

[dsc]

77. It was all but unheard of for single men

let alone gay ones to adopt in my state until recently. I looked into it and was told by a very good adoption lawyer it was hopeless. I assumed he knew his business but heck what do adoption lawyers know? Now I don't meet the asset and income requirements.

[MojoKrunch]

15. Way to go, avoid answering any of my questions with a pointless

appeal to ego.

Yes, I will take saving 1 million 499 thousand lives over saving 0.
*YOU* won't do a damn thing to save anyone.
Sorry.
And if you honestly think that making abortion illegal will *stop* abortions from happening, then you don't know your history very well, either.
But then this is pretty typical from Anti-choicers.

All illgalizing abortion will do is kill grown human beings and their unwanted pregnancies as opposed to killing embryos and fetuses.

It is a shame to see that some people aren't willing to actually defend their positions.
Oh well.

You do whatever makes you feel good.
I'll keep right on fighting to protect us from people like you.

Mojo

[dsc]

16. No you asked

rather snottily I might add, why I took the position I did. Silly me I thought you were asking for my opinion when you asked for my opinion. I am sorry for misconstruing your post. In the future can you please let me know when asking for my opinion isn't really asking for my opinion.

[MojoKrunch]

20. And still you run away from the questions. Why?

No you asked rather snottily I might add,
Oh my... and now we are projecting as well.
How long before *you* start reading my mind, too?

...why I took the position I did.
Oh, so sorry if I ruffled your feathers.
I get that way around people who offend my belief in indvidual freedom.
I'm sure you'll find a way to cope.

Silly me I thought you were asking for my opinion when you asked for my opinion.
Silly you, indeed.
Why would I ask for an opinion you already presented?
I asked you to *defend* your position.
Feel free to start any time now.
I'm patient.

I am sorry for misconstruing your post.
Like I said, I'm used to Anti-choicers mischaracterizing my position.
Nothing new here.

In the future can you please let me know when asking for my opinion isn't really asking for my opinion.
I’m sorry, but you really must work on those reading comprehension skills.
After reviewing my post to you I see no reference to asking you for your *opinion* but rather asking you for *explanations* and *justifications* for your position.

Were you the person being talked about?
If so, please explain what you find objectionable about what I posted.

What I want to know, as a fellow DUer, is why you feel the need to involve the government in what is intrinsically an extremely personal situation.

Do you support forcing people to be organ donors?

At what point does your distaste for abortion become meaningful for other people?

What I want to know is how you justify making it the governments business to take away individual rights.

Are you always so cavalier about killing innocent human beings?

If you can find any “asking for your opinion” queries in there, please be very specific, because I'm not seeing it.
As far as I can tell, I’m asking you to explain or defend your response to *my* post.

Now the question becomes, will you?

Mojo

[Walt Starr]

23. Ya know, no matter how I try, I simply cannot consider an anti-choicer

to be trustworthy.

I cannot be a friend to an anti-choicer any more than I cana be a friend to a Republican. It's just not within me to give anti0-choicers and Republicans anything more than scorn.

That's just me, others have different views.

[dsc]

27. nothing like good old fashioned bigotry

I guess you didn't trust JFK and RFK both pro lifers. I guess you didn't trust Kucinich until a little over a year ago.

[Walt Starr]

29. I still don't trust Kucinich

I was an infant when Kennedy was shot. Don;t remember Bobby except in the fuzzy manner one has recollections of one's first Christmas they can remember.

Whatever you want to call it, I do not trust anybody that wants to take control of anybody else's body. They're control freaks, in my opinion.

[REP]

72. I Trust Kucinich As Far As I Can Throw a Sofa

And no, I do not worship the dead Kennedys or think they were exceptional other than in the manner of their deaths.

I, too, cannot trust pro-liars. Anyone who wants to strip rights from women is lower than snake shit.

[Carolina]

39. are you willing to put your energy and money

where your mouth is and help raise some of those zygotes, embryos and fetuses once they're born?

As someone who has run the gamut professionally from OB-GYN to forensic pathology and thus seen a vast spectrum of life and death from a medical perspective, I have no doubt that abortion should be a personal medical decision. Many elective abortions are done for medical reasons not because the woman simply does not want a child at a particular time or by a particular man. Yes, I have seen women who were cavalier about the procedure, but many more agonized about the decision. I have also seen death from the abuse and neglect of children, which is a real horror. I have seen a 12 year old give birth as a consequence of being raped by her mother's boyfriend.

There is an ugly side to human nature and there are things worse than abortion. Making abortion illegal again will, of course, not make it unavailable. Instead, we will, once again, see much more morbidity and mortality of women. And, as with illicit drugs, we will create another sort of entrepreneur.

Use your pro-life zeal to help the many children already among us who are hungry, who are living in poverty and who will likely not have access to quality education. Volunteer with mentoring organizations, your local department of human services or department of juvenile justice.

The great chasm between the pro-lifers and pro-choicers even here at DU, I fear, cannot be bridged. Therefore, let us all do what we can for the helpless children already born. Abortion will never go away because there situations when it is medically indicated, but let us do what we can, through education and medicine, to make it as unnecesary as possible.

[dsc]

42. I answered that once already in this thread

the fact you didn't bother to read that before asking that is your problem not mine.

[Carolina]

47. you're the one with a serious problem

Read my full post. I said so much more than that, in fact I was rather conciliatory, if you had bothered to read my whole post.
But typical of dealing with a pro-lifer who doesn't even care for the rape exception, there's no reaching you and your kind.

BTW, your prior answer which I had read, was really rather deficient. Don't like abortions, don't have one. Oh, that's right, gay males don't have to worry about such things.

[dsc]

50. For the record

and as I did answer before. I gave more money I would be willing to bet then virtually any of you sanctimoniiuos pro lifers for that purpose when I made emough to do so. On an income of around 35k I gave over 5k to groups for children. If you can match that record then good for you but I highly doubt it. I have yet to meet a single pro choicer who lectured me on that who could.

[Carolina]

55. spare me the violins

You don't know what anyone else does and I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about who gives more since my views are consistent with my charitable gifts. For the record, though, I make more and have given more. So there, ya happy.

But my larger point was and is about all of us doing more (using "energy and ... zeal") for our fellow man since the pro-life/pro-choice divide is too great. We'll never convert you and you'll never convert us.

But you're the one who got nasty in your reply and you are the sanctimonious (please note the correct spelling) one as well. Again, so typical of you 'no exception' prolifers who are also known to resort to bullying and deadly force.

Until and unless, like me, you have borne children and can really understand all that a woman (not a wannabe) goes through emotionally and physiologically, you should just shut the hell up.

[dsc]

69. homophobia

the last resort of people who can't win a debate. And yes I can't spell so therefore my argument must suck. You are why I rarely discuss pro life issues on this board.

[MojoKrunch]

71. Ouch... cheap shot.

Nothing homophobic about that response, DSC.
Quit playing victim.

And yes I can't spell so therefore my argument must suck.
Your suck arguments have nothing to do with your inability to spell.

You are why I rarely discuss pro life issues on this board.
Given your demonstrated lack of reading what is written, DSC, it is no shock to me you shy away from debate here.
Dude, get a better defense of your position.

Or learn that you can be anti-abortion without being Anti-choice.

Mojo

[dsc]

74. You called a gay man a woman wanna be

Just what should one call that?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MojoKrunch]

91. Actually, *I* didn't call you anything like that.

But you go right ahead and play victim all you like.

Mojo

[dsc]

95. Sorry you are correct

but you also butted in. For the record this is what the poster I said has posted homophobia had posted.

