The American Abortion War

The Abortion WarIt has become one of the most vicious, important and divisive battlegrounds in the 2012 US presidential election. Since it was legalised in 1973, the issue of abortion has polarized the US, but now the battle has been taken to a new level.

Last year, an unprecedented number of laws have been passed across the US, all aimed at restricting abortion or reproductive rights.

But the fight goes far beyond the medical procedure, with Republican politicians even attacking the Obama administration for making contraception more readily available.

The US has seen more anti-abortion violence than any other country in the world. Since 1993, at least eight abortion providers, including four doctors have been killed. And there have been over 200 arsons and bombings against reproductive healthcare clinics since 1977.

Fault Lines investigates the forces behind the so-called war on women in the US. Why is a medical procedure being reframed as a deeply divisive moral issue in the US?

Watch the full documentary now

325
7.96
12345678910
Ratings: 7.96/10 from 25 users.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/S2FGFAJNXLOM4XHOYE3QOTMB5Y yahoo-S2FGFAJNXLOM4XHOYE3QOTMB5Y

    They lost me at "Activists for Jesus"...

  • arifkarim

    "Why is a medical procedure being reframed as a deeply divisive moral issue in the US?"
    Because its not just a 'medical' procedure. An unborn baby is more or less 'alive' even if it hasn't seen light of the day. Principally, an abortion is equal to killing of unborn life. One cannot abort a perfectly healthy developing fetus just because 'parents' think they have been stupid. However, if unborn baby poses a real threat to mother's life, or its own life like growing up physically / psychologically disabled, then for the concern of both mother and child, an abortion should be performed. In that case, one is not 'killing' the fetus just because parents have a political choice, rather there would be rational, perfectly logical reasons behind the abortion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorenzo.greene2 Lorenzo Greene

    There are too many humans on this planet. I'm pro abortion just for that reason. No human can give me a concrete reason as to why human life is inherently precious or valuable. I'm glad abortion exists so imbeciles won't have to raise children or crowd adoption centers with their cabbage brained, tit suckers.

    Like George Carlin said, it's either we are special all of our lives or not at all. No one cares for a child once it grows up. If you're pro life go adopt a child.

  • Hodd

    Wrong answer. It's because it effectively divides public opinion and helps to avoid discussing any real social issues like growing inequality and more and more jobs disappearing.

    Maybe if people didn't have to worry about so much debt and trying to get an education in order to support themselves and a family they wouldn't feel the need to have a abortion. I can see a connection.

  • arifkarim

    "There are too many humans on this planet. I'm pro abortion just for that reason."
    Lol! Are we the only species which are "too" many? Who gave you the ultimate "authority" to judge if we are too many or too less? And then using your self-claimed judgment to support all kinds of abortion is just ridiculous.

    "No human can give me a concrete reason as to why human life is inherently precious or valuable."
    All life is precious in its environment. Many plants cannot survive without insects helping in the pollination process. Some animals got to get eaten by others in order to create balance in organic food chain. Its all inter-connected and ever evolving for millions of years. Then suddenly humans got intelligence and they start debating whether one 'kind' of life is precious or not? Lol!

    "I'm glad abortion exists so imbeciles won't have to raise children or crowd adoption centers with their cabbage brained, tit suckers."
    It is widely documented in America that children raised under state-run foster care system are the most abused physically and sexually than the rest of general population. Yet the state practices haven't changed for the better in many decades because it has become self-sustaining multi-billion dollar industry. So it doesn't matter if there are born less children because of adoption law. Those children who suffer daily under state-run 'care' systems shall always be there because the very system sucks in its nature from the beginning.

    "No one cares for a child once it grows up"
    Another lame excuse for not having a child?! There are billions of parents worldwide who love their children. Even in animals it is widely observed that parents take care of their children, also after they grow up. A bond between a child and its parents is universal, but may differ from culture to culture. Go visit Indian subcontinent to see how much family-system is valued there, also after all children in the house have grown in to adulthood

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1533132447 Penelope Johnstone

    if 'they' insist every pregnancy be brought to full term-birth, and no birth control is taught, and eventually birth control is illegal, then 'they' should take all responsibility for the children born. 'they' know so much, 'they' will know what to do when a woman who is not equipped to cope with crying screening children [the type that beat or kill their children], or how to feed, house and cloth children when they have no work and money. "they" will provide for any 'special needs of the children, and educational needs, since "they" are the ones insisting these unplanned for or unwanted children be forced upon the parents and society

  • robertallen1

    Suppose the child is a product of rape? Secondly, I don't think you have any business telling other people what to do.

  • robertallen1

    Who gave you the ultimate authority to intefere in people's private lives? "It is widely documented . . . " does not cut it. How do you feel about contraception? Are you a Catholic?

  • robertallen1

    Try telling that to arifkarim.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-van-den-Ham/100001676372652 Matt van den Ham

    I'm pro-abortion. I think you should have to be certified to have children in this society, it shouldn't be a right. How do we control such a thing? Provide funding and support to those that get certified, nothing for those who refuse to educate themselves. There's too many id**ts having babies in this society, and it's clearly one of the biggest reasons why there's depression, low self-esteem, lack of education, general mental health issues, substance abuse, prostitution etc running rampant in our country.

    Why do people want to force little girls to have a baby when it would be bad for the mother and the baby. Teach these kids how to use condoms and pull-out, make them scared to have kids too early. It's bad for everyone if these kids are having kids.

    Everyone should watch the movie 'idiocrasy' and see what the world would look like if we continue on this track of rewarding the stupid and irresponsible. It takes a man, a women and a whole village to raise a healthy being, not one dumb teenage girl and bitter grandparents.

    These conservative Christian id**ts think that they have the right to control the bodies and lives of others. And they care so much about the baby being born, but once its out they don't give a ****. George Carlin says it much better.

  • robertallen1

    Try telling that to artifkarim and the Pope.

  • Hu_Flung_Poo

    If only women had some sort of biological defence they could unleash to protect against unwanted pregnancies.........

    Unfortunately, this is not reality. Therefore, in lieu of burdening women who are unable to take on the tremendous responsibility of raising a child, they should be permitted to terminate their pregnancy during the early stages of development.

    As an aside, I'd love to hear the "Pro-life" take on miscarriage (very common). Is it God's will that these "children" die? If so, why?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-van-den-Ham/100001676372652 Matt van den Ham

    "Child-birth is a miracle"--No it's not! Child-birth is no more of a miracle than me eating a piece of food and a turd coming out of my ass." --Bill Hicks /watch?v=3Pe9zw9iQK8

  • robertallen1

    Should be permitted, my ass! Have the right is more like it.

  • Hu_Flung_Poo

    So what is your issue? ....because I don't' see a great difference between being permitted to do something and having the right to do something.

  • robertallen1

    Precisely.

  • arifkarim

    "I'm pro-abortion. I think you should have to be certified to have children in this society, it shouldn't be a right."
    Right to marry, right to have sex and children is a basic human right. Denying that universal right in whatever society is the first thing you would do to create a new "class" of people who can have children and those who cannot.

    "How do we control such a thing? Provide funding and support to those that get certified, nothing for those who refuse to educate themselves."
    Control? Why would you want to "control" normal human reproduction in society which has been around for hundreds and thousands of years?! Overpopulation is not because of excessive reproduction rather because of longer average age assisted by science and technology.

    "There's too many id**ts having babies in this society, and it's clearly one of the biggest reasons why there's depression, low self-esteem, lack of education, general mental health issues, substance abuse, prostitution etc running rampant in our country."
    Lol! Blaming the parents for having natural babies? Even before the arrival of this modern world, people around the world had sex and many babies, doesn't mean they had same issues as you are suggesting above. Your described issues is the result of our modern way of life, not because of we have 'many' babies! Who are you to decide who is eligible to have kids and who is not? Doesn't every human wish kids of its own?

    "Why do people want to force little girls to have a baby when it would be bad for the mother and the baby. Teach these kids how to use condoms and pull-out, make them scared to have kids too early. It's bad for everyone if these kids are having kids."
    Nobody is forcing little girls to have babies. Go back to pre-WW2 era and you would not find any youth culture engaged in teen 'experimental' sex at regular bases anywhere around the world. Teenage births is completely a new phenomena driven by American mass-media around the world since 1970's. Sex education and 'awareness' as a part of school mandatory curriculum and other sex-exposed elements in Western societies is the reason why things are especially bad here in comparison with the rest of the World.

  • robertallen1

    What you describe as "normal" human reproduction needs control. Whether you know it or not, we are overpopulated with respect to the available resources. Whether you like it or not, women are going to obtain abortions and whether you want to admit or not, women have always been able to obtain them. The only reason you didn't hear that much about them back in the pre-WW2 era is because people didn't talk about them. Today, they do.

    Now, should we return to the days of the dark alley and the coat hanger or should they be performed therapeutically by people trained to do so?

    By speaking against sex education, you speak for ignorance and everything that goes with it.

    Who are you to say that a woman should be forced to give birth to an unwanted child? I wonder how you feel about contraception. Once again, what about abortion in the case of rape? Once again, are you a Catholic?

  • Hu_Flung_Poo

    No, not precisely. You have yet to properly address my previous comment. Explain the difference.

  • robertallen1

    Permitted implies indulgence; right implies something mandatory.

  • ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    What i don't understand is why the rupublicans/christians would want to restrict contraception. More contraceptive use equals less abortions. Maybe the republicans want more voters and the christians want more christians? I still don't get it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lee-Walker/512170729 Lee Walker

    A womans sexual health is no one elses god damned business. In the room there should be her, her family if she wants, and a doctor. politicians and the christian right have no business poking their noses in.

  • slpsa

    Your choice of words, once again, masterful. Cheers Robert.

  • slpsa

    You can hurt your brain, thinking you can figure them out. Bible Bunny's defy logic. Strange lot, those people are.

  • robertallen1

    Nice to hear from you. Why do people ramble on about matters of which they know nothing and want to know nothing? There have been two posters with little or not scientific background who believe that all scientific inquiry should be funded, even that which is not scientific and pseudoscientific. By that token, perhaps we should research whether an angle can be trisected using a compass and straight edge. It's been proven to be impossible, but you must keep an open mind--even to twaddle--you just never know.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/GMTXITCOKBSJDQWGTX6F5WPIW4 Gen. Grant

    The world is grossly over populated but F it! The world still wants to keep making children, people who cant have children want other people to have children for them. Imagine being told that you're mother had you for a profit. Why call it "surrogate mother" when all your doing is having a baby and selling it. These people have a base fee on top of medical exp. and loss of wages that could be in the tens of thousands. Poor kids who's real mother would rather have a couple of grand instead of a living person who she carried inside of her. Most people couldn't raise a dog so they want the public school system and the television to raise their kids. There is enough kids already here on earth in need of parents. Society make more problems than resolves. Why because greedy selfish people want to live comfortable lives and leave the weight of our failed society on our children and our children's children. Most people are unfit to raise a child. Why should a known criminal or drug addict be allowed to bring children into this world. Why is it that children are allowed to raise children. Don't bother with the " everyone has the right to do this and that" NO! We live in a ever changing world and the rules of the past should not apply when the world has changed so much. Anyone who thinks we can continue on this path and maintain a decent standard of living clearly doesn't have the brain power to comprehend that the human race is taking more from the planet than it returns. We have become a cancer endlessly multiplying with nothing to offer the new generation but a resentment for the ones left behind. You can disagree and get hurt all you want but Its obvious schools are sadly underfunded and when you add uneducated unfit parents to the picture there's not much knowledge available for these kids to be successful. Its a myth that the government want your kids to get an education and be successful. Weather you child goes to college or prison, the government will still profit one way or the other. Its a myth that everyone is fit for society or can be rehabilitated to be fit society .
    “I could never find two people who are perfectly equal: one will always be more valuable than the other. And many people, as a matter of fact, simply have no value.”
    ? Pentti Linkola

  • http://princejaka.wordpress.com princeton

    so true

  • JRushnik

    An argument to outlaw abortions is basically an argument that rape should be mandatory. Before a certain number of cells, the 'fetus' only has the potential to become human, it is not human anymore than a mouse is human. Thus, if you are against 'killing' something that could potentially become human, you have to be against contraception as well, and you also have to be against a male passing an unpregnant woman on the street without raping her, because that is also killing human potential.

    But I guess that's just too logical for people who believe that we were created by a magical fairy in the sky because a bunch of people wrote a book about it to attract followers and donations, if they are dumb enough to believe that they are dumb enough for anything.

  • Teddy Mcd

    I am an agnostic-atheist. I am also pro-choice - whereas most proponents of pro-life, simply stated, are believers, Christian in most cases. They believe in God and therefore the bible. They believe that from the moment of conception a human exists and an abortion is therefore murder. The bible or their interpretation tells them so - dogmatically.

    So I asked myself, "Were there abortions (foetus murders) in the bible?" - and the 'flood' came to mind. Next I asked myself, "How many foetuses/souls were murdered at the time of the biblical flood?" To answer that we need to know how many people populated the earth at the estimated time of the flood - 2300 BCE.

    If we use the bible timeline as a guide then from Adam to Noah with all the begats and 900+ year lifespans it is estimated that there were 10 billion people (this varies wildly - google it)

    Whereas if we use the calculations of modern demographers it is estimated that the population at the time of the biblical flood was 30 million. (sounds a little more reasonable)

    Let's use 30 million. Of these 30 million 15 million were females and again using modern stats, of these 15 million females 3.5 % would have been pregnant and this equals 525000. This then is number of foetuses that were aborted by drowning. And who orchestrated this mass execution of the unborn? Oh yeah, it was the God of the bible.

    Therefore I declare sans doute - that most pro-lifers are hypocrites!
    Note - If anyone is wondering - using biblical math of 10 billion population at the time of the deluge then there would have been 17.5 million foetuses aborted - although mass murder is more descriptive.

  • robertallen1

    There's something almost poetic about what you write. Thank of it: heaven, that great abortion clinic in the sky and god the head abortionist.

  • Jeremy Hughes

    I love when I meet braindead felch digesting christian fanbois that claim "abortion is murder" and I love to bring up the fact that God aborts babies via miscarriage all the time according to their logic. They look confused for a second, and then say some retarded nonsense like "Well, he had plans for that baby" and I reply with "so did the mother who now has to cope with the loss of her baby" and they generally say something like "well he has plans for that mother..." And my reply is "You are a seriously twisted and mentally inept fool, I hope your God takes your grand kids from you so you can fully experience this 'beautiful' plan of his."

    I have brought more christians to fists than I can even count, anger is the last stand for true ******, and these people fit that bill to a T.

  • Jeremy Hughes

    Arifkarmim is a prime example of someone that is void of logical capabilities. The arguments presented by this individual are so straw man and so incomplete that an educated 4th grader could pick them apart. I can't wait till these "entitled" humans with their foolish opinions are just a thing of the past.

  • robertallen1

    Me, too. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that arifkarim is a Catholic.

  • lakhotason

    As a male it is impossible to approach the question of abortion. I cannot experience bearing a child. It is simply out of the question that as a male I should even think that any input I give has any weight.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    So if they outlaw abortion the poor have to just cope but the rich can travel and do as they please. This is a problem in Ireland. Irish girls that cant afford the cost of travelling to England have to go through pregnancy go on social welfare and drop their education while the wealthier classes get the chance to accomplish an education and provide a more stable life for a child in the future. And long term once again keeping the poor poor.

  • robertallen1

    You're right and I bet a lot of the blame in country lies with the Catholics who want to tell everybody what to do.

  • lakhotason

    Well you have certainly identified a problem yet I would be more interested in what you think the solution is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    Attitude towards the church has changed but we are still living with the outdated laws from a different era.

  • robertallen1

    There are a lot of people in this country who would like to bring them back and you can bet just about everyone of them is a religee of some sorts.

  • robertallen1

    The solution is to let every woman decide for herself and if she feels she should go ahead with the procedure, provide her with the best that medicine has to offer. No more back alleys and coat hangers. No more unwanted children. No more interfering Catholics.

  • lakhotason

    The solution is not to LET every woman decide for herself. What has "let" to do with it? That implies consent. I know it is picking at words but sometimes words are important.

  • robertallen1

    Try this. Every woman has the right to decide for herself.

  • lakhotason

    I'll agree. But is it a right or is it a matter of fact? I am mystified by a female, as it should be.

  • robertallen1

    It's a right and if a woman wants one badly enough, she's going to get one. So we might as well make it easy for her to obtain with a minimum of risk.

    P.S. I have never been mystified by women.

  • lakhotason

    PSS To be mystified by a woman has been the crowning achievement of my life.

  • robertallen1

    And never being mystified by them is the sanest achievement of mine.

  • lakhotason

    You're right. It is not the sanest course.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    Keeping religion out of any decisions would be a start. Educating. Free contraceptives.

  • robertallen1

    And a fine start--not to underplay your other two points.

  • lakhotason

    I agree and would even go further. But this belies the question of exactly how you would see these things accomplished. It is one thing to stand with a pat solution and quite another thing to implement that solution.

  • robertallen1

    Easy. Tax the churches and use the revenue to fund abortion clinics.

  • lakhotason

    As I say, it is one thing to sit back and have a pat solution and quite another thing to spend a little time and think.

  • http://www.facebook.com/carlos.e.yanez.7 Carlos E Yanez

    When do we start taking out women rights?? The mayority of people trying to stop abortion are men. That does not make any sense

  • Kateye70

    Not sure if getting pregnant is a 'right' as such, its biology.

  • robertallen1

    I wasn't refer to getting pregnant, but rather to getting an abortion.

  • Kateye70

    What really irritates me is everyone weighing in on what is essentially a very personal matter that should be between a woman, her doctor and her family.

    Women are treated as if we aren't fully capable of understanding all the ramifications of exactly what pregnancy and a child will mean to us for the rest of our lives and choose accordingly.

    Men always have the option of walking away, and plenty do. (ok, plenty don't but it isn't the man's body that is being used as an incubator and food dispenser.)

    If every man had to have a rectal exam and a public discussion before being given viagra, we might have fewer pregnancies that require this type of decision.

  • robertallen1

    I for one don't and in some of my previous posts, I've stated in no uncertain terms that it is a personal matter which no outside party has a right to become involved in. But again, I'm not everybody.

    Great idea in your last paragraph. Let's start off with Catholic men.

  • lakhotason

    That's a little disingenious Kateye. Here we have a very public doc yet our reactions to this and how we weigh in doesn't or shouldn't matter? Then what is the purpose of the doc?

  • robertallen1

    Do you mean disingenuous?

  • lakhotason

    Yes I do. Thanks RobertAllen.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    Only in America can you be pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-unmanned drone bombs, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-guns, pro-torture, pro-land mines, and still call yourself pro-life.
    John Fugelsand
    stand up comedian

    I am 100% pro-tax the churches.

    1i

  • Teddy Mcd

    I agree with all my intellectual strength - but what kind of donuts?

    ..

  • Chrispy777

    Kateye, I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence, but your opening sentence I take issue with.

    Since I believe life begins at conception (and doctors and scientists agree on this fact, overwhelmingly) the concept of privacy is removed, and it plainly becomes a moral and social issue. Privacy to do what you wish to your body, ought to be a fundamental right, if it's just your body we're talking about.

    I am all for aborting an inanimate cluster of cells, multiplying within the secret recesses of a woman's body; this is called "removing a cancerous tumor."

    Life is inconvenient, by anyone's standards, but it highlights how irresponsible and disrespectful many are towards something that is living and growing, and has great potential. How did our society come to embrace the notion that the creation and sustaining of life, within a woman, is "barbaric" if that woman is "forced" by anyone, to carry that life to term? That "sentiment" itself, is barbaric! Rationalize it, if you will, but it's life, and it's, ironically, how every pro-choice person got here.

    That one woman had 5 abortions, and then had the nerve to say she took full responsibility for all of them. Abortion is the end of taking responsibility for your actions, not a perpetual acceptance of it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    All these people who think abortion is wrong i dont see anyone offering up their lives to look after these unborn children. And the ones that would are going to do so for religious reasons which to me is a form of abuse anyway. If a woman is not mentally stable and financially stable you still think she should go ahead with the pregnancy.? If that is the case then why are you not offering to bring up some of these children. I dont know you but i,m sure you could offer them a better life that would otherwise be born into misery. Many born children need to be adopted as is. So go out there make a difference and adopt a child if you are so sure of the moral implications.
    You think these women are bad people, fine, then we have to accept there are bad people in the world and the problem wont disappear just because we have judged them. If you dont offer them a safe clinic to do it you will creat unsafe illegal clinics. No one situation is the same and nothing is black and white here. But unless your willing to bring these kids up yourself, who are you to judge.?

  • dewflirt

    Experimental sex? What is that? If you mean underage sex, that's a fairly modern idea. In thirteenth century England girls were marriageable at 12. The age of consent varies from country to country, Japan 13, Mexico 12 - 18, UK 16, Cameroon 21. My step sister had her first baby when she was 12, nobody knew she was pregnant (not even her) until she went to the doctors with stomach pains. By then she was almost 7 months gone. She did get basic sex education in school but her mother had told her that only married people have babies. She honestly thought that you could only get pregnant if you were married. She kept the baby, her dad helped her raise it. Her boyfriend faired less well, his parents were not as supportive and he hanged himself just after the baby's first birthday. He was 15. Education is not to blame. Miseducation is. I have met people that thought clingfilm and crisp packets were an effective form of barrier protection. There are still kids around that think having sex standing up will prevent pregnancy, or that if the girl has a wee after sex the sperm will be washed out. Teen pregnancy (uk) is highest in poorer areas where children are less likely attend school, let alone leave with any qualifications. Education is essential and it works. How else do you suggest we resolve the problem of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, Chastity belts? Who will hold the keys? Just because women are able to have babies, it doesn't mean they have to have one every time they have sex. If that were true for men, they'd likely have more kids than they could afford to support. If you take away contraceptives and abortion, you ARE forcing girls to have babies that they might not want or be able to care for.

  • Kateye70

    I didn't mean here, but in practice. Women's health is bound up in pregnancy; it has a profound effect on our bodies. Yet all the medical advances are useless if they're legislated away. Sorry if I was unclear, I just get irritated by this subject, particularly considering what's going on in the US on the political front..

  • Kateye70

    So bombing clinics (which btw do a LOT more health care than abortions!) and killing doctors is a great way to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    Human beings are human. Some are more responsible than others. Lumping *all* women in with "that one woman" is the paternalistic attitude that women are incapable of making adult decisions for themselves. MOST women make good decisions. My opinion is, we make AS MANY good decisions as any man.

    In fact, we often make better--since we're often left to care for more than one growing human being. It would be awesome if all men were supportive fathers, but the sad truth is, there are plenty who aren't. I could tell you horror stories about "that one man" who fathered a dozen kids and left all the dozen women to raise them on welfare, but it's irrelevant.

    Your opinion about "the growing and sustaining of life within a woman's body" completely neglects the fact that it is WITHIN A WOMAN'S body, not a man's. She should be the one to decide if the time is appropriate or not to bring a life into the world that then needs nurturing for the next 18-35 years (apparently, these days, that's the age range of childhood).

    If you're not a woman, and unusually fertile--I come from such a family of women--you have NO right to a say in how women manage their fertility. Nor does whatever religion you belong to have the right to interfere in anyone else's life.

  • robertallen1

    Exactly.

  • robertallen1

    And I'm more than irritated. Roe v. Wade is fine and the situation is fairly stable. By that I mean women openly procure abortions in state-of-the-art health facilities, rendering back alleys and coat hangers a thing of the past. Now, there seems to be this backlash, just about all of it stemming from ignorance-engendering, tyrannical religion.

  • robertallen1

    Exactly and it made my day wien Paul Hill was executed.

  • Kateye70

    All you have to do is read any republican party platform and that's what you'll see...funding cuts for every social program in existence...it's a lot cheaper to prevent pregnancy than it is to raise an unwanted child.

    I won't even bring up the sanctimonious opposition to gay couples that want to adopt children who would otherwise spend their lives in foster care or facilities.

  • robertallen1

    I hope you're not trying to make a political statement, for the Democrats aren't much better, especially those from the south.

  • lakhotason

    It just isn't the 13th century. You can marry a twelve-year-old in the state of Colorado because Colorado law recognizes English common law in the matter of common-law marriages.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    There has to be support for women and young girls who have gone through an abortion and are living a depression because of that choice.
    Abortion for many is a decision taken at a time when her world seems to be falling apart, and when all is done and taken care off, the reality of the lost may come back to hunt her.
    It may be because of peer pressure, because of a broken reputation (especially for teens), the lost of the relationship with the father or any other personal reasons.
    Abortion is not like having a tooth taken out.
    1i

  • lakhotason

    I think what you mean to say is human life begins at conception and no, doctors and scientists don't agree overwhelmingly. As a matter-of-fact medicine and science are incapable of determining when human life begins.

    And therein lies the rub.

  • robertallen1

    That's the thing about those like Crispy777, they will do anything to support what they consider truth, including lie.

  • robertallen1

    This I can agree with. So let's tax the churches and use the revenue not only to fund more abortion clinics, but to provide support for those suffering from post-abortion depression which those same clinics are capable of furnishing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    Or if you take away thier options there is always suiside. Which is often what happens in Ireland but in the poorer communities where neither affording to have a kid or affording an abortion is an option. Having abortion banned in Ireland causes more problems than it solves. Its not as easy as just taking the morning after pill, actually from what i know its a horrific ordeal. I could not see any woman taking the decision lightly even if there was a clinic on her street.

  • robertallen1

    Right and an open clinic is the best place to go for advice. Once again, tax the churches and use the revenue to fund research into minimizing the horrific ordeal of abortion.

  • Kateye70

    Unfortunately, Roe v. Wade is being chipped away at constantly. Women's health clinics are closed down; some states don't have them anymore. Doctors are afraid to work at them. Women are afraid to go to them. Why? Because of religious terrorist nuts who have created an atmosphere of fear.

  • Kateye70

    Not only is it not a light decision, it is a decision a woman lives with for the rest of her life. I have discussed this with many women friends and family.

    Which is why it is so *insulting* and *demeaning* to treat women as if they are unaware of--or too stupid to underestand!--the consequences of such a decision.

    My mother was pregnant nine times. Six of us lived. She often wished she had been able to overcome the religious objection to contraception that was prevalent when she was younger; she would have preferred to stop at three.

    There was NO doubt that ALL of us were loved, and we were well-loved; however, if she could have made a choice, she would not have had so many.

    We also discussed the babies she lost, a full-term stillborn and two miscarriages at earlier stages. She expressed the same sense of loss that I have heard women express at having had abortions--and yet that did not affect her preference for not having so many children; any more than, despite the loss and regret, the women who had abortions would have changed their choice.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    It will never happen. Not while i,m alive anyway. The church paying tax in the first place and that those taxes support abortion. We need something that can be implemented now.

  • robertallen1

    Luckily it's still good law and considering the make up of the U.S. Supreme Court, likely to remain so.

  • robertallen1

    Right. I was just dreaming. I agree that we need an immediate solution. Do you have any ideas?

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    Hi. Your last line do you mean the women would not have changed their choice.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    You are right, Although i agree with the suggestion i realize it's non-likelihood.
    Although the church paying tax could be forced if we the people enforced it, even the religious ones have no advantage in having the church get away with this. The only ones to benefit from this brake are the ones running the church.
    1i

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    Ok sorry rereading its obvious. Totally agree.

  • Paul MacLeod

    I hold heartedly agree oQ, how can you be pro-life and still be pro-war!? If you are truely pro-life then you can't condone war of any kind.
    And I also agree with Lee Walker in saying,
    "A womans sexual health is no one elses god damned business. In the room there should be her, her family if she wants, and a doctor. politicians and the christian right have no business poking their noses in."
    There the discussion ends for me because its none of my business whether someone should or shouldn't have an abortion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    Well over here at least legalising abortion would be a step forward. Talking about sex and stds in this country is still taboo. That is only going to have a negative effect so certainly more open talking. Parents need to make sure their kids know about these things in uncomfortable detail if needs be.

  • PaulGloor

    I wasn't surprised at all that this was about Christians. The problem with making abortion illegal is that it will move to back alleys with tools as sophisticated as coat hangars and flights of stairs with loose rugs.
    The problem with pro life is population, NONE of these major religions seem to acknowledge that fact.

    @Afrikarim, if you are still lurking.
    "Another lame excuse for not having a child?! There are billions of parents worldwide who love their children. Even in animals it is widely observed that parents take care of their children, also after they grow up."

    It is also documented that several species will eat their offspring or kill them if they linger on the turf too long after weening.

    "Lol! Are we the only species which are "too" many? Who gave you the ultimate "authority" to judge if we are too many or too less?"

    We are actually the most populous species on the planet with over 7 billion, save for insects and possibly some rodents, but they don't count in this equation. As far as natural population control, we have none we haven't or can't overcome in time. Humans spread like a plague across the earth, destroying natural habitat and hunting 'inferior' species to extinction. This problem will not lessen if we do not actively control our own population.

    "Overpopulation is not because of excessive reproduction rather because of longer average age assisted by science and technology."

    And washing hands, brushing your teeth, taking a shower, access to food, cold storage (to preserve that food) and so forth. Marvelous thing that science and technology.

    "Go back to pre-WW2 era and you would not find any youth culture engaged in teen 'experimental' sex at regular bases anywhere around the world"

    I somehow think this assessment is wrong, and has already been covered.

  • robertallen1

    Sure, but this is no immediate solution.

  • robertallen1

    You're right. They lie about it.

    P.S. I've never heard of hangars being used for abortions although it's not inconceivable that these facilities might have served as operating room--now hangers are something else.

  • Kateye70

    I edited to put a semi-colon in--the sentence *was* rather long =)

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    As long as there is pregnancy there will be unwanted pregnancy. If your asking for a solution to getting pregnant then an obvious solution is the pill. There will be still unwanted pregnancies so safe medical abortion should be available.
    Perhaps all men of age should be on the pill. Sorry lads but it would be nice to see all the responsabillity on your shoulders for a change.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    Saying that i would still make sure i was covered as i dont think i would put all my trust in the man being responsible enough.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    What would an immediate solution be? if we keep it in the possible realm.
    1i

  • Kateye70

    It would be better
    If men could get pregnant
    The way male seahorses do.
    Gestate for a while,
    Have hormonal surges,
    And then they might 'get a clue.'

  • Kateye70

    Whenever I hear about some guy getting mad because his girlfriend got pregnant I have to wonder how much effort they made to prevent it...

  • robertallen1

    I can think of two immediate solutions for Ireland.

    1. Emergency legislation guaranteeing every woman the RIGHT to choose for herself as to whether to undergo an abortion.

    2. Demonstrations--and I don't mean the usual "nice" kind, but the type that will cause those in power and the general public to take notice.

  • robertallen1

    Is there a pill for men? One way or the other, you're right.

  • robertallen1

    Whenever I hear someone (usually it's a religee) state that a woman must deliver no matter what (or even under certain circumstances), I wonder how much effort this person has made to delve into what's involved, the level of his intelligence and education and what he thinks gives him the right to make moral lepers of women who opt out of delivery.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    I was sure that one came out in England but not in Ireland yet.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    Yeah so true. They should make it compulsory for men to be on the pill and let the woman decide when he can come off it. mwah ha ha

  • Kateye70

    In fact, there *is* a pill for men...unfortunately, it's the wrong kind...

  • Kateye70

    You know, there *is* a solution for men who don't want to be daddies. It's called "vasectomy" and its a much less invasive procedure than a woman having her Fallopian tubes tied. It's even reversible in many cases; in fact, sperm banks are another option for men who want to control their reproduction. Again, a much easier(!) process for men than for women who might want to save a few eggs for later on.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    I think our bits and pieces are a bit more complicated and easier to damage so a nice safe reversible vasectomy is the way to go.
    What do you think robbertallen? I would also like to see a safe pill out there for men as i dont know what age or stage of development a vasectomy can be carried out.

  • robertallen1

    I don't know that much about vasectomies; however, it's inequitable for the woman to have to bear all the burden and all the responsibility, but try telling that to an imbecile such as Crispy777.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    I would like to hear his opinion. Where are you Crispy777? I,m sure the catholic church would find something wrong with it too.

  • Kateye70

    Basically, the catholic church's view is that only married people should have sex, and when they do, conception should be a possibility. Their solution for family planning? "Natural" (or "rhythm method"). Tell that to my sister who had 3 children in 4 years. Yea, right.

    Truly, a policy written by (presumably) celibate men.

    Here's a little tidbit from a catholic forum:

    Question: "I know a vasectomy is a sin...I had a vasectomy to keep from having further children for financial reasons...Now I know the evils of my action...I want to have surgeory to correct it but have been told it is quite expensive...So, should I be celebate since I cannot have kids with my wife until I can afford to reverse my vasectomy?"

    Answer: "So long as you have confessed this sin (vasectomy) you will not be required to correct it and you do not need to be celibate."

    Medical procedure as sin...but confess and all is forgiven!

  • robertallen1

    Now you see why I hate Catholics.

  • Scoobsnheather

    The simple fact of the matter in regards to this issue is that they're trying to push us ladies back to being the Cattle we once were. Problem is, there are more of us than there are of "you", both female to male ratios and more fore than against. Ideas such as these will never pass and if they do, well...hold on to your wonderbras ladies cuz there will be a war. Women (including my mother and grandmother) fought damned hard to get me where I am today and if you think for one second I'm going to give that up because it doesn't agree with your morals or religion, you've got another thing coming. I don't shove my morals onto you, why do that to me? If you're a Christian (which is where most of this issue is coming from) then go read your Bible and tell me about how incest should be made legal. That's just one stupid, silly example of what your book says is OK to do. Nothin' says lovin like huggin' your cousin.

    The next time you say abortion is wrong, ask yourself:
    Do you know what it feels like to be pregnant? Were you born a girl, or with the mindset that is female? Do you know what it feels like to be raped? Do you know what it's like having that child who was a product of that hidious and extremely traumatic crime look you in the eyes and ask "Who's my Daddy?" "What did my Daddy look like?" "Do I look like my Daddy?" You tell me how that's fair to anyone, that child included. Can you possibly imagine how that would feel? If you say yes, then you're on the right track to having a rational, thinking brain. We're talking about compassion for others. There's not one single female that says, "HEY! I'm getting an abortion today!! I can't wait until the next one!! YIPPY!!". This is an option that is the hardest of all three options (IMHO) and you're wrong if you think it's the easiest. It's hard having a baby (that you wanted to have) because it sure isn't glamourous. Adoption? Knowing your child is out there somewhere (Open or closed) being raised by someone else, hugging someone else, saying "I love you" to someone else. Or the third option, wondering for the rest of your existance what the other two options would have felt like. Knowing the story of that life, seeing it develop, feeling it kick and squirm around. If you've ever lost a baby (miscarriage) then you'll know too well what I'm talking about. Speaking of miscarriage - it's an act of "God", right? then that makes "God" a murderer. No one asks to have their baby taken away, regardless of the means. Maybe you should consider that?

    Or hey, the whole, "Life begins at conception" schtick. Intelligent life doesn't begin at conception. I'd like to see a zygote survive outside the womb. A zygote, blastocyst, an embryo and most of a fetus' life is not intelligent life. Intelligent life means to have survival instincts and some other cool stuff thrown in for good measure, if you so will. If you think about it, if a zygote had intelligent life, 100% of ectopic pregnancies would come out perfectly, baby and mom fully in tact. When fertilzation occurs, you have 6-8 days at that sucker will implant on anything. If it had intelligence and implant ectopically, its need of survival would insure that it's parasitic nature would keep it's host alive until it could tranform into something capable of surviving on its own. #IncrediblyLongRantOver

  • dewflirt

    But we don't even recognise common law marriages here!?!? There is no such thing. Old dead law had it but not current law. Is this one of those silly outdated things, like you can't buy a bible on sunday? Do the parents have to agree? Sounds like Colorado is a few sandwiches short of a picnic, how can they think that's right? :(

  • robertallen1

    Abortion is right in all circumstances where the mother does not want full-term pregnancy. Why do you think Catholics are so opposed to abortion and contraception? Because their use decrease the world's Catholic population.

    Kateye is on the right track: follow the money. Money for abortions, sex education and clinical research is money that eludes the church's grasp and impacts its power.