Until and unless, like me, you have borne children and can really understand all that a woman (not a wannabe) goes through emotionally and physiologically, you should just shut the hell up.

I stand behind that being homophobia but should have checked that you didn't author the post in question. It should be noted though that you did defend it.

[MojoKrunch]

98. And I still maintain there is nothing homophobic about it.

All I see is you playing victim.

Mojo

[Carolina]

99. not homophobic just disgusted

with your attitude. But my, did I strike a nerve? Let me give you a heads up as an over 50 minority who really knows about discrimination and persecution in the good ole USA. There are times to cry racism justifiably, there are times to cry homohobia. But there are many other times when you should just shut up. Kinda of like choosing your battles wisely

I am not afraid of gays which is what homophobia means. Rather, I simply don't like your attitude and deliberately chose that zinger to unnerve you. Appears I succeeded. If it helps, if you want payback, you can call me the n-word. I won't cry. I've heard worse and have a thicker skin. Ya know the bit about sticks and stones .......

[Jane Roe]

62. If the primary issue is future quality of life of the fetus . . .

then it would be most humane to mandate that all the fetuses be born and to (painlessly) euthanize only the ones that were actually starving or otherwise actually leading an unpleasant life.

Of course, this is not what we (as society) do because other issues are involved.

[MojoKrunch]

92. How could it possibly be more humane than aborting?

If the primary issue is future quality of life of the fetus then it would be most humane to mandate that all the fetuses be born and to (painlessly) euthanize only the ones that were actually starving or otherwise actually leading an unpleasant life.
Not that I care one way or the other about *why* women choose to abort, but how in the world could forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and then killing newborns(which *IS* murder, legally) be conceived as "more humane"?

Who else but the woman involved can determine what is or is not possible in her immediate future?

Of course, this is not what we (as society) do because other issues are involved.
Thankfully.
That would be barbarous.

Mojo

[Jane Roe]

111. Two reasons:

1. Children can be euthanized more painlessly than late term fetuses.

2. If the fetus are mandated to be brought to term and born, some percentage of them will have a decent or good quality of life. However, it is impossible to identify who this lucky percentage is until a year or two goes by and we see who is adopted and who is not. From the perspective of the quality of life of children, it maximizes quality of life more than an abort-them-all approach.


I would like to stress that I am not advocating infanticide. Reasons for preferring abortion to infanticide include: (1) sparing women from the unpleasantness, pain and danger of birth; and (2) metaphysical moral qualms against killing children in any circumstances.

I am merely pointing out that abortion is not generally in the best interests of the fetus -- who might be adoptable and might end up happy and who would probably choose not to be aborted if it was capable of making a choice.

[MojoKrunch]

116. Why late term fetuses?

1. Children can be euthanized more painlessly than late term fetuses.
Early term fetuses can be aborted without the legal issue of killing a human being or additional problems for the women involved.
Why create the conundrum in the first place?

And where are you getting that the "primary issue is future quality of life of the fetus"?
Is this an argument waiting for an assertion?

2. If the fetus are mandated to be brought to term and born, some percentage of them will have a decent or good quality of life.
As defined by who, exactly?
What qualifies as "decent or good quality"?

However, it is impossible to identify who this lucky percentage is until a year or two goes by and we see who is adopted and who is not.
Why not stack the deck and only adopt out to wealthy white families?

From the perspective of the quality of life of children, it maximizes quality of life more than an abort-them-all approach.
Is this the plot of your update to 1984 or Brave New World?
:)

Why not simply wait until they are 21 and the determine their worth to society then?
Those that fail will be reprocessed into food for the survivors.
That way resource loss is minimized.
Or perhaps utilize them as forced-labor slaves until they die.
At least then society benefits from anything it has expended on them in the prior 21 years.

I would like to stress that I am not advocating infanticide.
Jane, I'm not even sure we're in the same reality with this idea.
:D

Reasons for preferring abortion to infanticide include: (1) sparing women from the unpleasantness, pain and danger of birth; and (2) metaphysical moral qualms against killing children in any circumstances.
"Metaphysical"?
Nothing metaphysical about killing human beings, Jane, it is entirely societal.
I've yet to hear of any society that aborted all of their pregnancies.
The closest, IIRC, were the Shakers who couldn't get naked to procreate.

I am merely pointing out that abortion is not generally in the best interests of the fetus -- who might be adoptable and might end up happy and who would probably choose not to be aborted if it was capable of making a choice.
Since when is the "best interest of the fetus" even an issue?
And how in the world could these hypothetical fetuses make such decisions?
This is confusing.

Mojo

[dsc]

21. With the exception of the organ donor thing

I have answered your questions. One, I consider fetuses life. That is why I think it is different than any other 'moral' issue. Two, I do favor the government being allowed to assume you want to donate if you don't opt out (that is opposite of the current situation). You can choose to charcterize that as you wish. I wouldn't call that forcing but I can see why some would.

[MojoKrunch]

24. Well, you've *responded*, at least.

I wouldn't exactly call those "answers".
But that's me.

I have answered your questions. One, I consider fetuses life.
You'll really need to learn to do better than that.
Considering a "fetus life" is damn near meaningless.
Even if you said that you consider fetuses to be "a human life", a human life is not a thing it is a period of time.

That is why I think it is different than any other 'moral' issue.
And yet you are seemingly willing to *bargain* for those lives.
Excuse me if I simply don't believe you value those fetal lives at all.
That sounds cold-blooded at best.

Two, I do favor the government being allowed to assume you want to donate if you don't opt out (that is opposite of the current situation).
And if that were what I posted, you might have some point.
Unfortunately that isn't what I said at all.
"Do you support forcing people to be organ donors?"
"Assum you want to donate" and being *forced* to donate are two ENTIRELY different things, aren't they?

Please don't start mischaracterizing what I say *NOW*.
That would simply be disappointing.

You can choose to charcterize that as you wish. I wouldn't call that forcing but I can see why some would.
And I'd consider them in need of reading comprehension remediation as well.

Perhaps you might want to rethink engaging me in this discussion until after you have decided to be more honest with your answers.

I have little patience for dissembling, disingenuous people.
And I wouldn't want a mod to have to get involved in the fray.

Mojo

[dsc]

28. Forced has a lot of meanings

Some, though not me, would consider what I said forcing people to be organ donors. That is why I gave you the answer I gave. I think it should be opt out on drivers' licences instead of opt in. If you don't consider that forcing, and I am not a mindreader, then my answer is no. If you do then my answer is yes. I don't think I can be any clearer.

Fine I consider fetuses to be human life.

As to your last point. I would rather save 1.4 + million than none. The rape exception is something that is needed to have any prayer of outlawing abortion more generally. Democracy is about compromise. I don't think it would be any more fair to use the courts to force an unacceptable solution in my favor that it was to do so in favor of pro choicers.

[MooPie]

30. I've been reading these postings with interest.

I respect your right to be anti-abortion based upon your personal philosophy. Great, don't have one. However, you would take your beliefs, that of perceiving of a fetus as a human life, which I don't agree with, and enact laws upon that basis. Why are your beliefs superior to mine?

[Walt Starr]

31. I've always viewed this issue as a seperation of church and state issue

The underlying question that everybody dances around is, "When does the fetus become a human."

Some religious beliefs hold that this occurs at conception. Others hold at "the quickening" which would be at about 6 months. Still others hold that a fetus is not a human until it draws its first breath.