  • Scoobsnheather

    Don't get me started on Catholics, I have fresh underwear on and I'd sooner not soil them. lol

    Catholic church = World's biggest punch line of all time.

  • robertallen1

    Catholic church=biggest fraud of all time.

    Catholic church=biggest tyranny of all time.

    Catholic church=best bingo games of all time.

    So soil away.

  • Scoobsnheather

    Well played, sir. Well played. :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    No way wow. What a load of BS. Who had a conversation with god about vasectomy being a sin.(no need to answer that). Thats gas.

  • lakhotason

    Just goes to show how pervasive English Common Law is.

  • lakhotason

    So here I sit, a Memphian smoking a pork shoulder, Al Green, cold Busch beer and a decidedly yellow dog Democrat. Swear to God seems like heaven to me.

  • Kateye70

    Seriously, its on a website for catholics that had a forum. I just googled 'catholic church views on vasectomy' and it just popped up! (pun intended?)--and it seems to be a fairly common topic because I found a similar thread on a different site. Same answer, too--a mortal sin, but confess and all is forgiven.

  • slpsa

    Don't fault the sandwiches, they are small in number.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.kennedy.984 Lorna Kennedy

    Yeah its just crazy. What other awful crimes i wonder can be forgiven so easily. All of them? I think so. Mmm so the church would be a nice little haven for murders and rapists.

  • lakhotason

    PS I've got an old girlfriend stopping by on top of everything else. How Southern can you get?

  • Teddy Mcd

    Thank you Robert Allen -as Twain said - "A good cigar can last me all day but a compliment can last for months," - and as always he was right!

  • robertallen1

    Have you read his essay on masturbation. It's on the internet.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Ward/100003247509413 Gary Ward

    i'm pretty certain that these "activists for jesus" just cant find anyone with a strong enough stomach to stifle their vomit for long enough to impregnate them. if i had 5 minutes and some anti nausea meds id show them how valuable abortions are

  • PaulGloor

    As I recall, it was actually one of the reasons that legal abortion was pushed for in the first place. Some of the barbaric back alley practices actually used bent coat hangars to do the deed if my memory serves, and it oft ended poorly with injury or infection.
    Wiki puts it as one of the arguments used against pro-lifers, a quick search reveals a dozen or more other methods which serve only to cement the need, in my mind, for legal and accessible abortion under controlled conditions.

    @ Lorna Kennedy
    "Sorry lads but it would be nice to see all the responsabillity on your shoulders for a change. "
    I think most guys would be happy to shoulder some of that responsibility if they developed a pill for men or something of the like.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UBCOOEEP46QO5A3TZDKRKLAYDA Bobs

    Abortion is illegal in my country Brazil. And we got 2 million street kids living and dying like pigs. Pro-life my arse.

  • Chrispy777

    Your moral quandary is preposterous. If a woman destroys the life growing within her because she can't afford it, our tax money pays for her to have an abortion, multiple times. If a woman takes that same life to term, and destroys it, she's brought up on a murder charge. Respect ALL life, whether you can afford it or not. Lack of money and resources does NOT justify cold-blooded murder. For you to judge the parents who would love their children enough to bring them up as they see fit, in a disciplined, religious way, as abused children, shows just how twisted your thought processes are. The backwards argument demanding that I should offer to care for these (assumed) orphans (it's amazing to me how "psychic" pro-choice people are, how that they KNOW a child is going to have a miserable life, so let's just kill it, now), shifts the blame and responsibility onto those that had no part in THEIR irresponsible behavior. Put the blame on the men and women engaging in unprotected sex. If you don't want the controversy and potential guilt, then don't commit the act. Pregnancy prevention will stop the unnecessary destruction of someone's future. I can't justify ONE abortion, and that woman had FIVE! She's just plain stupid.

  • Kateye70

    Well, you've stated your opinion. Good luck to you. Respect for life should include respect for functioning human beings able to make their own decisions without your input or control.

    Edit: BTW "unprotected" sex is not the only sex that ends up creating unwanted pregnancies. And spare me your moralistic lectures on who should have sex when or with whom. It's none of your business.

  • over the edge

    Chrispy777
    you state " I can't justify ONE abortion," . ok please explain this to me. a 9yo girl was raped and became pregnant. her life and the life of the child were in danger so following the advise of the medical staff the christian mother of the child along with her family decided that an abortion was needed. the 9yo girl ,the doctors and her mother were excommunicated. the christian rapist was not. could you enlighten me on why no excommunication for the rapist and why this abortion isn't justified?

  • robertallen1

    Oh, then you mean hanger.

  • robertallen1

    And I bet a lot of it has to do with the goddam Catholic church.

  • robertallen1

    You can't justify ONE abortion. What about in cases of rape? What about if the mother's life is in danger. Suppose it is a near certainty that the fetus is dead in the womb or it is determined that it will be unable to survive after being born? Or let's just say it is simply not viable either for economic, psychological or medical reasons? One way or the other, in your jaundiced view, women who undergo abortions are moral lepers and we need laws against abortion to criminalize them for exercising their right. I'd rather see tax money go for sanitary abortion facilities than for the extra cost of enforcing such laws and incarcerating such women. I'd rather 1,000 (insert any number you want) abortions than one unwanted child. Did you read the two-line post from Bobs from Brazil? He's right and you're wrong--dead wrong.

  • Kateye70

    How do you know this woman you keep ranting about doesn't have mental issues preventing her from functioning the way you'd like her to? Where's that famous christian compassion, I'd like to know.

    Here's an example to counteract yours. It was very real, and tragic.

    I haven't forgotten the woman on my local news, about 25 years ago, who drowned her four children, ranging from infant to 7 years old, in a river one cold November night. She was pregnant, as well. Maybe instead of four pregnancies she should have had abortions. When she was arrested, she said she was trying to protect them. Now, you or I might have come up with a different solution, but neither of us was walking in that woman's shoes.

    "Should" =/= "can".

    One does not have to be "psychic" to make reasonable predictions based on present circumstances.

    And quite frankly, if YOU want women to have children they don't want at that point in their lives, then yes, it IS your responsibility to care for them.

  • Justin Medina

    Here is an answer to your question - from a Christian perspective. The same bible that says murder is wrong also has punishments prescribed for various crimes - including rape. The punishment for the following crimes is not excommunication, but execution in a timely manner: murder, blasphemy, rape, perjury, adultery*, and many others. Part of the problem in today's society - especially the Catholic church - are that the punishments that were prescribed for committing crimes are simply not followed. It's no wounder society is so malicious and corrupt.
    If you are atheist and believe in evolution, follow the following: if you were to actually immediately kill murders, rapists, etc. then you would over time rid the population of those who are more likely to commit said crimes, since you are reducing the number who are allowed to reproduce in society and thereby shrinking their gene pool. The fact that people who commit said actions and are allowed to live are a violation of the law God provides - and of course, society suffers as a consequence.
    Despite the fact I am Christian (not Catholic) - I am not dissolusioned - the Jewish people, the Christians, Catholics, and other major religions DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULES and also suffer the consequences. The Catholics should be well aware - Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to change it. The rapist should be killed - along with a large number of child rapists who masquarade as priests. And no doubt - and other Christian or Jewish people guilty of the same crimes should suffer the same consequences.
    So - in answer to your question: you cannot always prevent situations, however a society that actually followed what is perscribed by God would do the following: kill the rapist (not excommunicate him), kill any associated physicians who have done abortions, kill any priests/bishops,ministers etc. who have lied under oath to cover up the story.
    The Catholic Church isn't from God might I add - and of course if the Church excommunicated the family, they are only heaping stones on their heads that already exists and making their situation worse. They already have A LOT to answer for, sadly, and they give God a terrible reputation he doesn't deserve.

  • over the edge

    Justin Medina
    this is not the doc for me to on this tangent. so i will only say that the bible also demands death for so many things that there would not be many of us left if all biblical death penalties were carried out.

  • Kateye70

    "I think most guys would be happy to shoulder some of that responsibility if they developed a pill for men or something of the like."

    That's so sweet...but until women could *trust* men to take those pills...each side needs to protect themselves as best they can.

  • Kateye70

    IF is such a gigantic word, isn't it?

  • robertallen1

    "If you're an atheist and believe in evolution . . . " Your juxtaposition of atheism with evolution shows how little you know about both of them--and from there you transport your ignorance to new extremes.

    "If you were to actually immediately kill murderers, rapists, etc. then you would over time rid the population of those who are more likely to commit said crimes, since you are reducing the number who are allowed to reproduce in society and thereby shrinking their gene pool." So it's simply a matter of genetics, is it? So if your father committed a gruesome murder, you as his son would be more likely to do so. Therefore, let's cut off the whole family line.

    "Despite the fact I am Christian (not Catholic) - I am not disolusioned [sic], the Jewish people, the Christians, Catholics and other major religions DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULES and also suffer the consequences." Where do you get your so-called rules? What makes you think that you know what's from god and what isn't? What makes you think you know what has been prescribed by God? What makes you think you know what's Christian and what isn't? What makes you think you know if there even is a god? Talk about a delusional set of beliefs, you have it in all suits.

    In short, your solution is wholesale slaughter, bible style. Your form of "Christianity" (and yours is only one of many) adds disgust to ignorance and abomination to disgust.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Ward/100003247509413 Gary Ward

    ahem. ever heard of sperm jackers. and little sluts that intentionaly get knocked up to claim on the dpb for 18 years cos they are to thick and or lazy to get proper jobs?

  • Kateye70

    "little sluts that intentionaly get knocked up to claim on the dpb"

    That is such an internet meme it isn't even funny.

    Check the statistics -- the real statistics, not the Facebook ones -- to see who really gets help. Then get back to us.

    Besides, how many children have *you* raised? Do you really think being responsible 24/7 for 18 years PLUS for another human being or two or three or five or seven (however many you think they give birth to) is a good alternative to finding a job that only requires 8/5?

    If by "sperm jacker" you mean that the "little sluts" are "jacking" some "innocent" man's "sperm" to intentionally get pregnant, then I will refer you to my comments on "vasectomy" below.

    Or at least use a condom. Any man who rides "bareback" gets what he deserves.

  • lakhotason

    One does not believe in evolution. Evolution is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/justin.lesniewski Justin Lesniewski

    you should read John Irving's The Cider House Rules, if this interests you. Especially if you are anti abortion I really think you should read it. It may not change your mind, but it will give you insight into why people believe it is necessary.

  • Pysmythe

    If it's true such a law is still on the books there, I'm pretty sure all the old men would know better than to try to get away with such a thing. They'd have to go to Utah for that!

    Magic undies nabs 12 year-old brides? Yay, religion!

  • http://www.facebook.com/rachel.wellersdick Rachel Wellersdick

    5:53-6:00: "I support a woman's right to choose, too. But her right to choose ends when she gets into the bed." Wooooahhhhhh, buddy...did that old man really say that? Don't even get me started. What a blatantly shitty choice of words. Makes me sick.

  • dewflirt

    I think I'm hallucinating! is that really you? You haven't aged a day! ;)

    Suddenly remembered Jerry Lee Lewis. Yuk! What I don't understand is why it's not considered child abuse. Does marriage make it all better? Does the same apply for boys? How can it be wrong in one state and not in another? 12? What happened to informed consent? Sorry, so many questions! :)

  • lakhotason

    I believe there are nine or ten states that follow English Common Law in this matter. We even have one state, Louisiana, that follows the Napoleonic Code. That's where things get even stranger.

  • lakhotason

    Also since you asked the age of common-law marriage for boys is 14.

  • dewflirt

    Do I want to know or will it make me even more angry?

  • dewflirt

    Sorry but I'm struggling to get my head around this, does it ACTUALLY still happen?
    Edit! Latter day saints. I guess it does.

  • lakhotason

    Very very rarely does this happen but it did happen in Colorado. A forty-something y/o man beat a rape conviction by claiming the 12 y/o was his common-law wife.

  • Chrispy777

    Suppose someone wants to kill you because you're ugly, fat, poor, or stupid? Life is life....respect it, don't make excuses for how you can justify ending it.

  • robertallen1

    If I were a woman who were raped and it was illegal to abort, I would miscarry on your doorstep, you ignorant piece of trash.

  • Chrispy777

    I wouldn't feel that way about you, Robert. See how much better a person I am, than you? Once again, justifying murder makes you a monster, and you can still live yourself, which makes you a waste of a life. Why couldn't some innocent baby have traded places with you?

  • Kateye70

    People kill each other all the time.

    What has that got to do with a woman's right to choose when to carry a pregnancy to term? You may want to believe that every fertilized egg is a viable life, but you're wrong.

    Besides, it's easy to mouth platitudes when it isn't your body or your life.

    You should take your own advice about respect.

  • robertallen1

    Quite the contrary, you're the monster for trying to justify forcing a woman to undergo the ordeal of childbirth for something not her fault such as rape or the possibility of giving birth to a still-born child or one not likely to survive. You're the monster for trying to justify placing a woman in a life-threatening situation. You're the monster for trying to brand women who undergo abortions as moral degenenates. You're the monster for trying to stick your wart-filled nose into matters which are none of your business.

    You're the degenerate. You're the waste of life and just about everyone who has posted on this thread is better than you Quite frankly, I'm glad you're alive because you give every decent person something to hate.

  • Scoobsnheather

    ""See how much better a person I am, than you? " - Spoken like a true Christian! Thanks for reaffirming yourself as "Above" us sinners. MAN! Do you guys ever know how to contradict your own philosophies.
    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

    How is it that us "Sinners" generally know more about what's in your book than your "People" do?!

    Tell you what Chrispy, when you get pregnant, you can do whatever it is with your body you so choose. If you want to birth that baby on Mount Ararat and hold it up like the Lion King Cub and declare it as the second coming, then feel free. It's a FREE world and you people will never EVER have the numbers you once did. Christainity is a dying religion, sorry to burst your bubble. Those days are numbered. And Thank GOD for that!

    Edit - I would also like to add, if you can't get pregnant on your own because you either lack the basement equipment, or you just simply can't conceive (which is tragic and I do not make light of that at all!) then you better start adopting all those birthed children (if you haven't already!!) because if you truly do believe that life matters in all respects, then you wouldn't want little ones walking this planet without a mom and a dad, right? You'd want to make it your business to make sure that you could love and care for as many as possible, right? Let me pose a question - when was the last time you were at an orphanage? A Children's Aid centre? Maybe you should go and see and adopt a few while you're there. There's plenty there to go around. Seeing as you believe in respecting and loving all "forms" of human life.

    It's people like you who go on and on about what you believe in, but really, you don't believe enough in taking care of what "God" has already placed here. That is, if you haven't birthed a child, conceived a child, adopted a child or co-raised a child. If you say, "Well I don't have to do it to know it." Get back to me when you've gone through all the horrors that can happen with all respects of conceiving or not conceiving.

  • Chrispy777

    You have to ask yourself, "What would Scooby do?" I applaud you for being receptive enough to pick out the "snake that would've bitten you" quote, from my comment. It's called "tongue in cheek," Captain Obvious. I have to agree with you about Christianity being "a dying religion." It's all about Christ dying for your sins, and then you proceed to thank God for it! Why, Scooby....you just may be on your way to becoming someone like me! One, such as I, can only hope.

  • robertallen1

    And I can only hope that this poster will not stoop so low.

  • Kateye70

    I think "Captain Obvious" would understand, obviously, that tone of voice doesn't translate well into text. Including "tongue in cheek" comments.

  • Chrispy777

    I figured I'd throw out an outrageous comment like that, and see who jumps on it, first. It doesn't matter if I'm being serious or pulling your legs....I get the same vociferous replies.

  • PaulGloor

    @robertallen1
    "Oh, then you mean hanger. "

    /facepalm.... yes :P
    Spellchecker fail !

  • PaulGloor

    @Kateye70
    "That's so sweet...but until women could *trust* men to take those pills...each side needs to protect themselves as best they can."

    I agree fully, but sad to say I have heard some stories that swings the trust finger both ways unfortunately. I really think its a "protect yourself" deal that men have the short end of the stick on in the event that the woman is dishonest and looking for a support handout.
    There's always condoms, but they aint perfect either.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Ward/100003247509413 Gary Ward

    i've never seen this meme and even if it is how does that change anything?

    who really gets help?, its pretty clear sorry. a woman here in nz gets a government cheque of $580NZD/$468USD on average a week for 2 dependant children. how 3 people are meant to live off that i neither know nor care, i never said they were smart, infact that was kindov my point. anyway even if the father wanted custody of said children he would more than likely not get it because the courts strongly side with the mother except in cases of extreme neglect. and is then ordered to pay child support. clearly $580 free a week for 19 years because she spread her legs once isn't enough

    sperm jackers are not thick little sluts they are entirely different i never said they were the same thing....

    and no i havn't raised a child and never said it was easy. fact is though after 5 years old they will spend over half their waking hours at school. and during home time what are these responsible mothers doing? lets just say not many of these kids will grow up to be prime minister. quite a few of these mothers after the 19 years will go and repeat the process.. in this case an abortion and a bullet should be court ordered.

    oh yeah vasectomy sounds COMPLETLY reasonable, after all surgery on your junk seems fun.. id rather just be able to trust that she would take a tiny ass pill or not lie about having the rod.

    NOW. im definitly not saying all woman are like this quite the opposite infact, i'm just saying it is a prevelant problem and to be honest i cant even remember why i'm on about it.....

    a woman should be allowed to abort whatever she wants and not be held back from getting rid of a not even thinking feeling THING that she might not be able to afford, want or even be of any kind of age to deal with because of religous nuttery.. i mean f#@k, really?

    now i'm also for legalizing i dunno 300th trimester abortion bye bye mr pope.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Ward/100003247509413 Gary Ward

    i like how tdf reccomends me to watch "modern meat" after this abahahaha

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UBCOOEEP46QO5A3TZDKRKLAYDA Bobs

    A lot? I would say ALL of it.