So what it comes down to is somebody wants to have their religious beliefs recognized above all others.

edited to add:This is why I consider any anti-choicer to be the moral equivalent of a Pat Robem$ome, Jerry Fallwell, or Fred Phelps. In my opinion, anti-choicers and those three are the same.

[MooPie]

36. Absolutely!

But I must add that to be anti-abortion also indicates to me that religious patriarchal misogyny aside, it represents the value our society places upon women, as subordinate to a fetus. That to me presents a very sad commentary on the status of women.

[Walt Starr]

37. That's why I say anti-choicers are to women what Fred Phelps is to

homosexuals.

Both are forcing their opinions on another's choice.

[MooPie]

38. Amen

to that. Fred is truly frightening.

[dsc]

32. The same reason Fredrick Douglass's were preferable to

Jefferson Davis'. I think doubt should go to the preservation of life.

[MooPie]

34. Great, but

a fetus is not a self-supporting life until it reaches a stage where it is viable outside the womb. So are you saying that all stages of existence should be protected? At what stage do we stop? The seed? The fertilized egg? The zygote?

[MojoKrunch]

54. Well that's one way to spin it, I suppose.

Some, though not me, would consider what I said forcing people to be organ donors.
Nonsense.
Forcing someone to donate an organ has nothing to do with what happens to their bodies after they are dead.
But feel free to pretend if you can't honestly answer the question.
You won't be the first Anti-choice I've seen dance around it.

That is why I gave you the answer I gave. I think it should be opt out on drivers' licences instead of opt in.
Where did I mention *anything* about drivers licenses?
How funny.
I'm always entertained by the creative efforts you people use to avoid answering questions.

If you don't consider that forcing, and I am not a mindreader,
But apparently you are able to tell the future.
Perhaps you can hook up with a "real" mindreader and you can take your show on the road?

then my answer is no. If you do then my answer is yes. I don't think I can be any clearer.
That was almost humorous.

Let me strive for clarity.
If tomorrow the ATF/FDA showed up at your door and declared that you were a perfect match for a little girl who needed a new lung and that you were required by law to donate said lung, would you think this was a good thing or a bad thing.
Let me know if this is confusing and I'll work on rewriting it for greater clarity.

Fine I consider fetuses to be human life.
Were we talking about bovine fetuses?
Avian fetuses?
Canine fetuses?
I wasn't.
What else could a human fetus be but human?

Are you always so uncertain with your answers?

Do you consider homo sapien prenates, zygotes, embryos, fetuses, to be *human beings* like you and me, deserving of rights under the law?
Yes or no.
(because I'm tired of playing the "how man terms can we use to mean the same thing" game)

As to your last point. I would rather save 1.4 + million than none.
You wouldn't be saving any, DSC.
Making abortion illegal doesn't make it stop.
History tells us this.
(do you realize that even *today* illegal abortions are performed in the US?)
Modern medicine will make it slightly less dangerous than pre-Roe illegal abortions, but such legislation will serve only to kill women.

Why do you support legislation that will kill women, DSC?

The rape exception is something that is needed to have any prayer of outlawing abortion more generally.
So, again, you have no problems bargaining with the lives of what most "Pro-Lifers" consider innocent human beings?
I've met some cold-blooded, fascist Anti-choicers in my life, dude, but even *they* drew the line at that.

Democracy is about compromise.
What kind of democracy is about bargaining in human life, DSC?

I don't think it would be any more fair to use the courts to force an unacceptable solution in my favor that it was to do so in favor of pro choicers.
So the idea of individual rights not written specifically in the Constitution are meaningless to you?
Because the right to safe abortions via Roe was derived from many of those same rights you take for granted now.
Or as a gay American, are you willing to let the govt into your bedroom without just cause?

I suspect you value your right to privacy, DSC, and have little clue as to what or why Roe really found anti-abortion laws Unconstitutional.

Mojo

[dsc]

58. You question was utterly unclear

Live donations, with the exception of kidneys and parts of livers are never done. It is silly to bitch me out for not being able to read your mind. The word live doesn't appear in your question.

As to the rest of your points. First calling people names is against the rules please edit fascist from your post. I will give you a half hour to do so or I will alert. I don't wish to make you retype the whole thing so I will hold off but for only a half hour. Second, democracies bargain over human life all the time. Do we spend money to cure x disease or y disease? Do we build hospitals in this place or that? Do we pass z regulation which will save p lives but cost q dollars? All of these should be done to maximize lives saved. If the sole critera were preventing direct deaths then we would simply ban cars. Then all people who died in car accidents wouldn't die. But instead we would have people dying from inability to get medical care in an emergency, inability to get decent food, and a host of other things that having fast, reliable transprotation has prevented. If we have two choices, one would save a million lives but sacrifice a thousand; while the other would save no one; the choice is simple. Choice A. That isn't cold hearted it is rational.

Yes, there would still be some abortions but far fewer. All laws get broken. Yet we have laws in order not to eradicate crime but to lessen it and to provide a societal sanction to prevent people from engaging in it. No law is 100% obeyed. Not even in Singapore and other despotic places. Yet all places have laws and they do so because for most people, laws work.

[MojoKrunch]

78. Only because you *chose* to see it unclearly, DSC.

Live donations, with the exception of kidneys and parts of livers are never done.
Sigh... and neither are "PBAs", but that doesn't stop people from pretending they are.

I swear if you people put as much effort into actual reflection and thought about your positions as you do in dissembling and avoiding, we'd be long done by now.

And there are, in fact, other types of organ donation that occur "live".

Living Donation:
Organ
A living donor is an individual in good health who has undergone screening and compatibility testing and is able to donate a kidney, a portion of a liver or a lung, bone marrow or blood to another person.

http://www.lcnw.org/facts/types/

It is silly to bitch me out for not being able to read your mind. The word live doesn't appear in your question.
It is sillier still of you to pretend this was the issue as you dance around not answering the question.

"If tomorrow the ATF/FDA showed up at your door and declared that you were a perfect match for a little girl who needed a new lung and that you were required by law to donate said lung, would you think this was a good thing or a bad thing."
Good thing or bad thing, DSC?
Why won't you answer the question?

As to the rest of your points. First calling people names is against the rules please edit fascist from your post. I will give you a half hour to do so or I will alert. I don't wish to make you retype the whole thing so I will hold off but for only a half hour.
Whine away, DSC, any mod who can read will understand what I wrote and realize I wasn't "name calling" nor was I instigating "name calling".
Either way, I log all of my posts, so I won't have to re-type anything.

Second, democracies bargain over human life all the time.
No, DSC, they don't, no matter how you spin it.

Do we spend money to cure x disease or y disease?
Do we tell X group that they will have to die so that Y group can live?

Do we build hospitals in this place or that?
Do we kill people in one place so that the hospital can be built somewhere else?

Do we pass z regulation which will save p lives but cost q dollars?
Do we kill some group of people so that Z regulation will only cost X amount of dollars?

All of these should be done to maximize lives saved.
But not at the cost of *KILLING HUMAN BEINGS* to make it happen, DSC.
I find your rationalizations frightfully disturbing.
Especially for a so-called "Democrat".

Did you forget what I said?
Premise: "Pro-Life", which you contend you are, holds that prenates are human beings and deserving of rights, just like you and me.
Premise: The "rape exception/maternal demise exception" allows for the killing of said prenatal human beings *without legal recourse as dictated by those supposed rights*. IOW, someone can't just *KILL* you or me, DSC, because we raped them or *might* cause their demise.
Conclusion: The "rape exception/maternal demise exception" is demonstrably illogical.
Either "Pro-Life" really doesn't believe that prenates are human beings and the premise is false *or* the conditions are illogical.

IOW, DSC, you don't *really* believe that a prenate is "a human life" or you are completely illogical.
And illogical conditions are no way to make valid public policy.

If the sole critera were preventing direct deaths then we would simply ban cars. Then all people who died in car accidents wouldn't die.
But we wouldn’t pass legislation to make cars *more dangerous*, would we, DSC?
And this is all making abortion illegal will accomplish.
But instead we would have people dying from inability to get medical care in an emergency, inability to get decent food, and a host of other things that having fast, reliable transprotation has prevented.
But we wouldn’t *kill them* to provide that transportation, would we?
Help yourself by working at your logic skills, DSC.
This is just pathetic.

If we have two choices, one would save a million lives but sacrifice a thousand; while the other would save no one; the choice is simple. Choice A.
Oh my.
What a heaping load of crap.
The problem with your equation, DSC, is that your “A choice” will not "save millions of lives".
I'll say it again; history proves that making abortion illegal will not prevent abortions from happening.
Can you at least acknowledge historical fact?

That isn't cold hearted it is rational.
No, DSC, this is cold-blooded murder hiding behind weak rationalizations.
Condemning women to unsafe, illegal medical procedures guaranteed to threaten their health and well being because of the Anti-choice misogynist need to control women is just evil.

Yes, there would still be some abortions but far fewer.
Estimates for the 70 years in America prior to Roes passage were anywhere from between 500,000 to 1,000,000 illegal abortions per year, DSC, with a *MUCH* smaller population.
So you trade women’s lives for a few more unwanted babies.

Lovely.

All laws get broken.
And women’s lives *will* be lost.
Seems you don't particularly care about those sorts of things, either.

Yet we have laws in order not to eradicate crime but to lessen it and to provide a societal sanction to prevent people from engaging in it. No law is 100% obeyed. Not even in Singapore and other despotic places. Yet all places have laws and they do so because for most people, laws work.
So you would attempt to move us *towards* despotism and away from a pluralistic democracy?
Lovely.
In a democratic society, laws reflect the will of the people, DSC.
Not the will of the tyrannical few.

Mojo

[dsc]

93. I was wrong on lungs

but neither blood nor marrow can be rationally called organs. It is ludricrious to compare a 15 minture procedure that is utterly uninvasive to taking out a heart or a lung. Marrow is admittedly a bit more invasive but still doesn't require surgury nor general anesteitc. For the record I am opposed to requiring any of those either.


Do we spend money to cure x disease or y disease?
Do we tell X group that they will have to die so that Y group can live?

In point of fact we do. Every dollar spent on curing disease x is a dollar not spent on curing disease y. Thus we are delaying the day a cure is found for disease y and telling some number of people with disease y that they must die so people with disease x can live.

But instead we would have people dying from inability to get medical care in an emergency, inability to get decent food, and a host of other things that having fast, reliable transprotation has prevented.
But we wouldn’t *kill them* to provide that transportation, would we?
Help yourself by working at your logic skills, DSC.
This is just pathetic.


Yes we do. By not banning cars we are letting thousands of people die who otherwise would live. And in some cases we directly do kill them. Ambulances speeding to accident scenes kill some number of people a year yet we accept that as the price of having ambulances get to accident scenes. Those people are directly killed by government policy in an effort to save more lives.

Second, democracies bargain over human life all the time.
No, DSC, they don't, no matter how you spin it.

Yes, we do. To give just one more example. The FDA routinely has to measure the lives saved by a drug vs the lives killed by the same drug. Many drugs which treat things like AIDS and Cancer have horrific side effects including death. Yet the FDA routinely approves those drugs so that people with those diseases have a chance at life. Some number of people are killed by direct government action that otherwise would be alive. We also do this with vacines. A small number of people are killed and or serously injured by vacines each and every year. Yet the government requries them of all children. Thus the government kills a small number of children each year to save many more.

I realize that it isn't pleasent to admit that we do this trade off but we do. Whether directly as in the cases I site above or indirectly by choosing to spend money in one way vs another, we are chosing winners and losers with every decision we make and sometimes the losers lose their lives.

[MojoKrunch]

97. Hello, I must be going.

I thought you were done with me?
Oh well.
One more for the road.

but neither blood nor marrow can be rationally called organs.
I do so love the quibbling.
Tells me you have nothing left.

For the record I am opposed to requiring any of those either.
Ok, so let me get this straight.
You actually *oppose* government enforce organ donation, correct?

In point of fact we do. Every dollar spent on curing disease x is a dollar not spent on curing disease y.
And if the issue was "dollars", you might have a point.
Since it isn't, you don't.
But feel free to wander around on this tangent until you grow bored.
I know you're just avoiding answering my questions.

Thus we are delaying the day a cure is found for disease y and telling some number of people with disease y that they must die so people with disease x can live.
Same load, different pile.

Yes we do.
No, DSC, we *don't*.
I've driven a car for 25 years now and I'm still quite alive.
As are the vast majority of people I know who drive cars.
We don't *kill* people so that *other people* can drive cars.

Equating safety with deliberate killing is mind-bogglingly stupid.

By not banning cars we are letting thousands of people die who otherwise would live. And in some cases we directly do kill them. Ambulances speeding to accident scenes kill some number of people a year yet we accept that as the price of having ambulances get to accident scenes. Those people are directly killed by government policy in an effort to save more lives.
Look up the word *deliberate*, please.
Saying that it is ok to *deliberately kill* a human being because it was conceived by rape is patently ridiculous and illogical.
Does that mean a mother can kill her 10 year old son because he was conceived by rape?

There is no difference if *both* fetus and 10 year old are considered by Anti-choicers as the exact same human being.

This isn't rocket science, DSC.

Yes, we do.
No, we don't.
Look at the legal convolutions necessary to enforce Capital Punishment!

To give just one more example.
Hell, why not... one more turd on the pile won't hurt.

The FDA routinely has to measure the lives saved by a drug vs the lives killed by the same drug.
You just refuse to get it.
Determining the safety of a drug is not the same as *killing some* so that *others might live*.

Thus the government kills a small number of children each year to save many more.
Sigh.
What hopeless stupidity.
I'm sorry, but that just isn't true.
The government doesn't *kill* those children, DSC, the effects of the drugs kill those children.
They're not killed because they aren't human beings, they are die because every medical procedure carries some risk.
If you die from inhaling too much anesthesia, did the anesthesiologist *kill* you?
No, of course not.
Holy steaming poopies.

I realize that it isn't pleasent to admit that we do this trade off but we do.
No, DSC, what isn't pleasant is conversing with you.
I feel the distinct need for a shower right now to wash this icky off of me.

Whether directly as in the cases I site above or indirectly by choosing to spend money in one way vs another, we are chosing winners and losers with every decision we make and sometimes the losers lose their lives.
That you would even believe this is what I was referring to is far more disturbing than even your Anti-choice views.

I've not met such a callous and hard-hearted person so willing to admit it before.
And I can't say I find it pleasant.

Will you be exercising self-control now and actually stop posting?
Or will this drag on until your temper subsides?

Mojo

[GinaMaria]

101. ummm... wrong

Marrow is admittedly a bit more invasive but still doesn't require surgury nor general anesteitc. For the record I am opposed to requiring any of those either.


Actually it does. Donating marrow is invasive, painful, requires a trip to the OR and anesthesia. A very large bore needle is forced (several times) into large bones to extract the marrow. I assure you it is no simple task as a former BMT RN. It is simple for the recipient as the transplant is an infusion of the donated marrow into their blood stream. It is not a simple thing for a donor.