  • stevebd62

    Ignorance is the only real crime i see evidence of here.Stupidity can't be helped but ignorance can. The same church opposing abortion has supported genocide (men women & children) during the crusades, inquisition ect..The same Bible says we are all Gods creatures as you sit there and savor that veal and make an appointment to have those unwanted cats euthenised. Didn't someone in the bible die as a result of pulling out early (no trojans available). Oh yeah that was incest which a drunk dad that 13 toed baby that would of had defects and retardation had a right to suffer in a time of such technology, What about the potential of those who die as "collateral damage" (justified homicide) during a bombing raid which is because of peoples differing beliefs in this same God that hasd wiped out whole civilizations acording to biblical counts ( how many infants in Sodom and Gommorah" were actually guilty). The only proof of any of this is a compilation of fairy tales written by men, then other men voted which would be accepted as scripture and what not then Kings and politicians made their revisions. It amazes me the ignorance of people that form ideals just because someone else told them to believe this way or that . Here in America we condemn and make jokes about beliefs of our present day enemies yet are in many cases just as guilty trying to force our own down the throats 0of our own countrymen. And since when does the constitution give the vatican or the baptist church a vote in the house of representatives. Seperation of church and state entitles you believe as you wish but does not entitle you too force your dogma on others. I have more respect for the Buddhist who respects all sentient life than prejudice of pick and choose what is convienent or fits "my ajenda". I'll eat my steakas I will always support pro-choice because in Pro-choice it is more than abortion at stake but choice to believe as you choose. And the choice to educate and get educated rather than live in ignorance

  • Kateye70

    Once again, you've put all the blame on the woman.

    "She spread her legs once." Who wanted her spread them? What happened once they were spread? Where's your--meaning all men's--responsibility in the deed? You get my drift, here?

    You have to admit, refusing to use condoms, or taking a more proactive approach such as vasectomy, is a very selfish response.

    It's more important to a man that he 'feel' the deed (all 30 seconds of it) than actually think about what might be happening with all those little sperm wiggling toward a fallopian tube.

    "surgery on your junk seems fun.. " is a typical male response...OH NOES!!! NOT MY JUUUUUUNK!!!! gotta protect the "rod" at all costs.

    You don't even know what the vasectomy procedure entails, do you? Your precious hard-on doesn't get affected. Wiki it. You need the education.

    But your attitude is that women should undergo MUCH more traumatic procedures rather than a man accept the least bit responsibility for the outcome of his actions.

    Ever thought about giving birth? Wonder what *that* would do to your "junk"? Ever wonder what nine months of carrying a parasitic growth inside your body does? Yea, babies are parasites on the mother until they get born. They deplete her resources and make permanent changes to her body.

    I live in the US, but I'm guessing you have a pretty unrealistic view of how much it costs to maintain a household and raise children.

    I process child support checks doing my company's payroll, and I can tell you that what most of our male employees pay towards the upkeep of their children doesn't even begin to pay just basics like food and shelter, much less clothing, medical care, and day-to-day expenses.

    Ever stop to consider that MOST women on welfare are there because a man walked away? Or she had to leave him to protect herself and/or her children? Or that MOST people, male or female, on any welfare system are working their a@@es off to be able to get off it?

    From where I sit, you have a misogynistic attitude toard women, and an elitist attitude toward social responsibility.

  • Kateye70

    "Captain Obvious" isn't as obvious as he thinks he is.

    Trolling is against the comment policy, btw.

  • Kateye70

    Yes, the trust finger points both ways. If you don't trust your partner, protect yourself. That was my only point.

    If condoms don't work, get a vasectomy. Want children later on? Go to a sperm bank and make a deposit. Those options are much easier and much much less invasive for men than women. (Edit: Just look into the procedure for collecting a woman's eggs, and you'll see what I mean. And Fallopian tubes are buried in the abdomen, not nearly as accessible as the vasa deferentia are.)

    I do get irritated at men who put all the responsibility--and blame--on the woman, who then is living with the results, regardless of what they are, for the rest of her life. Nothing fair about that, is there?

    I think if you look at the number of women 'looking for a handout' as a subset of all the women on welfare, and those as a subset of all individuals on welfare, you'd find them to be a miniscule minority in either case.

    Contrary to what men seem think, caring for children while on welfare is not a cushy existence.

  • lakhotason

    Once again, I am a male and so lack the basic qualification to give a reasoned opinion - I can never conceive a child. But I can look at the arguments and draw a reasoned opinion of how they are being presented.

    If you remove all the various religious underpinnings, their argument for opposing abortion doesn't change. They say this is human life which begins at conception. The religious say this is a God thing etc. I don't wish to get into that but if you remove even the divine you still have the same question. Is this human life? We don't know. We'll never know. What we do know are two things - There is no human life before conception and since we cannot determine when human life begins, we must set the mark at conception.

    This is what I see as the argument for those opposing abortion are presenting. It really has nothing to do with religion so it would make sense for both sides to keep religion out of the argument.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Ward/100003247509413 Gary Ward

    from where i sit you cant read.
    "NOW. im definitly not saying all woman are like this quite the opposite infact"

    now i could go through and respond to each and everything you said . but why? seems your views are pretty one sided yourself there bud, go get sum1 that can last more than 30 seconds and be happy. peace

  • Kateye70

    Life may be potentially started at conception, but at what point does it become 'human' life?

    As Scoobsnheather said in an earlier post, there are multiple stages in the life of a fertilized egg. "Intelligent life doesn't begin at conception. I'd like to see a zygote survive outside the womb. A zygote, blastocyst, an embryo and most of a fetus' life is not intelligent life."

    Even at nine months (37 weeks), a human child is still an embryo. Elephants carry theirs for what? Twenty-two months?

    At what point can an embryo survive outside the womb? With modern technology, pretty early, although it misses out on critical growth stages--several organ systems only mature after 34 weeks, the last 3 weeks before normal birth.

    Such infants tend to have many more medical and developmental issues, particularly with their lungs, the last organ to develop. They are also at greater risk for having subsequent serious chronic health problems.

    There was a time when children were not considered 'human' until the age of 5 or so. Infant and child development is very specific until that age; there are very specific stages that all babies go through.

    By 5 or 6, the child is capable of functioning separately from its mother, although it still needs the care of of its 'village' of adults for quite a bit longer.

    So when does a child acquire it's 'soul?' The age has changed depending on the religion and the culture. But that's a religious issue, and is the main case for opposition to abortion.

  • Kateye70

    I've 'gotten' mine and made damn sure no unwanted results ensued. I accepted my portion of the responsibility.

    I also pointed out the inaccuracies in what you said. I wouldn't mind at all if you did come up with some counters to my points; but somehow I don't think that's going to happen.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Ward/100003247509413 Gary Ward

    Once again, you've put all the blame on the woman.

    no i didn't

    "She spread her legs once."

    in the point i was making yes.

    in my experience females dont like how they "feel" anymore than men do.
    You have to admit, refusing to use condoms
    It's more important to a man that he 'feel' the deed

    in my experience females dont like how they "feel" anymore than men do.

    "surgery on your junk seems fun.. " is a typical male response...OH NOES!!! NOT MY JUUUUUUNK!!!

    sure if you think that taking a pill is more invasive than getting your balls snipped.

    You don't even know what the vasectomy procedure entails, do you? Your precious hard-on doesn't get affected. Wiki it. You need the education.

    you clearly have no idea what i know. why insult my intellegence?.

    But your attitude is that women should undergo MUCH more traumatic procedures rather

    sure. cos waking up in the morning and feeding your rape baby would be pleasant.

    Ever thought about giving birth? Wonder what *that* would do to your "junk"?

    tha

    I live in the US, but I'm guessing you have a pretty unrealistic

    i maintain mine, thanks. no kids thankfully....

    I process child support checks doing my company's payroll,

    thats because most of them are dead beat pieces of ****. but hey not really my problem

    Ever stop to consider that MOST women on welfare are there because a man walked away?

    pretty sure i covered this by saying MOST WOMAN ARNT LIKE THIS

    From where I sit.

    well thats just nasty.

  • lakhotason

    I understand what you are saying Kateye but it doesn't address the question. Is this human life? I saw the marks around human in your reply and I can assure you that when the human sperm fertilizes the human egg it is entirely and uniquely human. The questions of when or whether survival outside the womb isn't relevant for we know the fertilized egg is human and we know it is alive but what we can never determine is if the two are in fact inseparable.

  • robertallen1

    Before the final question can be addressed, it must be proved that the soul exists.

  • robertallen1

    This academic consideration skirts the main issue which is the right of women to choose for themselves whether to abort.

  • lakhotason

    Calling it an academic consideration is what skirts the debate. I'm not debating a woman's right. I understand what you are saying but as a male I feel I cannot have a say in that matter.

    What I find curious about the opponents' argument is that they purposely avoid half of their very own reasoning. And that half is there is no human life before conception. By their reasoning if human life begins at conception then it ONLY begins at conception. That being so then there can be no moral or religious opposition to birth control.

  • robertallen1

    So we're back to discussing when conception occurs which solves nothing.

  • lakhotason

    No, not when conception occurs but rather what occurs at conception.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michaelyn-Erickson/1412884769 Michaelyn Erickson

    They call this an epidemic, but you have to pick your battles kids. There are some really pressing epidemics out there: I.E: cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity...these are affecting living people, people that have lives already, people who have experiences and dreams.
    How about instead of just fighting abortion, ask some of the questions that anti-abortionists generally skip over such as "why are women making this choice to begin with?" Alot of it has to do with economic and impoverished situations...perhaps if you focus on giving these women what they need to feel strong enough to have their babies then some of their choices will change. Blind faith, as much as hatefulness, can lead to misplaced agendas...just love people without judging them.

  • robertallen1

    In light of the larger argument, I just don't see the point of discussing it.

  • Chrispy777

    No matter what video I watch, I run into the same people, with the same ugly, angry attitude. Just because they can spend much of their life watching and commenting, doesn't brand me as one who trolls. It's hard to take these people seriously, when they trample over me, without an invitation, and then use the "open forum" excuse to do so. Those are the trolls. I can give back what I get, but I have definite limits, and these people, like Robert Allen, don't seem to have limits, and act with impunity.

  • robertallen1

    In other words, one needs an invitation to trample over you.

    You're right you definitely have limits.

  • Kateye70

    From a biological standpoint, not all fertilized eggs make it through the complete process. Women miscarry all the time, often so early they don't even realize they had a fertilized egg.

    The fact that the fertilized egg was from the human species doesn't make it a viable, intelligent being. I guess the 'human' with quotes was to differentiate the biological process from the religious assignation.

  • lakhotason

    Okay. Fair enough. Let me give my beliefs on the matter. Now just so we both understand when I or anyone states a belief that person is also implicitly stating that the possibility exists that he could be wrong. Otherwise it would not be a belief, it would be a fact.

    I do believe human life begins at conception. This isn't a religious belief. Each human life must begin at some instant and since that instant cannot be determined I have no choice but to put that instant at conception. To do otherwise would be to say that I know the unknowable.

  • Kateye70

    Since birth control pills aren't 100% effective, condoms are a good backup, especially considering STD's and AIDs.

    In your case, getting your balls snipped might be a good idea O.O

    Although if you bothered to look up the procedure you wouldn't be so scared. I know plenty of men who have had vasectomies and none of them are emasculated eunuchs.

    And you know, there are plenty of ways to enjoy sex without making babies in the process. They don't require condoms, either. Use your imagination, your partner(s) might like you better for it.

    Yes, from where I sit, your attitude is just nasty.

  • Kateye70

    You bring us back to the heart of the matter--which is that women are making the decision. It is hardly an 'epidemic' as you point out, but the reasons for the decision are as varied as the women who make the decision.

    The problem I see is that third parties are stepping in to push the decision back into the age of unsafe practices.

    If women have access to good education, sound health care, and the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy without the interference of people who have no right to decide for her, you'd be surprised how many would choose a different path.

    When you have someone like Gary Ward characterizing women as 'sluts' and 'welfare queens' the whole discussion get derailed.

  • robertallen1

    And just so you understand me. I have no idea when human life begins. To me, it is simply a biological question and nothing more.

  • Asher Craig

    110 people die everyday (in the United States) in auto accidents! what about those lives

  • Kateye70

    Tragic, but off-topic from the video?

  • lakhotason

    Right. Exactly. We have no idea when human life begins and never will but that doesn't negate that human life may very well begin at conception.

    Yet at the same time I have a better chance of being the first man on Mars than of understanding a woman's thoughts on this matter. I make no judgements.

    What a friggin' conundrum.

  • Kateye70

    " "Ever stop to consider that MOST women on welfare are there because a man walked away?"
    "pretty sure i covered this by saying MOST WOMAN ARNT LIKE THIS"

    And yet you started off by saying this:

    "ahem. ever heard of sperm jackers. and little sluts that intentionaly get knocked up to claim on the dpb for 18 years cos they are to thick and or lazy to get proper jobs?"

  • lakhotason

    That a fertilized egg makes it through the complete process or not cannot be a consideration. Nor can we consider viability and intelligence. I read somewhere (and I cannot cite the source, sorry) that most human pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion. Fertilized eggs that are a few days old are most often aborted. Please don't quote me on this.

    I'm struggling to find the right words and that is perhaps because most of what it means to be human is not definable. Science can only say so little. I do wish science could give us the answer but sadly that's not possible.

  • robertallen1

    Look at it this way: Science has a better chance than religion or philosophy.

  • Scoobsnheather

    The only obvious thing is that you're a hypocrite and a fraud. You hold what you believe in up so high (the bible) and yet you go against its very message by saying you are above "Us". Therefore, making yourself out to be a God/Messenger. How is it that you believe in such things, yet go against them in such a manner? That's the definition of a hypocrit, sir.

    Scoobydoo is a cartoon. And as for "tongue in cheek" - I think you need to go and read up on that because your comments have been nothing close to being "tongue in cheek". They've been distrubing, false, misleading, pompus, arrogant, frightening and yet, very hilarious and sad.

    Who's to say I don't believe in God? I do believe in "God" but totally not in the way you do. My God is not omnipotent or anything of that nature. My beliefs are frankly, none of your business. As for Christ dying for my sins....LMAO!!! You can't even prove Jesus truly existed. If you say, the Bible says...blah blah blah. Then I shall refer to every major character in a book and say the same thing. Have you ever wondered why your religion is dying?! I can tell you, because it's laughable at best. You religion has caused this world more harm than any other before it and my hope is seeing the day when there are none of you left. I don't think I'll be converting any time soon as you can see.

    Edit - you also failed to answer any of my questions which leads me to believe that you're either A) A coward who's talking out of ignorance, arrogance and sheer idiocy. or B) You couldn't fully articulate what I wrote. Or possibly C) You're in way over your head and you're too ashamed to admit you know nothing of this subject matter and in fact, you're not actually thinking for yourself and you've been brainwashed into believing these hidious things.

  • Sertsis

    Political reality may yet trump science if the question becomes one of population control.

  • lakhotason

    You are absolutely correct that political reality will triumph (and it will). But are you saying it is only a matter of population control? Surely you understand that population control is not merely a matter of science.

  • lakhotason

    Science has exactly the same chance as religion or philosophy. Zero.

  • Scoobsnheather

    "Once again, justifying murder makes you a monster, and you can still live yourself, which makes you a waste of a life."

    Isn't that what your book says to do against "sinners"? Or did I misread that? Does that make you a waste of life because you believe in such things?

    I

  • robertallen1

    My money's on science.

  • lakhotason

    Don't use their arguments in a negative to support your arguments for you can never prove a negative.

  • robertallen1

    I can. Crispy777's brains do not exist. Proof: his posts.

  • Sertsis

    No, I think that the scientific community would be the least resistant to this idea, it is the notion of reproductive freedom that would feel that is is under attack.

  • Scoobsnheather

    Pardon?

  • lakhotason

    Might as well be. If you wish to put your money on science then tell me what science has to say concerning the beginning of human life. What determination has science given for the beginning of human life? Nada, zilch, goose egg. It is unquestionably beyond science to make that determination.

  • lakhotason

    Well yes it is confusing. But when you ask "is it not" or words to that effect by definition your argument is a negative.

    I meant this as a reply to you Scooby. Clicked the wrong button.

  • Scoobsnheather

    You're more than welcome to think what you will about my arguement, but I see it as rational and intelligent. I posed a lot of valid questions to Crispy and he's yet to actually answer any one of them. If you want to play philosophy/debate teacher, spare me and move on to someone else with your "Riddles" that are statements that are passive-aggressive as well as not making a point at all.

  • robertallen1

    One way or the other, it's a biological question which falls clearly in the purview of science, not philosophy, not religion.

  • lakhotason

    No, I am making no argument. As far as "riddles" there is no trick question here. If you wish to argue in negatives then it is no "riddle" to point out that you cannot prove that negative. It isn't that I'm disagreeing or agreeing with you. I'm only suggesting that arguments be presented in the positive.

    Passive-aggressive. To be honest and blunt that is bullsh*t. Now you are asking me to prove that it isn't passive-aggressive. Nice trick. Doesn't work here. You prove that it is passive-aggressive.

  • lakhotason

    But science cannot answer that question. If you state it is a question of science and clearly science cannot answer that question then it cannot be a purview of science.

  • Scoobsnheather

    "Don't use their arguments in a negative to support your arguments for you can never prove a negative."

    Instead of making the actual point you designed to make, you made a point in a cryptic manner - aka a riddle. Passive-aggressive in the fact that you couldn't just say what you wanted to say.

    I'm not tricking at all. I'm being very straight forward. You're intruding on a conversation I'm engaged in with another person and instead of chiming in on what you agree with or not you're playing a "Grammar Nazi". Like I said previously, spare me.

  • robertallen1

    Why makes you say that science cannot answer that question? What is your source? There are a number of questions which science can't yet answer,such as what causes cataracts? But the question is certainly in the purview of science and tomorrow's another day.

  • robertallen1

    This is a public forum and anyone can intrude on anyone else.

  • lakhotason

    Riddle is your word. Do not lay that on me. I would never and have never used that word as part of my argument. You brought that word into the argument. Don't accuse me of being a "grammar nazi". If you don't want the word "riddle" to be part of the argument then don't use the word.

  • Scoobsnheather

    True, but he should've at least made an arguement instead of correcting my punctuation. That's all I meant by it.

  • Kateye70

    When you use the word 'human' in this context, you seem to be struggling to assign a value to our species that is different than the value of any other creature, which makes this a philosophic or religious value rather than a biologic value.

    It doesn't mean anything more to be human biologically than it does to be a dog or a sheep or a horse, and yet we treat them differently in terms of morality. From an evolutionary standpoint, that is probably because they are not the same species as us and therefore not an expression of our own genome.