Let me explain what I mean by forced when I say the needle is forced into the bones. A doctor using his/her weight pushes (seen docs turn red and their arms shake trying to do this) and screws the needle back and forth to get into the bone to pull up marrow into a syringe. Then moves to another area to do this again.

You may be thinking of a BMA Bone marrow aspiration which is a test often used in leukemia where a small amount of bone marrow is extracted for testing. It too is a painful procedure but does not last very long and therefore anesthesia is often not used.

[no one in particular]

56. Thank you.

As a pro-life atheist democrat, I too get a lot of heat for my position. Thank you for so eloquently stating what many of us think, yet can't manage to put into words.

[MojoKrunch]

83. The differences.

Between "Pro-Life", which is a political position, and being anti-abortion, which is a personal position, is as great as night and day.

I can't fathom how anyone who claims to be a Democrat, even by today's standards, can be *Pro-Life*.

It is one thing to find abortion distasteful and I completely accept and understand that.

But to support the "Pro-Life" movement who's only desire is to take away a woman's Constitutional right to a safe medical procedure?
WTF?
How can you possibly justify that position *AND* be a Democrat?

Just how much mental compartmentalization has to occur?

Please... explain this to me!

Mojo

[Malva Zebrina]

65. Do you support forcing people to be organ donors?

Actually, the law states that no one can be forced to give or donate any part of their body to another. That is, living persons--I realize you may be speaking of the organ donor program that involves donating organs after one dies. But, say for instance, a person needs a kidney desperately and the mother, father, sister or brother has one that would match--there can be no prosecution if that person, or any person, refuses to donate their kidney to that person, even if the person dies for lack of a donor.

Some would say that the mother is donating her body as the host of the fetus, which uses it to survive until viable, and that forcing pregnancy upon her is akin to the situation above---she, in effect, is being forced to donate her body in order that another , in this case , potential human being can live off of it if ever it gets to the point where RVW is overturned.

[MojoKrunch]

94. Nope.

Do you support forcing people to be organ donors?
Not living donations, anyway.
From a practical standpoint, I see no reason against mandatory post-mortem donations.

Actually, the law states that no one can be forced to give or donate any part of their body to another.
Absolutely.
And the law also states that women can't be forced to abort.

That is, living persons--I realize you may be speaking of the organ donor program that involves donating organs after one dies.
Not I.

But, say for instance, a person needs a kidney desperately and the mother, father, sister or brother has one that would match--there can be no prosecution if that person, or any person, refuses to donate their kidney to that person, even if the person dies for lack of a donor.
Exactly.
And for good reason.

Some would say that the mother is donating her body as the host of the fetus, which uses it to survive until viable, and that forcing pregnancy upon her is akin to the situation above---she, in effect, is being forced to donate her body in order that another , in this case , potential human being can live off of it if ever it gets to the point where RVW is overturned.
The only way Roe will ever be overturned is if we let Republicans do to it what they did to the 2000 presidential elections.

Not all women willingly "donate" their bodies for use as a home for prenates.
Hence, the term "unwanted pregnancy".

It seems to me that by definition, any woman wanting to abort is not choosing to "donate" her body.

Mojo

[Malva Zebrina]

112. I agree

"The only way Roe will ever be overturned is if we let Republicans do to it what they did to the 2000 presidential elections"

But it may not be a case of "letting" if we are legally stripped of our power with little jibs and jabs.

We can be opposed as loudly as we can muster, but yet be overwhelmed by the power and the money of the Bush, Christian administration who would have us buckle under to their Christian decrees re our own bodies.

Which Christian decree says, quite amusingly, that a four celled blastocyte has a "soul" and is therfore a fully fledged human being.

Point in fact the recent debacle in congress, the passing of the "partial birth abortion" law, concerning the third term D&E procedure, called by the fat cat, self satisfied, male bloviaters,the "partial birth abortion" which as we know is not a medical procedure at all, but is a term these fat cat, full bellied, bloviating,male, extremely self important, senators choose to villify women and establish their superiority over.

And while I am at it, one which the first lady, Laura the fat assed,over dressed with trashy frivolity, frump, the sainted miraculous bearer of twins as her one accomplishment to fame in her pathetic life, birthing by whatever means, these progeny who can do no wrong even if they are violating the law, Bush --is chained to in her pathetic Stepford, I am being given and deserve everything they bestow upon me, wife role. She is lazy and unwilling to take on any cause for women, except that which says that women are better off being Stepford wives and being totally subservient to their "better" and "more able" husbands, especially if they marry husbands whose family has a lot of money.



It may become a case of absolute male authoritarian decrees under the cowardly, little boy Bush who loves to lord it over any woman. He must, after all, look as though he is the alpha male over all the women. Where, I wonder, is Condie Rice in all of this? LOL

[MojoKrunch]

117. Rock on! lol

Tell us how you *really* feel about it!
:D

Laura the fat assed,over dressed with trashy frivolity, frump, the sainted miraculous bearer of twins as her one accomplishment to fame in her pathetic life, birthing by whatever means, these progeny who can do no wrong even if they are violating the law,
YeeOUCH!
You keep that up and I may have to be your newest friend!
hehehe

Mojo

[wildwww2]

40. Why do people want to control other people. He is a hypocrite.

And should mind his own business. My wife and I thought we might have to decide to terminate a pregnancy. Our reasons are our own. Should he have some control over my wifes body? Because of his stupid religous beliefs? In a country that touts. Freedom of religon. Why should what he believes affect my wife. Yeah that person is a hypocrite. Especially if he calls himself pro-life. And is not thoroughly outraged at Bu$h`s murder of innocent Iraqi`s. For reasons that we know were false. He is pro-his own ideology. Not pro-life.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[FDRrocks]

46. Tell him to grow...

a vagina... then start talking. Grow... or shrink... or whatever the fuck he'd have to do.

[funkyflathead]

52. I wouldn't say your friend is a hypocrite but a.......

HUGE HYPOCRITE!

[JNelson6563]

61. A guy against abortion

If it was men that had uteruses there'd be clinics on every corner.

Julie

[Jane Roe]

66. If soldiers were exclusively male . . .

then we would never get into wars.

[Liberator_Rev]

76. But don't criticize the guys in dresses & funny hats !

Julie,
As a former Catholic, now secular humanist woman, it really amazes me how you can object to my efforts, as a Christian clergyman to expose the Roman Catholic hierarchy as frauds for claiming to represent Jesus of Nazareth :
at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/PopesvsChrist &
at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/RCscandal !

We "Liberals Like Christ" are the ones who identify with WOMEN against the Catholic Hierarchy
at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChristianChoice
and with GAYS against that same hierarchy at
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChurchvsGays .

[Carolina]

100. Touche, Julie

[LeahMira]

67. Try this one...

He said "I can't fault a woman for getting an abortion if the pregnancy endangers her very life. But beyond that..." then everybody jumped on him calling him a hypocrite.

He seems to be making the argument that a woman has the right to defend her own life against anyone, even a fetus, that would endanger it.

There are people who would have no qualms about shooting an intruder who is making off with their TV... regardless of whether the intruder is threatening them. These folks are of the opinion that they have the right to defend their property in the same way as they defend their own lives, and I believe the law supports them.

If a person can shoot to kill to defend his property, why can a woman not have an abortion to defend herself against losing a job, interrupting her education, getting kicked out of her parents' home, or whatever consequences might follow if she were to decide to continue the pregnancy to term. Those kinds of things are certainly more significant than any TV I would think.