    Other women will tell you, as I have, that the decision whether or not to end a pregnancy is difficult, emotional, and a life-altering event. That is doubtless because it is intimately alters our bodies, our hormones and our emotions.

    Which, for me, becomes the ultimate reason that the choice should be a personal one, not a public one, and not one that should be then followed up with a coat hanger, figuratively speaking, but with a safe, sanitary procedure in a medical facility if that is to be the outcome.

  • lakhotason

    Then what is science's answer? It does little good and it is cowardly to use the excuse that science may provide the answer. Science is incapable of delivering an answer. This is because if you ask what is human life you are also asking what is not human life. There must be a line drawn and I swear I do not know where that line is to be drawn and neither does science nor will science ever.

    This isn't to absolutely say that human life begins at conception. Not my point. All I, you, or science can say with any certainty is there is not human life before conception.

  • lakhotason

    RobertAllen you must come to the realization that science cannot nor aspires to answer every question. There are some things that are beyond science's ability to answer.

  • lakhotason

    In answer to your first paragraph - yes.

    In answer to your second paragraph I am not making a biological argument. The fact that we treat other animals differently belies a neutral biological argument. You treat humans on a different level than all other life. I do that because I am human and I can clearly see the difference. Why do you do that?

    Paragraph 3 - Agree 100%.

    Paragraph 4 - Just to indulge me can the rusty coat hanger in the back alley scenario be dropped? It serves no purpose other than to inflame emotion. And yes, abortion is a personal decision.

  • Kateye70

    "This isn't to absolutely say that human life begins at conception."

    Which leads right to the question of what to do with non-implanted fertilized eggs that fertility clinics have left over after a woman's procedure, whether successful or not. Destroy them? Are you then destroying a human life with the same value as a newborn full-term child? Or a 5-7 year old child? Or an 18-year-old soldier? At what point does it become human in the sense of having a soul?

    You've gone from the frying pan into the fire, because I'm sure there are plenty of religiously-minded people out there who have undergone fertility treatments of varying kinds. They will say they have been "blessed" (and I am sure they are so grateful they will thank anyone), but there are those who would deny them that joy, and say that they should accept what 'god' gave them through natural processes, either many children, some, or none.

    You are also correct to question when life for a fertilized human egg becomes the 'human' life that sets a special value on it. That question will probably never be answered.

  • Kateye70

    Because, as I said, they are the same species as me, and therefore represent my genome much more closely than even a bonobo or gorilla does. =)

    I have companion animals, and I feel compassion for them and a connection to them in return for their companionship. I feel a moral responsibility to care for them to the best of my ability.

    This is probably a result of my human empathy trait, and yet, when my cat gets up on my lap and looks into my eyes, purring loudly, and rubs his face against mine, he is accepting me on his cat terms as I accept him on my human terms.

    Should I value him less because he can't speak to me (and may not have thoughts worth speaking)? Humans also care for impaired humans who clearly are unable to function mentally the way we do.

    Your question about 'human life' is truly a profound one.

    Disclaimer: For anyone ready to argue the value of a cat's thoughts, and what those may be, that belongs on a different thread. This is just an example to illustrate a point.

  • lakhotason

    Of course it leads to questions. But I think we must consider the first question first. Therein lies the rub, to repeat myself. Believe me when I say that being human is "the best of times and the worst of times".

  • lakhotason

    One other thing. Please don't bring the "soul" into the discussion. It is immaterial. I never mentioned the soul so what is the reason it is so important to you that you always include the "soul" in your discussion with me?

  • Kateye70

    Re: Paragraph 4. Sure, although I didn't specify "rusty" and was careful to specify 'figuratively' =)

    What other way would you like me to refer to unsafe, unsanitary procedures performed as illicit acts?

    Wasn't it you (or am I misremembering? someone else?) who pointed out that in fact, prior to Roe v Wade, such procedures were sometimes performed with coat hangers (rusty or not) and sometimes by non-medically-trained persons, in less-than-sterile locations such as kitchens, etc?

    Those often resulted in scarring; infection; occasional perforations of the womb or vaginal wall; sometimes infertility; and sometimes the woman's death.

  • robertallen1

    How do you know that science is incapable of deliverying an answer?

  • robertallen1

    Sure there are, but why do you think this is one of them?

  • robertallen1

    In the sense of having a soul? How do you know that a soul even exists?

  • Kateye70

    The word 'soul' isn't that important to me; it is what happens when you step beyond the boundaries of science and into the realm of the philosophical or religious, which is what the discussion of what being 'human' (with the quotes) often denotes.

    I only said it to indicate the broader questions surrounding all the emotions of this topic. When the 'soul' enters the body is a flaming theological question that completely subsumes those of religious bent.

    There, I put 'soul' into quotes as well =) But we can drop the subject, as far as I'm concerned.

  • Kateye70

    See my reply to lakhotason =)

  • lakhotason

    That won't work either. You are still making it a condition in our discussion. You are specifically saying that the soul is part of our discussion of what it means to be human ("which is what the discussion of what being 'human' ( your quotes) often denotes."))

    No. I ain't going there.

  • lakhotason

    Because there is no objective answer. And science can only give objective answers (thank God or god).

  • robertallen1

    Then if there's no objective answer, the question is not worth pursuing.

  • lakhotason

    Weren't me (misuse intended). Check it - no reason to have to remember. So let's not bring it up.

    What is it that makes you believe I wish to have women have less than medically safe abortions?

    Why do you make an argument of things I never espoused? If you have an argument with that which I believe (clearly stated) then fine. Don't keep tossing things in.

  • lakhotason

    RobertAllen I respect and understand your reasoning abilities are better than that answer.

  • Kateye70

    I was simply putting the question of 'soul' into the broader social context which includes religious viewpoints. I couldn't tell if that's what you were referring to, hence the quotes.

    You've clarified, I'm ready to drop it. I'm not interested in a theological discussion.

  • robertallen1

    The question is on the level of what is love, what is honor, what is bravery?

  • lakhotason

    I agree the question is on the same level.

  • lakhotason

    Thank you Kateye. I will dance at your wedding.

  • Kateye70

    Why do you think I'm arguing with you? That was not my intention.

    I thought I made it clear I didn't remember who made the allusion to coat hangers, but you specified leaving rusty ones out of the conversation. However, it was a legitimate illustration to my point.

    I never said, nor do I believe from anything you've said, that you expect anything other than medically safe abortions. You have also clearly stated your respect for women in general, regardless (or perhaps because of) our 'mysteriousness'. ;-)

    I did state my own position, however. Maybe that's where the confusion came in. I am concerned that all the gains from Roe v Wade are being removed, and that the result will be unsafe, illegal abortions. That concern does color my responses on this board.

  • robertallen1

    As well it should.

    P.S. I believe I made the first allusion to coat hangers (which someone transmogrified into coat hangars).

  • lakhotason

    Just a good-humored aside. That women are mysterious is only a debate among women. Still, it wasn't that I found a mysterious woman, it is that I found a woman that mystified me.

  • lakhotason

    Yeah. I thought the use of hangars for an invasive medical procedure of any kind to be a little too painful - not to even mention hard to imagine.

  • robertallen1

    I guess coat hangars are for high flyers.

  • lakhotason

    Or very big coats.

  • Kateye70

    A woman who mystifies you =) sounds like a keeper!

  • Kateye70

    "I blame robert!" lol!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=658262171 Lynley Ruth Butt

    And ( pregnancy/abortion issues) may alter the future direction-career course, content, outcome of a woman's (and her partner's) life. As for assigning a moral or intellectual/spiritual/material worth descending or ascending " value" scale to human- male female, child, biological embryonic- and to animal life... surely that operates at a personal, community, State- National and holistic/ global level?
    This being so perhaps we must understand that while guide lines may be established at a broader level, there must be room within such criteria ( or laws) for a variety of individual contingencies.

  • Common_J

    I feel incredibly cruel from my initial thoughts toward this doc, but hope that people understand, making the choice to have an abortion can be the toughest decision to make...
    crossing the line of decency and showing graphic pictures to get more people to pay attention seems necessary to the activist.
    This would make any teenage girl's decision a moral nightmare to end a life in order to keep her life stable...i dont know, i hear different stories every time this issues is brought up, along with such broadly different opinions.
    It is a very complicated moral challenge, that has no easy choice or answer,
    activist claim your taking a life and that's murder. to take away the decision of abortion is taking away the freedom to decide your fate.

  • Common_J

    make exceptions for certain individuals that fall in specified criteria. these woman can be given the right to defy moral justification (laws) that everyone else must follow...that sound about right?

  • Kateye70

    Rates per thousand have been dropping in the US from 1990 to 2007 according to a table from the US Census Bureau. These findings were the same for several different reports I looked at.

    Fortunately, teenage girls are not, and never have been, the highest rate per thousand to have abortions. The rate has been dropping since 1990.

    Women in their 20's are the highest group by far, and the percentages by age range are relatively stable across the various reports.

    Statistics are tricky. They can be manipulated. Interpreting results can lead to wildly inaccurate conclusions about causes.

    The one conclusion I feel I can safely draw is that reproductive rights most affect women who are both adults and in the prime of their reproductive years.

  • robertallen1

    So you're saying that women who undergo abortions are criminals?

  • stevebd62

    I saw mention lives lost auto accidents i mentioned acts of war and people talk about this abortion issue taking lives. Well life itself has a 100% mortality rate that is the only guarantee ; length, quality or the existence thereof all hit and miss enjoy yours make your own choices while it last live it to the fullest how you see fit not how i would dictate you live or not live it otherwise you may as well just ban life altogether then all these problems will go away and the cats i mentioned in an earlier post wouldn't have anything to worry about look at places like cambodia parts of africa starvation disease genocide worry about the kids that are already here where the choice wasn't available

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JNIWLD2N7KE6YWLCZBXZ5EC3RQ Yusiley S

    This is one of those discussions men ought to stay out of. Just like the discussion mothers make with their daughters on menstruation is a female only issue, so should this topic ought to be a female only issue. Men aren't the ones who have to carry a parasite for 9 months so they need to stay out of this debate. They will NEVER fully understand what pregnancy does to a woman physiology (both mentally and physically). The only people who have the right to discuss this topic are those who have to make this decision which are women of child baring age,... everyone else ought to STFU!...especially men.

    I also have hard feelings towards men who include themselves in the pregnancy as if they're the ones going through pregnancy...give me a break. Men shouldn't get maternity leave. They're not the ones having babies. >_> And they ought to stop it with the whole "We're pregnant" bull *beep*. Men are incapable of having babies so they ought to stop that none sense and get real. Your women are pregnant, not you men.

    I find it so pathetic how men love to get into discussion and business of womens' bodies and needing to control women, yet they overlook their own issue of creating arguments or protests over at the White House on male genital mutilation (we give it a colorful name such as circumcision) or other male body issues. No it is always about needing to control women and their bodies. >_> Still the old sexist ideals that women are incapable of making their own decisions... that womens' bodies belong to everyone but the women themselves. Seriously I *beep*ing hate humanity. Can't wait for an asteroid or something to blow us into extinction.

  • robertallen1

    Men should not stay out of it any more than they should have stayed out of it when the 19th Amendment was being conceived, drafted and debated.

    However, the only person who should be making the decision about whether to abort is the woman herself, provided she is mentally competent to do so (and I hope you know what I mean by mentally competent).

    Kateye who feels pretty much the same as you do (except, it seems, that she is not opposed to male involvement) expresses herself eloquently and intelligently. You don't. Quite frankly, you sound like one of those feminazis. So to you I say, everyone has HIS book and if you don't like it, you can use the plural construction.

  • Kateye70

    I do feel men should be involved at the personal level. After all, a woman does not get pregnant on her own, although she does bear the brunt of the process and can't walk away from it the way a man can, and some do. The final decision should be hers, though, in my opinion.

    There are many different reasons why a woman might consider terminating a pregnancy, and the man has the possibility of being a father. His input would hopefully be part of the decision-making, particularly if he is, or is willing to be, part of the woman's and/or child's life, and she is willing to allow it.

    Beyond that, strangers need to stay out of such an intimate decision. They'll never know the ins and outs of any given situation, or what is driving the participants one way or another.

  • Tanya Dwyer

    *stands up and applauds*

  • prakash-mumbai

    I am sure and hope women are not involved in physical violence. What is shocking is that men (including clergy) lead such protests in a matter chiefly concerning women which only proves that male dominance prevails even today in so called advance American society. There is not a day passes when American journalists attacking barbaric acts of gender violence committed by people of Islamic origin. As a Hindu I am too ashamed of subjecting women to violence but over here it is a rivers process-forcing women to abort, I mean female foeticide is a rampant daily occurrence in India. When will violence cease to be the tool of protest or disagreement?

  • penelope7123

    yikes Yusiley, men take maternity leave to be home to support their partners and bond with their babies, and I would be saddened if my partner didn't want to join me in "our" pregnancy. I dont even have children, and your post just made me so sad?! and frankly, kind of scared of you. Why are you so angry? About the only thing I agree with you on is the circumcision thing. But holy, have some respect for the men that care enough to be involved....wow.

  • lakhotason

    "....men who include themselves in the pregnancy..."

    Just like to point out that in every pregnancy a man is included.

  • robertallen1

    Your country can use as much foeticide as it can get.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    some forget to acknowledge the fact though!
    1i

  • prakash-mumbai

    Your mom would hardly be proud of a worm like you for making such an unintelligent and uncivilized comment. You ban abortion, we shall surely have more foeticides than before as all the American women will fly down here for hassle free abortion.

  • robertallen1

    You have it all wrong. I'm on the other side. It's a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses. Please re-read the post.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dean-Edgington/1003719946 Dean Edgington

    Religious conservatives are no joke whether in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or the USA. They’d drag us back to the Stone Age if they had their way. Nutters.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dean-Edgington/1003719946 Dean Edgington

    Ahhh the twisted morality of the religious right. Like the "pro-life" pro-war stance of many republicans. Nutters.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dean-Edgington/1003719946 Dean Edgington

    The state has no right to force woman into having children. Conservatives are always complaining that the state is too big and too invasive in the private lives of individuals except when it comes to the issue of abortion. They can’t have it both ways.

  • lakhotason

    Plenty of "pro-choicers" have the same views. That being so, I fail to see your point.

  • Common_J

    That was a personal example of a young lady i knew. i dont check these responses often...

  • Common_J

    Please explain to me how you got this impression...i was simplifying Lynley's individual contingencies into what it sounds like to me

  • Common_J

    Pro-choice! everyone is arguing male involvement? When the issues is government and if they should eliminate the choice to have an abortion.
    some one who thinks that men shouldn't talk about this issue, is pretty much saying " hey husband im pregnant but you shouldn't tell me how you feel or even talk about it" or brother or dad etc

  • prakash-mumbai

    I read n read over again your comment but positively experienced an undertone of sarcasm to what I had said. If you mean what you say now, an apology is due on either side. Matter now rests.

  • robertallen1

    O.K. I see you are pro choice.

  • Papilo_Ulysses_Ulysses

    Well call me criminal lol because Ive had 3 abortions but I've also had 3 children. I was never promiscuious, I was on the pill and I was married to the father of all of my pregnancies but we both decided that we could not have those 3 foetuses who came along accidentally. I had gotten pregnant because the pill messed my hormones up and did alsorts of awful things to my body, I had the IUD put in and ended up with a savage infection. I even tried the deproverra needle, which, in the end made me bleed for 6 months solid and is the cause of my poly cystic ovaries today.

    After my 3rd abortion and seeing 3 psychologists the doc FINALLY agreed to clip my tubes. I did not want and could not deal with having more children. I was suffering as it was with severe post natal depression in its worst form, I was also not healthy. I was not able to work because I was looking after 3 children who were all under 5 at one stage and so if we continued those 3 pregnancies we would of been raising them on the 1 measly wage that my husband was earning, with no financial help from any of any anti abortion people. I was actually working for a time but it was meager pay and by the time I finished paying day care for looking after the kids I had a whole $50.00 left. It defeated the purpose of me going to work and I was tired and run down and could not cope with the kids when they came home and they were running amok. Imagine 6 of the little beggers!

    If I went through with those pregnancies I would have 6 kids and I would still be messed up from postnatal depression (it takes years for womens bodies to recover fully after just 1 child birth), the 3 children I do have would have been neglected materialistically and financially not to mention missing out on vital attention from myself and their father which would produce more of those kids who may have turn to drugs and crime to get what every other kid has etc etc. Lets not forget that I knew I was not going to be able to handle a growing football team, I am not that kind of person!! I like kids but not that much!

    Who would of been suffering the most if I went through with those pregancies? We all would of suffered in more ways than most poeple would like to consider. I am now back at work, I have 3 stable healthy grown up children, I have my mental health back and Im still with my husband and we actually have a life that does not revolve around children and are looking forward to our first grandchild. Not to mention Im still young enough to enjoy the rest of my life and enjoy the grandies.

    I dont care what anyone says, not one "pro lifer" was going to dig deep and help me financially nor were they going to help me by giving me free child care because I needed a break from the kids because I wasnt coping and couldnt afford to pay for someone to look after them!

    We have never regretted OUR CHOICE and have never looked back. I think "pro lifers" need to get their sentimental heads out of their butts and get a reality check, maybe walk a day in someone elses shoes, someone with 6 kids preferably!!!!! Most every one has the ablity to have a child but some of us are not very maternal or some people are very bad parents.

  • Common_J

    robert? you never did explain to me how you thought i claimed woman were criminals for having an abortion

  • Kateye70

    Ahh, I see. From the wording, it wasn't clear, but I agree, the doc is designed to frighten and upset anyone struggling with a difficult choice.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    Control over your body begins with NOT becoming pregnant in the first place, if you do not wish to have children. I'm disgusted by the number of women who act as if they have no control over getting pregnant. Pregnancy is a result of sex. I abstained for 22 years b/c I did not want to become pregnant. After I became sexually active, I would at times use two methods of contraceptives b/c I AM in control of my body, as every woman is. Before choosing an abortion, you've already made a choice-to become pregnant (excluding the obvious i.e. rape).