[mdguss]

82. Pro-Choicers should be more tolerant:

Here are reasons for very legitimate exceptions:

Life of the Mother (I support taking this further to include paralysis): if the pregnancy allowed to continue, there is a good chance that both the baby-to-be and the mother will die. So it is more pro-life to protect a life that can survive.

Rape and incest: both are awful crimes. The victims of these terrible crimes often have problems recovering. Forcing someone to remain pregnant may do tremendous harm to the victim.

I don't see how this is being hypocritical. I don't think abortion should be used as birth control, but there are extreme situations where (even me, the pro-lifer) sees the an abortion may be neccessary.

Additionally, a pro-lifer on the Democratic side is usually more consistent than Republican pro-lifers. I believe that life should be allowed to come into this world because we cannot make a judgment as to whether or not that life would be "bad" or not. But I also believe that the government should do everything it can to support new borns who are put up for adoption, new borns whose mothers struggle to meet the bills, and to improve our schools. That's a pretty consistent position...better than the Republican who wants life to come into the world, but doesn't want to help pay for the costs of that life.

Simply put, the arguments for abortion that I've heard, "It wouldn't have had a good life anyway," and "We shouldn't burden mothers who are unprepared to raise a child," in my opinion (and from my experience) are invalid on their face.

If I were in Congress, I'd vote for an amendment to ban abortions as long as that amendment included exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

Finally, I'm an activist that has done a hell of a lot for this party. I've worked for many Democrats (most of them now hold office) who are both pro-life and pro-choice. I'm tired of people telling me I'm not a real Democrat because I am pro-life. Our Party's platform states that it wants to include pro-lifers. If you want be in a monolithic party, go join the Republicans:

"The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party. This is why we are proud to put into our platform the very words which Republicans refused to let Bob Dole put into their 1996 platform and which they refused to even consider putting in their platform in 2000: "While the party remains steadfast in its commitment to advancing its historic principles and ideals, we also recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing views on issues of personal conscience like abortion and capital punishment. We view this diversity of views as a source of strength, not as a sign of weakness, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues. Recognizing that tolerance is a virtue, we are committed to resolving our differences in a spirit of civility, hope and mutual respect."

[Walt Starr]

88. I will NEVER be tolerant of assholes who want to force their

RELIGIOUS opinions on the populace as a whole.

Fuck 'em. That's the kind of shit that leads to violent wars.

[mdguss]

89. Again:

If the party wants to be truly tolerant, and truly different from the monolithic Republicans, it should welcome pro-lifers into its ranks. Do you want to know why Bush carried states in the mid-west like Ohio and West Virginia: abortion and guns...and the holy than thou attitude of many pro-choice and anti-gun Democrats. Politcians win by being broad and inclusive. Calling people assholes because they disagree with you is a way to lose.

[Walt Starr]

103. Sorry, but that's how I feel about anti-choicers

as far as I'm concerned, I consider "Democrat" and "anti-choice" mutually exclusive.

I;d vote for a pro-choice Republican over an anti-choice Democrat any day of the week. This is the ONE issue I refuse to compromise on.

And yes, anybody who is anti-choice is a fucked up asshole in my opinion.

[Walt Starr]

105. One more thing, I lump all antichoicers together

To me, there is no difference between any antichoice including Fred Pelps, PAt Robem$ome, Jerry Fartwell, George Bush, the Pope, or anyboy else who wants to take control of a woman's body. They are equally despicable and evil in my opinion.

[Carolina]

106. whoa, disagree

Repugs have been the sanctimonious ones using the holier-than-thou stance. They're the ones who bring religion into political discourse. And they're the ones who use abortion, gay rights and guns as divisive issues. That way they avoid discussions of economic justice (jobs, tax equity, etc.), healthcare access and education because they have no passion about fairness. They want to appeal to peoples' baser instincts by morphing abortion providers into baby killers, gays into pedophiles, gun ownership regulation into Big Brother Government, liberals into enemies of America, protestors into terrorists ...

You're right, politicians should win by being broad and inclusive but that has not been the repug modus operandi. They have not won by being broad and inclusive. They have succeeded because they have distorted, outright lied, cheated and most especially hi-jacked the media outlets. They promote hate radio and revel in its flourishing.

On this message board, we vehemently disagree and do degenerate to calling some posters assholes (and sometimes it's appropriate) but leaders on our side of the aisle have never done to them and especially to Bush what they do to us (sneers, vicious name calling, demonization etc.) and especially to our former President Clinton.

A bigger point made above by another poster is that our side is tolerant because you can be against abortion and still be pro-choice. What the pro-choice side opposes tooth and nail, however, is having people dictate to them about a private medical decision. Against abortion, don't have one. But DO NOT impose yourself, your ideology and your right of choice (not to have an abortion) on someone else.

[MojoKrunch]

90. Of misogynist fascism? Heavens why?

Life of the Mother (I support taking this further to include paralysis): if the pregnancy allowed to continue, there is a good chance that both the baby-to-be and the mother will die. So it is more pro-life to protect a life that can survive.
Wow... could you please read my posts and respond to them?
I'm unconvinced that a *spectrum" of "Pro-Life" exists.
You either believe a prenate is a human being or you do not.

Why not kill the mother to save the fetus?
You can't have a just, rational legal system based on the idea that some people are "more equal" than others.

Rape and incest: both are awful crimes. The victims of these terrible crimes often have problems recovering. Forcing someone to remain pregnant may do tremendous harm to the victim.
This response justifies the argument that I made on the "rape exception" on another board.
Namely that there comes a point where Anti-choicers, usually AC women, are unable to imagine wanting to carry a pregnancy conceived by rape or incest to term.
My lawyer friend ties it to misogynistic patriarchal control of women.

I think she is correct mostly where men are concerned and I am correct mostly where women are concerned.

In either case, it becomes rather obvious that the "rape exception" is unjust, unfair, illogical and no basis for public policy.

I don't see how this is being hypocritical.
Have you really thought about it much from a logical perspective?

I don't think abortion should be used as birth control, but there are extreme situations where (even me, the pro-lifer) sees the an abortion may be neccessary.
Please read through my posts and respond.
Thanks.
With regards to abortion used as birth control, if birth control were freely available and proper, mandatory, age-appropriate sexuality education taught from K-12, abortion would undoubtedly be used more when birth control failed rather than in lieu of birth control.
Do you support free birth control and such sexuality education?

Additionally, a pro-lifer on the Democratic side is usually more consistent than Republican pro-lifers.
Nah.
6 of one, half dozen of the other.
"Pro-Life" is a political movement that seeks to outlaw abortion.
Don't confuse this with being anti-abortion.

I believe that life should be allowed to come into this world because we cannot make a judgment as to whether or not that life would be "bad" or not.
And I respect that belief so long as it pertains to *you*.
And I absolutely defend your right to believe that, for yourself.
But not for others.

But I also believe that the government should do everything it can to support new borns who are put up for adoption, new borns whose mothers struggle to meet the bills, and to improve our schools.
YAY!!! A fellow socialista!
I concur.
This society needs to change its attitudes about single parenting and day care for its children.
(Given the stories I've heard about the foster care/adoption system, I would rather they overhaul it completely)

That's a pretty consistent position...better than the Republican who wants life to come into the world, but doesn't want to help pay for the costs of that life.
But in the end, forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is just as misogynistically fascist regardless of how you vote.

Simply put, the arguments for abortion that I've heard, "It wouldn't have had a good life anyway," and "We shouldn't burden mothers who are unprepared to raise a child," in my opinion (and from my experience) are invalid on their face.
And from my perspective, who are you/we to judge?

Seriously.

Why are your opinions about this more valid than anyone else’s when it comes to *their* decision?

If I were in Congress, I'd vote for an amendment to ban abortions as long as that amendment included exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.
And like every other attempted ban it would fail because it would be Unconstitutional placing and "undue burden" on women.

Which leaves you back at square one.

You might want to take the time to read the Roe v Wade transcripts from the actual trial and then the actual finding.
They explain quite a bit as to why and how the decisions were made.
Casey v Planned Parenthood supercedes Roe in several areas so reading it will get you up-to-date on the entire issue.

Finally, I'm an activist that has done a hell of a lot for this party. I've worked for many Democrats (most of them now hold office) who are both pro-life and pro-choice. I'm tired of people telling me I'm not a real Democrat because I am pro-life. Our Party's platform states that it wants to include pro-lifers.
Which is why I never actually joined the Democratic Party.
I vote for them *against* Republicans.
I simply can't fathom, beyond wanting to rake in more votes, how the party can reconcile the "Pro-Life" movement with its decidedly feminist, Liberal heritage.
But then I find the "new" Democratic party to be very disappointing.

If you want be in a monolithic party, go join the Republicans:
How about just one that doesn't want to strip women of their reproductive rights?
I'd settle for that.

Mojo

[mdguss]

96. There's a spectrum on every issue:

Indeed there is a spectrum of pro-life. Some people believe that there life birth control is abortion (I don't share their view). Others believe that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. Others oppose abortions after the first trimester, and still others oppose abortions after the second trimester, and then there are some of only oppose the partial birth procedure.

Just like there is a spectrum of pro-choicers, some who think it must always be legal, some who oppose abortions and work to dissaude people from having them while fighting to keep them legal, some who fight very hard only to allow abortions in the first two trimesters and some who work very hard to for only the 1st trimester. There are some who oppose all abortions but realize there are circumstances that they cannot possibly have empathy with and are therefore willing to allow exemptions.

There is a middle ground in the whole debate: the Casey Act and Casey Supreme Court decision (I've read both, and I tend to agree with the dissent in Casey).

A constitutional amendment illegalizing abortions would be constitutional. The Congress by a 2/3ds vote (and 3/4 of state legislatures) have the right to overturn Supreme Court decisions on crap like the undue burden test by passing a constitutional amendment.

Finally, the argument that abortion is trying to control a woman is patently false. I believe in taking responsibility for your actions. Especially in this day and age, you have unprotected sex, you better be prepared to face the consequences: which are often death (AIDS, STDs, etc.) If rape is excluded, no one forced the woman to have sex. It was a choice she and her partner made. They both should be able to face the consequences of their actions: the cost of raising a child, the pain of putting a child up for adoption, etc.

It is unfair to make a child pay for the mistakes of their parents.

I'm not sure if I would support free birth control because I see that as a way of encouraging unprotected sex and spreading STDs. I certainly would support free condom distribution. As for sex education, it should be taught in high school.

Finally, I don't mind having discussions on this issue. But I always find it hilarious when people who aren't Democrats tell our party that we should banish the pro-lifers. Parties in the American system are about building a broad of a base as possible. Frequently, that means having people that disagree with each other under the same tent. So faulting the party for being inclusive is really just faulting it for doing its job.

PS--I am not a socialist. I consider myself to be a moderate to conservative Democrat. The things I was referring too include aid with buying food, diapers and cribs. Housing aid for mothers such as Hope VI that will make all of our schools better, medical clinics that are specifically tailored to prenatal care and pediatrics, and cheaper medical care and prescription drugs. I don't want to nationalize anything. But I think the government can make the world a little bit more humane.

As for the Democratic platform, it clearly states that the party is pro-choice. But it added that paragraph at the end to keep the pro-lifers included. I never quote the four paragraphs above, I only quote the last paragraph.

[MojoKrunch]

102. Black and white have no shades of gray.

Trust me, I'm a graphic designer and artist, I know these things.
lol

Indeed there is a spectrum of pro-life.
I disagree.
But then I make the distinction between being anti-abortion and being "Pro-Life".
"Pro-Life" is the political movement which sprang up to challenge the Roe decision and the Pro-Choice movement who's main, if not only, goal is to make abortion illegal.
Anti-abortion is the personal position of finding abortion, for whatever reason, distasteful.

There is certainly a spectrum for folks who are anti-abortion.
There can be no spectrum for the political position, "Pro-Life".

Some people believe that there life birth control is abortion (I don't share their view). Others believe that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. Others oppose abortions after the first trimester, and still others oppose abortions after the second trimester, and then there are some of only oppose the partial birth procedure.
And anyone who supports overturning Roe to make abortion illegal thereby taking away the *choice* is indeed, politically "Pro-Life".

No matter how much some folks insist on "muddying" the water with their hair-splitting, the options are quite simple.
Choice or no choice.

Just like there is a spectrum of pro-choicers, some who think it must always be legal, some who oppose abortions and work to dissaude people from having them while fighting to keep them legal, some who fight very hard only to allow abortions in the first two trimesters and some who work very hard to for only the 1st trimester. There are some who oppose all abortions but realize there are circumstances that they cannot possibly have empathy with and are therefore willing to allow exemptions.
Choice, no choice.

There is a middle ground in the whole debate: the Casey Act and Casey Supreme Court decision (I've read both, and I tend to agree with the dissent in Casey).
While I'd consider both to be compromises, neither is "middle ground" since both support the right to Choice.
Clearly going against the "Pro-Life" position of wanting abortion illegal.

A constitutional amendment illegalizing abortions would be constitutional.
Well yea... by definition.
Won't happen in my lifetime.

The Congress by a 2/3ds vote (and 3/4 of state legislatures) have the right to overturn Supreme Court decisions on crap like the undue burden test by passing a constitutional amendment.
And the likelihood of that is about like that proverbial snowballs chance.
The topic is far too volatile for Congress to get off its ass, find a spine and actually make real the will of the people.(the majority of which want abortion to remain legal, btw)
The fact is that until Congress does find the courage, the SCOTUS decisions *are* de facto amendments.

Finally, the argument that abortion is trying to control a woman is patently false.
Well, ok, except that it quite obviously isn't false given the logic behind the positions.

I believe in taking responsibility for your actions.
Bully for you.
And I believe that so long as your actions don't infringe on the rights of other citizens you are free to take responsibility for any action you so choose.
As soon as your actions infringe on the rights of others, the government can for you to take responsibility for your actions.

What has this got to do with the government telling women they *must* carry to term since no other citizen is effected by her decision?

It is quite easily argued that any woman procuring an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy *is* taking responsibility for herself, as she sees fit.
Who are *you* or the government or *me*, for that matter, to tell her differently?

Especially in this day and age, you have unprotected sex, you better be prepared to face the consequences: which are often death (AIDS, STDs, etc.)
And as soon as you patent a 100% effective, side-effect free, cheap form of birth control.
Let me know, I want to be an investor.
Until then, fear mongering isn't gonna get you anywhere.
STDs have been around since humanity domesticated animals.

Men will still be driven to want sex even if there was a 3 in 10 chance their dicks would explode in the act. lol

This has nothing at all to do with the government forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

If rape is excluded, no one forced the woman to have sex. It was a choice she and her partner made.
Choosing to have sex is not choosing to procreate.
Period.
Full stop.
The "rape exclusion" is meaningless for determining public policy.
Either a prenate is a human being with rights or it is not.
Period.
Full stop.