  • Kateye70

    If only 'control over your body' were that easy...I do agree that is the optimal solution. Unfortunately, men like to have sex. Women do too. Once you start having sex, the whole 'control' issue becomes a lot more dicey, as men historically also want to control women's fertility. A messy, messy business, reproduction is.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    And somehow, I've managed to exercise proper control over my own body, despite enjoying sex as much as the next person. I've had 0 unwanted pregnancies and 0 abortions. I know many other women like me.

  • Kateye70

    Ditto, and ditto.

    However. Conception happens, sometimes when we want it least.
    In a perfect world all women would have complete control over their own bodies.
    In a perfect world, all women would have perfect contraception devices and methods.
    In a perfect world, all women would not be abused, or raped or just plain unlucky.

    In an imperfect world, it's good to have a choice when perfection fails us.

    That's all I'm saying. =)

  • dewflirt

    Disgusted? That's a bit harsh, I hope you're not suggesting that we women should all keep our knees together for twenty years, I'm no trollop but I'm not sure I'd last that long, and really, why should I? As for your last line, that's just wrong. Accidents happen, if they didn't we wouldn't have a word for them.

  • lakhotason

    You can control your mind but your body is going to do what it's going to do. Try telling a fifteen-year-old to control her body when that body is being mugged by every sex hormone imaginable.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    Yes, I am disgusted that abortion is used as contraceptive. The control should start BEFORE the pregnancy. Yes, I'm saying you should keep your legs together to prevent pregnancy if you do not want to get pregnant and you haven't any other means to prevent such. It's not hard.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    I managed to get by w/o having sex as a teenager and as an adult. Indeed the mind is stronger than the body, but most would have you think otherwise. Sex is not a basic necessity like food, air, and water. Yet people are dying for it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    I agree, this is not a perfect world.

    I have a child. Only one. I only wanted one baby and I've only been pregnant once. It took me an entire year to conceive this precious baby. During this year, I learned of the SLIM chances of getting pregnant each month. It is mind blowing how many unwanted pregnancies there are when the chances of getting pregnant aren't even that great. It amounts to wrecklessness.

    I have managed to prevent pregnancy by a variety of means-abstinence, medication, barriers, rhythm. It really can be done. We have to be responsible for ourselves. One of the women in the documentary having an abortion readily admitted that she and he were to blame for not taking the necessary precautions. Abortions of this sort can be avoided.

  • lakhotason

    Well if they are dying for it then sex must be a necessity. Sorry, too good to pass up.

    But you are assuming all teen-agers are exactly alike and they are all just as you were and are capable of what you did. I certainly wasn't. One day I was playing on my bicycle and the next I was prowling like a tom cat. Still am.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    Just b/c people die for sex doesn't mean they would die w/o it. Just ask those aborted babies. Or the survivors of one lost to a drunk driving accident. Alcohol is not necessary for life either, but people die for it. Most people are still prowling for sex, which is why STDs affect people in epidemic proportions, many homes are broken, abortions are available...*shrugs* It's a sad state of affairs.

    I didn't assume all teenagers are alike, but most are, basically easily influenced, horny, too timid to be different. I'll admit I was out of the box, but I believe my choices made me a happier adult.

    For the record, I'm not saying anyone shouldn't have a choice. We all choose, whether we like it or not or meant to make that particular choice or not. I just think the choice should be made, not after conception and fertilization, but before.

  • lakhotason

    But then again GoldenLady has a point. At times abortion is used in lieu of birth control. As I have professed my BELIEF that human life begins at conception this is troubling to me.

  • dewflirt

    Abortion as contraception. Do you really think that's how it's used? I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it must be almost as rare a thing as twenty-two years abstinence. You have unrealistic expectations.

  • robertallen1

    You have no business telling other people what to do.

  • robertallen1

    GoldenLady is simply one of those who feels herself exalted enough to tell others what to do--sort of TDF's version of Billary.

  • robertallen1

    What about in the case of rape?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    When did I tell anyone what else what to do? I clearly stated that I'm not in favor of taking anyone's choices away from them. I will tell you what to do: apply yourself to reading comprehension, b/c I already commented on rape, but you missed that as well.

    I speak from personal experience. I know LOTS of people who remain abstinent for YEARS for various purposes, and I also know of women who use abortion as contraception. My MAIN reason for remaining so was to avoid an unwanted pregnancy b/c sex results in pregnancy. Bottom line.

    This is a documentary largely about choice. As a woman, who becomes impregnated and must carry and most likely bare the majority of responsibility for raising a child, my personal feeling is that women should make BETTER choices that do not result in abortions that can be avoided.

  • Kateye70

    You can explain to my sister, who had 3 children in 4 years with the so-called 'rhythm' method. She was married, she and her husband wanted babies, but their solutions included a vasectomy and a partial hysterectomy (medically necessary). They would have spaced those babies out a little better if our family wasn't just so damned fertile.

    I'm sorry you come from less fertile stock. Some women get pregnant just *thinking* about having sex (ok, I exaggerate). But still, you needn't be so judgmental. There are as many different reasons a given birth control method *won't* work as there are women using it. In other words, no method is 100% foolproof 100% of the time. And putting a dime between your knees is the worst method of all.

    And again, not all women are in such well-controlled and safe circumstances as you appear to be. I am happy you conceived your bundle of joy. Not sure how you would have felt if you kept conceiving, year after year regardless of any prevention efforts, as an earlier poster mentioned. My own grandmother committed suicide after her twelfth pregnancy. Just sayin'.

  • Kateye70

    As dewflirt said, that may happen, but it is rare. There is a physical and emotional cost to abortion that very few women want to experience more than once. I can't imagine anyone wanting to experience it all, but sometimes it is the best option for individual circumstance. But it does take a toll, regardless.

  • lakhotason

    In this case I wouldn't say GoldenLady feels herself exalted. I will take her at her word that she is giving her personal perspective. And her perspective is not without merits.

  • robertallen1

    By your last sentence that women should make better choices, you set yourself up over them and indeed are attempting to tell them what to do a la Billary. By realizing that all women are not the same, Kateye and Dewflirt have a greater and more realistic understanding of the matter than you do.

    P.S. I have gone through your posts and do not see where you commented on rape. What about failed contraception?

  • Achems_Razor

    If you had the proclivity, you would have probably made a good nun, they also can abstain from sex, or can they?

  • Kateye70

    It's odd you would say that sex is not a basic necessity. There are those who would explain that the entire reason for any being's existence is to serve their genes by reproducing.

  • lakhotason

    As you and Dewflirt contend it may be rare. I seem to be pushed into a corner of my own making. Understand my thrashing about.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    I know 3 women personally who have had several abortions...I can immediately name them and their phone numbers.

    Stating that we should make better choices as adults is judgemental? This is true whether we are talking of education, finances, or family planning.

    I'm not from less fertile stock. In fact, normal fertility is conception in 12 months. So I'm normal. I'm like everyone else. I've just made certain choices. We've already discussed how this is not a perfect world. I'm an 'accident' child. But thank God my mother did not abort me b/c of her choice...Her method did not work either, but she didn't decide to not be pregnant after she became pregnant. My environment is only so well-controlled b/c I'm a control freak. I'm in control of me. I've seen and experienced a lot of things that have made me this way. I work extremely hard to prevent pregnancy (and I always have, with the exception of the one I desired) and always will. The cost of of doing otherwise as you stated is just way too great. I'm truly believe it can be done w/o resorting to such "physical and emotional cost" even if it results in some self-deprivation.

    I'm extremely sorry about/for your grandmother.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    It's not. You won't die w/o it. You will w/o food, water, air, or shelter.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    No. I did not always stay away from sex, nor do I now. I'm just very careful.

  • dewflirt

    Wow, you seem to have a low opinion of us poor humans! Now you think people are prowling for sex? You make it sound as if everyone is sloping through the undergrowth with giant butterfly nets and baggy knickers! It's just not so. Women don't want abortions, but they sometimes need them. You should look up teen abortion rates and compare them to those of women in their twenties and then to married women. You might be surprised :)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    I appreciate this. I realize that the course I follow is against the grain. But I am by far not the only one. Nor is what I'm stating regarding my feelings wrong b/c it is different. We are still talking about CHOICE.

  • lakhotason

    You know, I'm a guy. Think I'll step out of this discussion.

  • Achems_Razor

    No, sorry, do not give out real names and personal phone numbers, against comment policy.

  • dewflirt

    No corners here Lak, just another circular argument ;)

  • lakhotason

    'Round and 'round it goes.

  • lakhotason

    And it's no stretch of the imagination that the being is a pair of young'uns serving their genes.

  • robertallen1

    So what?

  • robertallen1

    You still haven't given us your opinion about conception resulting from rape. Once again, I checked through your posts and despite your assertion, found nothing.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AHGJC4PMCIGYIX6LWJCBIILV3Q GoldenLady

    Duh, the point was that I know them personally. I never comment on this site, and this is why. There is clearly a lack of comprehension on many levels...

  • robertallen1

    You're right. There is certainly a lack of comprehension on many levels.

    P.S. And speaking of lack of comprehension, what about those women impregnated by rape?

  • Achems_Razor

    I knew what you meant lady, I was just making sure. And I do have great reading comprehension skills.

    Also you are portraying by your arrogant remark that you are better than this site.

    And don't do your "duh" stuff with me. You are not better than I.

  • robertallen1

    I think you're beginning to understand why and how she was able to remain a virgin for so long and why it has always been easy for her to do so. There was once a musical of Lysistrata starring, I believe, Cyril Richard. In it he said, "The trouble with a virgin is she's always on the verge."

  • Achems_Razor

    @GoldenLady:

    And because it seems that there is no holds barred about your sex talk, in your years of abstaining of human sex did you resort to battery operated appliances and such, because in my books it is not human to go without sex unless of course you are frigid, or have a medical malaise of some sort.

    Just my opinion.

  • robertallen1

    I really must hand it to you, that's a great riposte.

  • Kateye70

    Thank you...my grandmother's story is one that has resonated during my lifetime as women struggled to attain the choice of safe medical abortions. I have 4 sisters and all of them easily--and sometimes too quickly--conceived their children. No year-long wait for any of them.

    I too have been *extremely* careful--and I believe incredibly lucky--that I avoided childbearing altogether. It is a choice I made and had to work hard to achieve. But I am all too aware of the price friends have had to pay one way or another for their decisions.

    I agree that one should be careful about reproduction. But I'm pragmatic enough to know that human nature takes it course sometimes in spite of ourselves. I think if we are bringing a life into the world we have a responsibility to it. So I think we are in a fair amount of agreement.

    I am just compassionate and understanding of the circumstances that lead a woman to make less than optimal decisions, when none of her choices are optimal. What concerns me are those who want to limit women's access to safe medical conditions regardless of which option is her choice.

    Btw, ignore the boys...I think they are becoming giddy with all this talk of conception. ;-)

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    I couldn't agree more, including the last phrase.
    1i

  • robertallen1

    And this unwarranted intrusion on and promoted abridgement of a woman's right to access to safe medical conditions concerns me too--and I don't even have standing. Long live Roe v. Wade.

  • dewflirt

    I've noticed that most pro choicers feel the need to justify or apologise for their views. Nothing wrong with explaining our reasons but should we pander to the feelings of the pro lifers, as if women should be very sorry for their mistake and humbly ask forgiveness and understanding for their choice to terminate a pregnancy. That behaviour promotes the idea that the lifers somehow have the moral high ground when all they actually have is a high horse. Probably a gray named sanctimony! Nobody is any better or worse than anyone else and nobody is perfect. It's also pretty insulting to women that undergo the procedure, it assumes that they have done something naughty, or are too stupid to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. It is a difficult decision, and one often made in unhappy circumstances. That does not mean that they are unhappy with their choice, nor does not mean that they will wallow in self pity and it absolutely does not give anyone the right to judge or pity them.

    Fewer than 1300 abortions in the UK (2011) were carried out on girls 16 and under, most were women over 21. Grown ups. Adults making informed and practical decisions, they know what they're doing and why they're doing it.

  • robertallen1

    Disagree. Pro-choicers are better than pro-lifers for pro-life can be subsumed under pro-choice whereas pro-choice cannot be subsumed under pro-life.

  • dewflirt

    That's true.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Allan-Young/1346444201 Allan Young

    It's shyte like this that makes me glad I live in Canada.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DIGTKPGSCZINIDOX4RS7LIFCUE yahoo user

    i think guys should have an option if the woman is pregnant that if he does not want the child and she will not have an abortion then he should not be obligated for 18 years to pay... what if the guy wants the kid and the woman wants an abortion.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DIGTKPGSCZINIDOX4RS7LIFCUE yahoo user

    when a guy doesnt like paying support he is told.. thats the consequence of you actions.. what is the womans consequesne of spreading her legs... she gets pregnant.. does she have to face her consequences...NO she can get an abortion... kinda wierd how a woman can avoid the consequences of her actions but a man is supposed to suffer for his..
    if you have sex the consequence is pregnancy

  • robertallen1

    It's the woman's choice. Why should she have to go through the trauma of childbirth and the pangs of upbringing if she does not want to? The guy should have no say in the matter.

  • prakash-mumbai

    One way to reinstate morality (where applicable n how one looks at) n reinstill sense of responsibly is to stop state funding of abortion. any thing free leads to abuse.

  • robertallen1

    And just what is your idea of morality? Do you think that if the state discontinues the funding of abortion, people are going to stop having recreational sex? Do you think it's going to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies? Have you pondered the alternative?

  • prakash-mumbai

    I have qualified use of word morality. According to me, the question of morality comes only in case of any abortion following a pregnancy as an outcome of an extra marital affair. Why expect the state-society to pay for someone's indulgence? I am sure that people to a greater degree will exercise sense of responsibility when there is no more free lunch. To make my position clear I am not against abortion per se.

  • robertallen1

    What about in the case of rape? What about if the fetus or the mother is unlikely to survive? What if the people affected do not have the means to support the child?

    Once again, do you think that the state's discontinuance of funded abortions will diminish the occurrences of recreational sex or for that matter the number of unwanted pregnancies? Have you pondered the alternative?

    Who do you think you are to be dictating who should or should not receive a state-paid abortion? It's really none of your business.

  • robertallen1

    Dewflirt and Lorna Kennedy

    I learned that an abortion clinic will be opening in Belfast. While it is more limited that I would like, I believe this is a step in the right direction.

    Your thoughts?

  • dewflirt

    The disparity between Irish abortion laws and the those of the rest of the UK is something worth playing merry hell over. Am I right (I think I am) to believe that this is solely the result of the church imposing its own bitter morality? Their limit is 9 weeks and only if there is strong reason to believe that continuing the pregnancy will cause long term mental or physical ill health to the mother or to prevent the mother from dying. I may be wrong but I think that's the gist of it. The clinic will still have to operate under those rules so no real change at all I'm afraid. Women will still have to travel elsewhere for later abortions. What is sad is that many foetal abnormalities are not detected until after the 9 week limit, women may have to decide between staying home with family support and enduring stillbirth in some cases, or leaving the country to terminate the pregnancy. They also risk the cruel judgement of those that oppose abortion if they do go out of Ireland, a girl on a short trip to England must raise suspicions. Neither option seems reasonable in such circumstances. I fear the church still holds sway over women's rights, they appear to like them barefoot and pregnant, a woman weighed down with children can't run far and is more easily kept in line. What a way to swell the congregation! Imagine what husbands these men would have made. I think there will be trouble, and any woman hoping to use the service will have to be incredibly brave. I expect many will still prefer to travel. Our health secretary Jeremy Hunt, would like to see the limit here cut to just 12 weeks, see also Nadine Dorries and women's minister Maria Miller.

  • robertallen1

    I appreciate your take. As I stated, this is far from ideal and while your post clearly elucidacted some of the drawbacks, I feel that the opening of this clinic constitutes a step in the right direction. It's better to have it than not have it. Of course, the laws have to be changed and the Catholics need to be put in their place.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QOYUXG3VKU4TAWLZDJHCSPBDKI Jaleesa

    people need to mind their business...its that simple...every circumstance is different ..you cant force anyone to do anything..I believe in Christ, & wish other Christians would see that...Christ never forced anyone into anything. they think rallying around and being anti abortion will change people..NO...it repels people because you dont know how it is to walk in their shoes...what a sad world we live in.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1363454260 Emma Chaplen

    In the hierachy of sin, I wonder whether having an abortion is worse than mudering a doctor....

  • robertallen1

    And just what are you driving at?

  • zsuzsanna.szigeti

    What do you need more people for? The world is already overcrowded. Don't keep the ones that are not contributing to society and you won't need abortions. The Spartans knew how to do it.

  • Francisco luy

    How do you know that science is capable of deliverying an answer

  • Francisco luy

    What a problem,to be a catholic? I am Catholic,,in the country of
    liberty,a problem to be catholic...the latins to be most free and
    happy...no discrimining...which discriming is slave and limited
    no discriming for my bad ingles

  • robertallen1

    Just what are you driving at?

  • Francisco luy

    abort is a business,the doctors only want your money,and tricky to
    patient for think what your son is bad sick..the doctor medical ,of the mother of Beethoven ,talking to she,for practicing abort...thank to
    GOD ,,no pay attention a to the doctor...and changed the world

    how know what the fetus what we to kill,maybe changed to the world

    My bad ingles

  • robertallen1

    It's just like a Catholic to try to interfere in private matters such as abortion. It's up to the woman.

  • dewflirt

    News in Ireland today,
    Scandal in Ireland as woman dies in Galway 'after being denied abortion'

  • robertallen1

    Could you please provide me with the link?

  • robertallen1

    Thanks. Read it and several others. This is disgusting. The doctor who refused to treat this woman on the grounds that Ireland is a "Catholic country" should be taken off the medical register and criminally charged.

    It's amazing that just about all of the Irish immigrants I've met in this country are not only intelligent, generally liberal, people (O.K., some of them pay fervent court to John Barleycorn), but like you they have a pretty good head on their shoulders and a firm grasp of gutsy reality. I their counterparts remain in Ireland, north and south.

  • dewflirt

    I do like a bit of tyt sometimes. That last few minutes pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole thing. BBC interviewed the poor womans husband by phone last night, absolutely heartbreaking. Thanks for the link edge :)

  • dewflirt

    It is not illegal (in Ireland) to terminate a pregnancy when the life of the mother is in danger, that also covers women that might attempt suicide. I have read that as many as one in ten pregnancies there end in abortion in England or Wales. Actually very difficult to estimate as most women give false names etc. There was no good reason for this poor woman to be refused something that was absolutely her legal right, whatever her religious beliefs. They should have concerned themselves with saving her. The decision not to terminate was either down to fear of prosecution or the beliefs of the doctors involved. Both are wrong. I don't think we will know for sure whether she could have survived but I do think she might have had a fighting chance rather than none at all if they had acted as she wanted. I've not been able to find any comment from the church yet, I wonder how they will wash their hands of this.

  • robertallen1

    The doctors also knew that the fetus was not viable; yet, they would not terminate the pregnancy until there was no heart beat. This has nothing to do with the practice of medicine and everything to do with religion which makes these doctors despicable. Their names should be stricken from the registry. I'm awaiting the church's response with bated breath.

  • GiannaFox

    It's funny how the Catholics go up in arms about abortions and moral-related issues when their church is widely known for the most cruel and cold-hearted of mass murders and slaughters. Starting with the crucades and to this day. Morals? They have NONE, so, they should be the first ones to shut the fck up.

  • prakash-mumbai

    The European variety of Catholicism has been historically cruel and heartless having no regard for human life of which they tom tom so much. It is anti women as can be seen from the number of women burnt on haystacks. Since they can no longer consign women to fire, they use denial of abortion as a weapon to hit back at women. And who decides about abortion? The celibate male priests-not nuns who have no say in the running and controlling of church affairs. The inquisition in the Middle Age sent several thousands of human beings to dungeons and death simply because they refused to accept the arbitrary interpretation of Bible’s teachings by Pop and the Catholic Church who had only material motives to do so. The cruel treatment of natives of South America is another such testimony to the "kindness"? of European Catholics. In India, the cruelty with which Catholic Vasco de Gama dealt with King Zamorin and people of today's Kerala could compare with the atrocities committed by Genziskhan. We Indians are sheathing with anger because of the murder of one of India's daughter-Savita. My appeal to all Indians is to boycott Ireland in every respect. EU should throw out Ireland from its community. No wonder The English could not civilize this barbaric nation during their long rule over it. Allowing a woman in prime of her life to be killed can not be sovereign prerogative of any nation. Theirs is a crime against humanity n therefore to be tried by international community.

  • robertallen1

    And they rationalize by indicating that all these events happened centuries ago.

  • choiceofthematter

    I don't understand why you assume that everyone who has sex is somehow being so irresponsible as to not have protection in use. Protection is not 100% guaranteed, stop with this "be more responsible" bulls*it. Safe sex is being responsible, a condom breaking is unpredictable and random if the contraception is used accordingly.

    -__-

    No one should have to endure 9 months + painstakingly long labour for a child they don't even want. We give people rights in this world(I'd like to think), not take them away from people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000486519168 Erin Edlow

    anti-abortion legislation is aimed at punishing women for being sexually active. Women aren't supposed to enjoy sex and should want to have sex when they want to have children...only men are allowed to to have recreational sex. Economics plays a huge role in our daily lives so a woman's economic health should be as good enough reason to terminate her pregnancy

  • robertallen1

    Absolutely.

  • robertallen1

    Well put.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Burbus-Kattan/655426731 Burbus Kattan

    Abortion really isn't necessary. If you combine proper condom use with the pill the chances of pregnancy are really mathematically very low. Certainly when one side claims anyone who ever gets an abortion under any circumstances is a "baby killer", that's totally unfair. But to minimize it "women making their own healthcare decisions", as if we're talking about having a mole removed or donating a kidney, is also unfair and is downright intellectually dishonest. It is a life, I wouldn't call it a baby but it's certainly a life. And it's pretty scary when people bring economics into it; now we're talking about the poor being less worthy of parenthood than the rich. I just think there's a spectrum on this issue, and one shouldn't necessarily be expected to operate only at the polar extremes.

  • robertallen1

    "Abortion really isn't necessary." What about in cases of rape? What about in life-threatening circumstances? You obviously don't know what you're talking and your moralizing is disgusting.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chloe.abagi Chloe Abagi

    It's not a religious right its a human right to protect life....the right ends ( no matter who you are) when you are choosing whether to kill or not. If you saw someone seriously hurting a child on the street would you not help, or would you put your head down and keep walking?

    The sad thing is a lot of these people are talking about THEIR rights, how it is going to affect THEIR lifestyle, how it is going to get in the way of THEIR schooling or THEIR work...every person has a right to live including the child they are referring too.I wish they would be willing to put themselves in the position of the child.

    And the idea that women are dying from "back alley abortions" so the "logical" conclusion is to provide more clinics?? So people are dying trying to get their hands on drugs, is the logical conclusion to make drugs more available?

  • jayde342000

    This is a personal decision. The law makers of the land have no concern once the child is born, over the well being of the child, are they going to support the child? menatally physically spiritually? do 12 year old girls really need to be mommies? They're too many children in the united states today that parents just don't give a damn, they don't raise productive members of society, they raise leeches, they leech off welfare, then in turn their children leech.. many are severly abused with no mental help, monetary, or spiritually. If you don't want the child why be forced to keep it? Everyone makes mistakes. The child should not be punished for this...The don't have sex thing in schools is not working...in the paper the other day a 11 year old girl whom had sex with a 28 year old man parents forced her to have the baby. Really? that''s the answer???!!! I think not..

  • robertallen1

    I think not either.

  • robertallen1

    What about in cases of rape or imminent peril?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/5LONPJBRWVU6PMWDFFKEAOOOCA lyle

    I should have my right to do whatever I like with my body, including killing myself with a gun in public. The law should not intervene. My body comes not from my parents, nor from the law makers. It has existed independently and I alone has the right over it. As a matter of fact, I know how to have sex without any memory or knowledge of sexual intercourse. No food products or TV programme has ever given any input of knowledge of sex. I NATURALLY am addicted to sex and when I am pregnant, the 'no sex' promotion alone is definitely a con because I continue to live in a perfect world and sex addiction is a NATURAL thing.
    When I decide that some graphical images are not of my taste, though I can tolerate those that stimulate my NATURAL sexual and individualistic urge, I demand that they should be rated as inappropriate and they should be banned.

  • robertallen1

    I assure you that if you kill yourself with a gun in public, you won't be held acountable--it's only if you fail or if you fail and the bullet richochets into the skull of someone with a less sanguinary disposition at the time. Try a knife; it's safer for those around you.

    While what you do with your body is your business, but you are still responsible for your actions towards others. For example, if you get drunk and then strangle someone, you are liable for criminal prosection.

    Do I understand you correctly that if certain graphic images offend you, they should be banned?

  • Sy2502

    In this country there are many laws about what use can be done of a person's body. We can't strap people down against their will and take their blood, even to save someone who's bleeding to death, even if the other person caused the injury. We can't harvest organs from people against their will, not even to save a life. In fact, we can't even harvest organs from a dead body to save lives, unless previous consent, or consent of the family is given. In fact, we can't even take money from somebody without their consent even to feed a starving child. But apparently some people think it is perfectly admissible to force a woman to supply her body for a pregnancy even if she doesn't want to do so. In other words, they want women to have less rights to their bodies than a cadaver. Think about it folks, then you'll understand why it's called "war on women".

  • Amanda R

    Who are these men to say a woman cannot terminate a pregnancy? They are horrible people. The man rarely has much to do with an unwanted pregnancy anyway so what the eff do they know?

    P.s God does not exist. There is no deity. Stop using that as an excuse you cowards.

  • http://twitter.com/FITloves1D Mrs One Direction

    There are SO many ways to respond to you...Abortion is only allowed up to a certain amount of weeks...when the legal abortion is performed the fetus doesn't even have a brain yet. It doesn't have thoughts, it can't feel pain. It can't feel anything. It doesn't have a gender yet. It's exactly what I'm saying..an "it." To compare it to a living child is outrageous. No one is saying hey, I can't afford my 4 year old anymore... lets kill her!!! NO. You have no idea why these women do what they do. And you shouldn't have to know, it's none of your business. WHAT I DO WITH MY BODY and MY EGGS is my own business. You think women like getting abortions? Like it's a fun event? No. It's what they think is the best for themselves and their loved ones. And I respect that they have the courage to do that. I can't even imagine how hard that must be for them. Did you even watch this documentary? Look at the woman that had 5 abortions. What would her life and our lives be if she had six kids that she couldn't pay for. They'd either be taken away from her and shoved in some foster home or they'd remain with her on the streets while she's working 24/7. If she can even find a job. You're looking at this from one point. All you see is a potential child. But what happens when that child is born? You don't care, it's not your problem.

    If a woman wants an abortion, she's going to get it somehow. If a woman TRULY does not want to carry that baby, they're going to rid of it somehow. That's what that woman meant about her back alley abortion comment. You're too one sided to think about the big picture. You care so much about children's lives? You just compared a child's life to drugs...yeah, I see how much you care..
    I completely understand your point of view, but you're so unwilling to see other peoples'. That's the problem. We're all two sided and yelling at each other but no one's actually trying to see the other side's POV. As a human being, you should have the right to your own body. Yes, that could be a potential child. But putting on a condom or going on birth control is also preventing children from being born..what do you think of that? It'd be ridiculous to ban contraception. This isn't MURDER. Women shouldn't be SHAMED for making these decisions.

    You care so much about the lives of children then why don't you go help out at orphanages? Or hospitals or poor cities. You don't ACTUALLY care because if you did then you'd try to improve the lives of those already living.

  • robertallen1

    "It'd be ridiculous to ban contraception." Tell that one to the pope.

    Notice, how great a role religion plays with most of the those of who advocate criminalizing women who undergo abortions--and then figure out why.

  • sknb

    APPLAUSE. APPLAUSE!

  • Sally Horwill

    In my head it all stems from this: Kids are really expensive to raise.
    And a child born to a family/woman who cannot cope is more likely to have an awful upbringing and become a dysfunctional adult. (Of course there are exceptions to that statement.)
    But the proof is in history.
    Abortion used to be illegal and women still felt like it was their only option. Uncountable women have died through back-street abortions, and people wanna cause that again?!
    It's madness!
    Pro-life is so short sighted to me. Do they want orphanages filled to the brim, work houses, homeless children roaming the streets?
    Every person is in an individual position, with an individual history and individual circumstances. Personally I'm against REPEAT abortions. I'm talking 3-5 times just because at the time they couldn't be bothered to take precautions.
    But society has never been kind to women; now we are expected to be educated, have a career and run a functional family and social life, talk about pressure!
    We as women are at war with our own bodies to fit into society. We are ridiculed for our natural cycles, told we must be feminine but not because it will make males uncomfortable. We even get blamed for being a distraction if we are too attractive in the work place (this actually happened and a woman lost her job).

    I've never had an abortion but I've had plenty of pregnancy scares, the first being when I was 17 and it's awful. To know that the option is there is something that has crossed my mind but is not a choice that I have ever thought about lightly.

    I'm definitely pro-choice but along the guidelines that it should NEVER be treated as a mundane thing.

  • Sally Horwill

    Plus I'm sure a lot of the pro-life states also still have the death penalty.

  • robertallen1

    If this weren't true it would be funny. Why not read up on Cathrynn Brown, its author, a real piece of work?

    One way or the other, what bothers me is that people, including you, are making a political issue out this. The important thing is that women have a right to choose between obtaining an abortion or not obtaining one, not how many Republicans or Democrats can be chalked up to each side.

  • over the edge

    robertallen1
    i wish it wasn't a political issue (not much of one here in Canada), but what i wish isn't important. the reality of the situation is that the anti-abortionists tend to be mostly on one side of the political aisle. so i fight the battles with the tools/information/adversaries i am given.

  • robertallen1

    And I try to fight anti-abortionists with ideas, not with political demarcations and the labels which go with them (i.e., conservative v. liberal). There is no difference between a Democrat pro-lifer and a Republic pro-lifer.

    P.S. Now that I think of it, contrary to characterization, the pro-choice people have become the conservatives, at least in the U.S. and Canada.

  • Kateye70

    You know Robert, I thought the political question was settled 40 years ago, but it apparently wasn't.

    That women are being locked up because someone else wants to control their pregnant bodies is astounding to me.

    It does in fact seem to be republicans who are most at fault here, but I'm not absolving democrats, either.

    I'm guessing from some of your prior comments that you tend to vote republican; it wouldn't hurt for both parties to have voices of reason speak up to counteract the far-left / far-right crazies that seem to be driving our political process lately.

  • Kateye70

    I saw an article about that. Thanks for the link!

    Rape is always difficult to prove after the fact; the only time a pregnancy would provide 'evidence' is if the rapist was a stranger or a relative (in the cast of incest).

    What's amazing to me is that the bill-maker (and apparently the media) hasn't figured out that an abortion would provide tissue for DNA analysis to figure who baby-daddy is.

    They wouldn't even have to wait for it to be born, either.

  • robertallen1

    By jumping to such a conclusion, you stoop to the level of those whom you so vehemently and rightly oppose--and, quite frankly, it's unworthy of you. As long as we're on the subject of my previous posts, where did I even mention political party or call anyone a conservative or liberal?

    However, to set the record straight, I have no political party, i.e., I hate them both, or for that matter, political parties in general, and with the exception of Barney Frank, since retired, and the late Senator Inouye, I have no respect for any of the inhabitants of the various legislatures.

  • robertallen1

    P.S.
    Are women in this country being locked up for some issue related to pregnancy? If so, could you please steer me to a pertinent source?

  • robertallen1

    What's amazing is that the bill-maker doesn't moonlight as a standup comedian.

  • over the edge

    Kateye70
    what infuriates me is that the legality of abortion was settled long ago and attempts to challenge the law (everyone's right to do so) have failed. so instead of following the law or the constitution many claim to be sacred they try to circumvent it. either by shaming/embarrassing/bulling a women (mandatory counseling or transvaginal ultrasound), use fear and threats of violence (blowing up clinics) or dishonest laws to lock up pregnant women. i wonder how long it will be (if it hasn't already happened) until a rapist sues for and gets custody of one of these children of a victim. also why does the support and concern for these children seem to end at birth?

  • Kateye70

    If you scroll down to my comment that starts "Maybe not the death penalty...", there's a link there to rhrealitycheck . org where the authors of a study on the subject announce it's publication in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. That's where I got started.

  • Kateye70

    @over the edge, I'm with you.

    "...also why does the support and concern for these children seem to end at birth?"

    Apropos of that, I came across a meme poster:
    ----------------------------------------
    "Pro-Life" Logic 101:

    "Unborn Babies [picture of fetus] MUST be born.

    (side by side with)

    "Hungry Children From Low Income Families: [picture of hungry child with empty plate] Oh, I'm sorry you're hungry. Maybe your parents should have thought about that before having a child they couldn't afford.

    "Yes, they really think like this."
    ------------------------------------------

    Yea, second-guessing someone else's life choices just makes one look like a jerk, doesn't it? SMH

  • Kateye70

    My mistake and apologies then, I was just thinking through a variety of opinions you've expressed in that past and made an assumption--and you're right, I don't remember you saying one way or the other. What you've just stated is what I should have figured out. =) I agree about the parties and politicians in general.

  • robertallen1

    Thank you. I wish the article had provided the sources for its anecdotes.

  • robertallen1

    Apology accepted.

    P.S. What does =) mean?

  • Kateye70

    Its my version of a smiley face emoticon.

    :) :-) =)

  • Kateye70

    Hey, robert, I posted the link to the journal article which will give you plenty of sources. (needs approval first of course)

  • robertallen1

    Thank you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/spitfire.sabel Spitfire Sabel

    WE ARE NOT A THEOCRACY-isn't it funny that most-if not all-pro-lifers are male,white,rich,and CHRISTIAN?!Well,I am a Yid,and pro-choice.and how DARE they conpare abortion to the Holocast?!!!I like to call the religious WRONG "the American Taliban"

  • http://www.facebook.com/ivan.raylyan.7 Ivan Raylyan

    Less homo-animalis will be much better for our planet. For Nature, it is better less but of higher quality

  • SP676

    Wow, that film wasn't biased at all...

  • http://twitter.com/TruthAboutDrugs Hux Leary McShulgin

    Glad to see some reasonable comments on this film (unlike so many others here). Extremism comes in many forms; violent anti-abortionists are terrorists, plain and simple.

    Take your perceived piety elsewhere, psychos.

  • http://twitter.com/TruthAboutDrugs Hux Leary McShulgin

    So sick of people trying to police the human body. If I want to dump drugs into my body, sell it on the corner, get an abortion and end my life with a shot of cyanide, I will do so. You can't legislate morality. Prisons are for violent criminals, not people whose lifestyle we disagree with.

  • robertallen1

    Better yet, let them pay for the rearing of the unwanted children resulting from the infliction of their morality on everyone.

  • ryanhemann

    You really just said money is more important than a fetus dude. Not cool.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1538149851 Amanda Patnaude

    How the hell are these people comparing abortions to the holocaust?! The Jews that died in the holocaust were starved for hours and incinerated, and gassed! They had memories, they had their first breath! Disgusting, this is not the fifties! Besides I'm sure that these people would not take care of these would be aborted kids- financially or emotionally after they were born.

  • Annabelle

    I think the way they were trying to compare the victims of abortion to the victims of the holocaust was through both of the instances having been done silently and without consideration of the victims human rights. With the utmost respect to the victims of the holocaust, indeed one of my ancestors, there has been an approximate of 50 million lives lost to abortion, more than the number of those during that awful period. May those whose lives were deemed worthless by some now rest in peace in the arms of God.

  • robertallen1

    The difference was choice versus force. So statistics mean nothing. One way or the other, better 50,000,000 abortions than one unwanted child.
    P.S. I also lost relatives through the holocaust.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    I've noticed over the years many wanted children becoming unwanted in later years while demonstrating their right to individuality...even in the best family.
    1i

  • robertallen1

    And your point is?

  • Megan Hoyt

    As a Jewish woman who would have undoubtedly been incinerated had I been born in a different place at a different time, I DO see the connection. The "choice" you speak of is not the baby's in the same way my relatives who did not emigrate to the U.S. from Poland all died because of someone else's choice. Mom, Dad, abusive boyfriend, parents, or whoever -- the choice was still not the child's. That's why it's very similar.