They both should be able to face the consequences of their actions: the cost of raising a child, the pain of putting a child up for adoption, etc.
LOL
Yea, and boy does *that* work well *now*.
Women have no choice but to carry the prenate.
How will you address *that* injustice?
Artificial wombs in men?
Excellent. Again, I wanna be an investor.

It is unfair to make a child pay for the mistakes of their parents.
It is more unfair to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and thereby jeopardizing her life(pregnancy is dangerous, MD).
Period.
Full stop.

I'm not sure if I would support free birth control because I see that as a way of encouraging unprotected sex and spreading STDs. I certainly would support free condom distribution.
The slight difference being?
Aside from the fact that birth control like the pill is far more expensive for women and far more effective at stopping unwanted pregnancies, I mean.
You can use a condom along with BC until the STD tests come back.
Heck, make those tests free as well.

As for sex education, it should be taught in high school.
Effective sexuality education should be taught age-appropriately from Kindergarten on.
Open communications about sex and sexuality make for more effective use of knowledge when choosing to finally become sexually active at whatever age.
Waiting until high school is like closing the barn door after the horses have grown up and run out.

Finally, I don't mind having discussions on this issue. But I always find it hilarious when people who aren't Democrats tell our party that we should banish the pro-lifers.
Did I say that?
Quote me.
I said *I* couldn't fathom it.
Not that you should banish them.
Hell, you guys need all the help you can get at this point and you're the most likely chance to oust the Republicans.
Otherwise I'd find a party more inline with my Liberal views.

Parties in the American system are about building a broad of a base as possible.
Well they are since we've been reduce to two.
Frankly, I'd prefer seeing those ridiculous rules thrown out and more viable parties allowed into the dance.
I'd *love* to see a Congress with 3 or 4 parties representing actual constituencies rather than these Frankenstein monster constructs we have now.

Frequently, that means having people that disagree with each other under the same tent. So faulting the party for being inclusive is really just faulting it for doing its job.
Again, read what I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote.

PS--I am not a socialist.
That's ok, I'll like you anyway.
:D

I consider myself to be a moderate to conservative Democrat.
Yea, and I'm betting you hate the welfare state, social security and socialized medicine, too.
(joke)
But how *do* you feel about corporate subsidies?

The things I was referring too include aid with buying food, diapers and cribs. Housing aid for mothers such as Hope VI that will make all of our schools better, medical clinics that are specifically tailored to prenatal care and pediatrics, and cheaper medical care and prescription drugs. I don't want to nationalize anything. But I think the government can make the world a little bit more humane.
Amazing how some folks dance around the idea of Socialism.
It is *OK* MD... you're a Democrat not a Republican... you can accept "some" aspects of Socialism and be comfortable with it... your head won't explode.
Relax, comrade. Have a vodka and lemonade.
:)

As for the Democratic platform, it clearly states that the party is pro-choice.
Yea, but they're willing to let Anti-choicers vote for them, too.
And as I said before, I don't care... I don't even really mind.
I just can't fathom how the party reconciles the two mutually exclusive positions, except as a play to get more voters.

But it added that paragraph at the end to keep the pro-lifers included. I never quote the four paragraphs above, I only quote the last paragraph.
Truth be told, I didn't even read it.
Anything that panders to the "Pro-Life" vote isn't worth my time.

Call me what you will, but I see it as embracing racists or homophobes like Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond and I simple can't do it.

There are limits to how much "tolerance" I can extend.

Mojo

[Mushroom]

108. tolerance, that's rich

"Finally, I'm an activist that has done a hell of a lot for this party. I've worked for many Democrats (most of them now hold office) who are both pro-life and pro-choice. I'm tired of people telling me I'm not a real Democrat because I am pro-life. Our Party's platform states that it wants to include pro-lifers. If you want be in a monolithic party, go join the Republicans:"

Ah, now I'm getting it.

"If I were in Congress, I'd vote for an amendment to ban abortions as long as that amendment included exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother."

spectator

[Alenne]

109. You are not very tolerant

If you were you wouldn't try to ban abortion.

Funny you want your pro life position to be respected but won't do the same for the pro choice position.

If I were in Congress I would vote for an amendment to force you to have a vasectomy.

[MojoKrunch]

85. Or this one.

Quoting from the same person(who is a lawyer) I quoted from in my first post here, from that same board:

Self-preservation through killing is permitted - in our laws and in almost everyone's personal moral code -- ONLY when the person killed was intentionally jeopardizing the killer's life. Everyone knows that a z/e/f is "innocent": can never have any intent at all, let alone lethal intent. And in the case of the "rape exception", there isn't even a threat to the woman's life. There is discomfort.

Do the anti-choice advocate letting anyone else kill a (real) human being who causes them discomfort? Rhetorical question.

Nope. The "rape exception" CANNOT be reconciled with a "belief" that the z/e/f is a human being except by using irrational defence-mechanism ideation. And that kind of ideation is NOT an acceptable basis for public policy.

This person contends that Anti-choicers "do not believe, and have never believed, that a z/e/f is a human being".

There are people who would have no qualms about shooting an intruder who is making off with their TV... regardless of whether the intruder is threatening them.
And in the US(in most states anyway) those persons would be prosecuted for shooting that intruder.

These folks are of the opinion that they have the right to defend their property in the same way as they defend their own lives, and I believe the law supports them.
I may be mistaken, but I think that you are wrong across most of the US.

Self-defense requires that the person killed have intended the death or injury of the person doing the killing.

Maybe some lawyerly folks can answer that for certain.
I haven't gone through it, but this site seems to cover the issue:
http://jenningscc.com/TaeKwonDo/SelfDefenseLaw.htm

Mojo

[Nobody]

86. I think women's decisions should not be second-guessed by the govt

Let's say for sake of argument that all abortion was illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

Rape: Who decides if the pregnancy resulted from rape? I remember a teacher in HS who made the false statement that rape can never result in pregnancy and out it on the test, and no one in the class got a perfect score. We weren't clueless. But what if that attitude permeates the judicial system?

Incest: A subset of rape. Who determines if it IS incest?

Life of mother: All pregnancies carry some risk to them. Not all risks are permanant or seriously debilitating. But where is the line drawn when there is a chance of the birth killing the mother? Who draws the line?

And when you have strangers making these sort of decisions for you, there's usually courts involved. How long can a court case drag on? What happens when the judgement comes down in the 7th month of pregnancy when the woman wanted RU486 immediately after the rape?

The answer would be: Oops, sorry, ma'am. The court was going to rule in your favor but late-term abortions are illegal. Guess you're going to have to give birth after all.

I have a better idea: Let's trust a woman to think this issue over carefully and make her own decision about her own family, her own body, and her own life. She is not a ward of the state and she is not the property of her partner.

[snoochie]

107. I think it's stupid to call him a hypocrite.

He's trying to be fair. Everyone has their opinion, and calling anyone who's not either 1) pro-abortion no matter what up to the day it's born you can kill it, or 2) pro-life no matter what, even if the mother's going to die you can't kill it, a hypocrite... is just dumb.

These are lives. People's lives. Lots of people like to try to avoid the issue by calling them 'fetuses' or 'parasites' or whatever. But at some point that life becomes sentient and is its own person.

It's abhorrent to me that there are people who treat this lightly. But then again the lives of slaves were treated with such low regard once, as well. so...

[Q]

115. Strange...but I find that many who call themselves 'pro LIFE'...

...condone killing 'brown people' in Iraq. As long as the 'life' isn't in the womb...they're all for it in the name of 'justice' or 'war'.