  • Megan Hoyt

    And being wanted is a slippery slope argument. Most moms are ambivalent about the baby in early pregnancy. Who wouldn't be? They're nauseated; their breasts hurt; and they're frightened of what the future holds. Is it fair to blame the baby? To kill the baby? At what stage does it BECOME reasonable? Can we not recognize that this is not 1973 and that we can see into the womb and can save babies born at 5 months' gestation and halt abortion after that time at least? Let's stop arguing and huffing and puffing and be reasonable about the limits necessary to preserve life when possible.

  • robertallen1

    "Most moms are ambivalent about the baby in early pregnancy." How do you know this? Are you claiming to speak for most moms? One way or the other, it's the woman's choice and that's it.

  • robertallen1

    Nonsense. Eugenics as practiced under the Nazis was governmental coercion. In this country, no one is forcing women to undergo abortions. The choice is the woman's--and that's the way it should be.
    Incidentally, it's a fetus, not a child and thus cannot express a choice. So your argument in that respect is silly.
    One way or the other, the private decisions of other women are no business of yours.

  • Dennis Ford

    You are absolutely right... If there is one thing we have too much of in this country, It's unwanted infants. It's so sad to see this day-old babies linger in orphanages, nationwide. We would be so much better off, THEY we would be so much better off if we just killed them before we had the chance to see them unhappy.

  • Dennis Ford

    We do.

  • Dennis Ford

    It is also something that such a large proportion of aborted fetuses are poor minorities. Those rich, white jerks should be ashamed of themselves for defending those poor minorities.

  • Dennis Ford

    That's an astute observation. It's one i make in debate routinely. The only difference is that members on death row killed already. Members facing abortion have yet to take a breath.

    I don't argue in favor of the death penalty over its righteousness - ever. but what the death penalty advocates argue is, condemning offenders to death compels 'would be offenders' to the straight life. I have never heard an abortion supporter say that aborting fetuses compels 'would be fetuses' to not exist in the first place.

  • robertallen1

    Who benefits from unwanted children?

  • robertallen1

    They should be ashamed of themselves for attempting to inflict their version of morality (usually religious) on others and meddling into other people's private affairs.

  • robertallen1

    Better 5,000,000 abortions than one unwanted child.

  • Dennis Ford

    Someone wants every child. There is no shortage of baby-less couples.

  • Dennis Ford

    What does it matter if one's views are religious, scientific, layman's observances or otherwise? Once a person has come to the conclusion that a life is a life, that person would be a coward if he or she not attempt to save that life..

  • avd420

    I find it ironic that they compare abortions and the holocaust. Concentration camps full of people being forced to work, no choice in anything regarding their own welfare. And then, don't see that what they want to do is take away choice, and force potential mothers and fathers into a life of labour.

  • Samuel Morrissey

    Someone wants every child? really? OK I have a one word question, ready?

    Orphanages.

  • robertallen1

    That's no excuse. Meddling is still meddling and infliction is still infliction.

  • robertallen1

    How do you know this? Once again, who benefits from unwanted children?

  • Dennis Ford

    The person not killed is the person who benefits.

  • robertallen1

    Just how does an unwanted child coming into the world without anyone caring about his existence benefit? He's no more than a drain on the world at large and owes his existence merely to satisfy you and those of your clade.
    You still haven't stated how you know that someone wants every child and that there is no shortage of baby-less couples (ostensibly seeking to adopt)? .

  • over the edge

    you have stated

    "The person not killed is the person who benefits" according to the law and science it is not a person. it is a collection of cells. as for your link it clearly states that most of these children are sold to those trying to get around the adoption laws.

  • robertallen1

    Where did I say that we were swimming in babies that nobody wants? I hate liars.
    Secondly, as Over the Edge pointed out, your link demonstrates that most of the children are sold to people trying to circumvent the abortion laws. I hate deceivers.

  • robertallen1

    Thanks for providing this. It would have been better if these children had never been born.

  • over the edge

    i am not sure i agree with that statement.but. as a male i do not have to make that decision as the woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body (i have an adopted sister)

  • robertallen1

    Absolutely, it is the woman's choice entirely, including abortion or putting the child up for adoption. The problem is that there are too many people who don't feel that way and merely contribute to the problem. Have you read about the latest abortion bill that passed the House yesterday?
    Was your sister adopted from an orphanage? One way or the other she was very lucky, but she represents less than a microdrop in the bucket.

  • over the edge

    this i totally agree with. as for my sister. she is the child of my fathers second (and current) wife and her sperm donor was never in her life and i have almost no details on him as i was six at the time and she was seven

    edit : ". Have you read about the latest abortion bill that passed the House yesterday? " only superficially but i intend to look further

  • robertallen1

    So your step-sister never knew the inside of an orphanage.
    I would appreciate your thoughts on the bill.

  • Dennis Ford

    The word abortion doesn't even find its way into the text. He said adoption laws. I can't even imagine a scenario where a person would buy a baby from a human baby-mill because we don't have enough abortion laws that are liberal enough. Use your head.

    On your second point, i will retract and rephrase. we have zero unwanted infants - zero. there are 10 welcoming homes for every potential adoptable infant.

  • Dennis Ford

    I'm a collection of cells too. Please don't abort me.
    It's is difficult to adopt because there are so few infants and so many infertile couples. In a lot of states, gay couples can legally adopt as well - and they would love a baby too. Many gay couples adopt 12 year old kids because they have given up on ever getting an infant.

    You can be an advocate for any reason you want, but don't insult our intelligence by saying no one wants this baby, so we should just kill it. Only his/her mother doesn't want him/her

  • robertallen1

    You're right. That is what is being said.

    Trent Franks is the cut from the same scummy mold as Dennis Ford (it's one thing to disagree; it's another to lie).
    For another fine piece of work, you might want to read about Congressman Michael Burgess, a former OBGYN, who claims abortions should be illegal after 15 weeks because, "You watch a sonogram of a 15 week baby and they have movements that are purposeful. They stroke their face. If they are a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. I mean, they feel pleasure. Why is it so hard to think they feel pain?" To think that people like this sit in Congress.
    Religion and its doctrine of imposition are clearly at the heart of most of this. As you may know, I don't like Obama, but I'm irrevocably with him on this issue just as I am with his stance on stem cell research.

  • robertallen1

    So now there are 10 welcoming homes for every potential adoptable infant. Source, please?
    You and those like you do nothing but contribute to the problem. Mind your own business.

  • robertallen1

    Yes, but unfortunately, you've already gone through the birth canal or have been delivered by C section.

    "It's is [sic] difficult to adopt because there are so few infants and so many infertile couples." Source, please.

    "In a lot of states, gay couples can legally adopt as well - and they would love a baby too. Many gay couples adopt 12 year old kids because they have given up on ever getting an infant." How do you know this? Source, please.
    Have you even looked at the link Over the Edge provided? It certainly doesn't seem so.

    And by the way, it's a fetus, not a baby. How about studying some basic obstetrics before keyboarding any further?

    Better 5,000,000 abortions than one unwanted child--and whether you like it or not, it's totally up to the mother.

  • Dennis Ford

    The problem that is "the lack of homes" is one of your invention. I'll say to you want I said to one of your friends. You can advocate abortion for any reason you want. but when you say there is nowhere for a baby to go is false.

  • Dennis Ford

    Better 5,000,000 slaves than one fruit withered on the vine - That's how many Americans sounded before black people were accepted as people. Where do you suppose you would have been in that debate?

    And I sure am glad that I was able to breathe in that humanity before anyone had the idea to kill me. i suppose it must be the earth's atmosphere that makes one a human.

  • Dennis Ford

    I said baby... I didn't say child. Don't misquote people for the sake of argueing with a straw - it's petty

  • robertallen1

    Let's see your proof. I'll bet you have none just as I'll bet you haven't even looked at the link provided by Over the Edge. You're the one who's false and from the very bottom.

  • robertallen1

    Abortion is a matter of choice; slavery isn't. So you're not fooling anyone by playing the slavery card.
    You and those like you do not breathe in humanity, only air and what you expel is mephitic..

  • Dennis Ford

    If you seriously live under a rock and don't know that people in the west are desperate for infants; that they are adopting infant girls from South America and Asia; and that they are adopting babies from the black market, I will go dig up statistics for you. If you ever swing by central Massachusetts, swing by my house and I'll show you which way is up. Playing stupid to avoid a point is just, plain, ridiculous.

  • robertallen1

    "Someone wants every child." This makes you a liar.

  • robertallen1

    And merely asserting without providing proof (statistics) is the height of dishonesty and "don't you know" the height of deception, all this compounded by your failure to examine the link provided by Over the Edge, probably because it will shoot every one of your "arguments" down the toilet.
    I'm sure that everyone reading this would like to know just what do you mean by showing me "which way is up."

  • Dennis Ford

    people don't chose to be slaves any more than they chose to be aborted. You aren't even fully considering the matter.
    and you skated around the point I made.
    I'll ask plainly so you understand. I hope you answer this time.
    What about exiting a vagina or gasping a first breath makes a human, all-of-a-sudden, human?

  • robertallen1

    P.S. One way or the other, if a woman does not want to go through the ordeal of childbirth, she shouldn't have to--and you and those like you have no say in it.

  • robertallen1

    "people don't chose [SIC] to be slaves any more than they chose to be aborted." So the first slaves who came to this country in 1619 came of their own free will. You've just given the word nonsense new meaning.
    For your information, exiting the vagina and gasping a first breath is known as birth--and what constitutes a human is merely a philosophical concept, not a medical one.
    One way or the other, if a woman does not wish to go through the ordeal of childbirth, she shouldn't have to, whether you and the members of your pack like it or not, whether you and the members of your pack approve of it or not..

  • Dennis Ford

    I'll give you that. I may have not stated myself properly. and if I did, and, and reprimanded you for nothing, I apologize. I was wrong, but I'm not a liar. I am trying to have an adult discussion on only ideas and realities

    now that we have refined the discussion to new-borns, do you still believe that there is a surplus?

    We can disagree all day long on what is and what is not human, but that should be the only consideration. If it is human, you can't (in good conscience) kill it. If it isn't human, you can kill them bidirectionally like we do to fish. I don't think making arguments, for or against, are relevant.

  • Dennis Ford

    I don't know what you're not getting.
    - slaves didn't chose slavery
    - aborted babies didn't chose abortion

    "It's about choice" doesn't apply to my comparison of slavery and abortion as it relates to the debate of its ethics.

  • robertallen1

    The statistics provided by Over the Edge which you obviously still haven't looked at (probably because you don't want to for fear of what they contain) indicate that there is. Let's see if you can produce anything substantial to counter them.
    One way or the other, the private affairs of others are none of your business, no matter what you might happen to believe what the consideration should be.
    By the way, you still haven't indicated what you mean by showing me which way is up. Is there a reason for avoiding this?

  • robertallen1

    Slaves could not choose whether to be slaves, but women can choose whether to obtain abortions--and that makes all the difference in the world.
    And as abortion is legal, those are all the ethics that are needed.

  • Dennis Ford

    Showing you up is in reference to your ability to pretend to not understand basic elements of the matter at hand.

    I've asked you a few questions too. you haven't given me a single answer. I find that odd because i was sure you wold know all of the answers. Everything I asked was about your opinion.

    When is a human human?
    When is it OK to take a human's life?

  • Dennis Ford

    I am relating the baby to the slave; not the slave to the woman wanting an abortion.

    And if you think the law is all that matters in ethics, that is certainly something. I suppose you believe all laws are ethically sound- slavery, perhaps?

    When is a human human?
    When is it OK to take a human's life?

  • robertallen1

    Your failure to read Over the Edge's statistics exposes you as the one who doesn't want to understand the basic elements of the matter at hand.

    Legally speaking (and that's all that matters) a human becomes a human upon exit from the womb or delivery by C-section. That's why several states have specific FETICIDE laws, thus rendering your second question irrelevant to the issue of abortion.

  • Dennis Ford

    Legally speaking a human is a human when it is white. ...oh wait a minute... that's an old law.

    If its ankles are still in, can you kill it? - if the law allows it, of course. I mean, if its not all the way out, then its not out.

    And question two is still very important. What 'FETICIDE' laws may be has nothing to do when it is ethical to take a human life.

  • robertallen1

    I don't care what you're attempting to relate it to. It's still a matter of coercion versus choice which is why slavery is no longer legal.
    The woman is the one that matters, not some hunk of protoplasmic parasite inside her. You can argue ethics till you're blue in the face and ask inane questions such as when is a human human and when is it OK to take a human's life , but all that really counts in this instance is right of women to choose for themselves and not be dictated to by you and those of your clade trying to ram their version of morality (ethics) down their throat.
    Now once again, what do you mean by showing me which way is up?
    P.S. I don't see you offering to support any unwanted children; rather, you and those like you merely contribute to a problem which in your wilful ignorance you don't believe exists. .

  • over the edge

    please let me know if the appeals to emotion are going to be the norm from you when we try to discuss issues. lines like "I'm a collection of cells too. Please don't abort me." do nothing to make your case.

    then you state "It's is difficult to adopt because there are so few infants and so many infertile couples" please see the link i posted to you earlier. the statistics do not agree with you.

    "Many gay couples adopt 12 year old kids because they have given up on ever getting an infant." could it be that they face added obstacles due to a personal choice and the hate they receive?

    where did i say anything to warrant this statement "but don't insult our intelligence by saying no one wants this baby," or "so we should just kill it." ? i never said any such thing. the decision is the mothers and not mine is all i said. and please stop calling it a baby because it is not and that is another attempt at an appeal to emotion.

  • robertallen1

    Complete nonsense. It's what the law allows, not what you think it should be.
    You still haven't answered my question as to what you meant by showing me which way is up. I wonder why.
    P.S. Your second paragraph is inane for when would such a situation arise?

  • Dennis Ford

    I am going to point straight in the air and say "this is up"

    It seems i need to because you don't understand simple concepts.

    I asked sever very direct questions and always skate around and just say something else.

    -slavery is not a choice for the slave; it's choice for the buyer and seller.

    -abortion is not a choice for the baby; it's a choice for the would-be mother.

    I am comparing slaves to aborted babies. you area wither pretended to not understand that, or you don't understand that. If the later is the truth, I need to show you "up".

    the most recent question you decided to not answer, i will ask again.

    If the "hunk of protoplasmic parasite" still has feet in the uterus, can we kill it?

  • robertallen1

    You see. He is no different than Trent Franks, et al. He makes a lot of statements and when asked for proof responds "If you don't know . . . "
    As I've mentioned several times, I don't think he has gone to your link or has any intention of doing so, probably due to potential embarassment.
    What do you think he meant by showing me which way was up? I've asked him this a number of times, but he refuses to answer. Why do you thiink that is?

  • Dennis Ford

    I am a collection of cells. I hope that no law is ever written that rules me to be something less than human.

    "could it be that they face added obstacles due to a personal choice and the hate they receive"

    Of course. Anyone with any experience in the effort to adopt knows, wealthy, white, straight, married couples get dibs on babies. when the american babies are divvied out, foreign babies are next, then older kids. But that's the law, so I'm told that's all the ethics needed

    "please stop calling it a baby because it is not and that is another attempt at an appeal to emotion"

    We disagree on what is and what is not a human being. I submit to you that a human being is such, and should be protected at the point which we can detect a beating heart. You may have an opinion; stages of viability, position in the birth canal; first breath; crying or whatever else.

    But new born babies are so sought after, and if you don't what yours, you can sell it. you can't sell things that no one wants. That entire point is a distraction.

    The only thing that matters is

    What is a human - when does a human become human and when is it ethical to take the life of a human?

  • over the edge

    i get the feeling a rational debate based on the science,facts and the law might not be happening here. an argument based on emotion and speculation is not productive in my opinion. while i will probably call him on something i see as opposed to the facts. other than that i might not dedicate any more time at this moment. as for the "which way is up" i think he thinks you do not understand the point he is trying to make.

  • Dennis Ford

    What is a human - when does a human become human and when is it ethical to take the life of a human?

  • Dennis Ford

    The law allowed slavery. Was that law ethical? there was debate on both sides of the matter If the law on abortion changes, does it change what abortion is or is not?

    My second paragraph was about a procedure known as a 'partial-birth abortion." That is when labor is induced, the babies path is blocked in the vagina, and the babies brain is sucked out if its skull. later, the body is removed and disposed of as medical waste. That is when such a situation arises.

    But for what it's worth, I didn't ask how often or when at all it might happen. I asked if you thought it was OK.

    When does a human become human ?

  • robertallen1

    If that's the case, why did you invite me to your residence? You're not fooling anyone.
    You're right. Slavery is not a choice for the slave. You're wrong. Abortion is not a choice for the FETUS which has no ability to choose. Or are you and your brood attempting to make a choice for it as well as the woman. In other words, telling others what to do in their private affairs. Obviously you have trouble distinguishing between a fetus and a baby. So once again, I recommend a course in basic obstetrics.
    I'll answer your question when you tell me how a situation such you've described could occur. If you can't, the issue is merely academic.
    What makes you and your clade so despicable is your attempt to take away a right women currently enjoy and which quite frankly is none of your business.

  • over the edge

    do you plan on addressing my link ? it does disprove much of your argument.

    i state ""please stop calling it a baby because it is not" and you answer with "We disagree on what is and what is not a human being" but that is not what i asked.

    "But new born babies are so sought after, and if you don't what yours, you can sell it" sorry where i am from that is illegal. and again my link shows that to be false for all but the ones attempting to circumvent the adoption process. and just for the sake of argument i have some questions for you
    - when does human life begin in your opinion?
    - are there times you would accept abortion?

  • Dennis Ford

    To show you "up" i would have to see you in person. You have to be here so I can point in the air in your presence. Even then, I'm positive you would go home, still confused, not knowing up from down

  • Dennis Ford

    "Obviously you have trouble distinguishing between a fetus and a baby"

    We just disagree. I have stated clearly what I believe. You refuse to articulate your opinion.

    I believe a human baby is such, and should be treated as such at the point which it has a detectable heartbeat.

    At what moment do you propose a human becomes a human?

  • robertallen1

    "But new born babies are so sought after, and if you don't what [SIC] yours, you can sell it. you can't sell things that no one wants. That entire point is a distraction." I don't see you providing any support for this statement which you have made several times now. I don't see you going to the link provided by Over the Edge, despite several suggestions that you do so. These are clearly the marks of a wilful ignoramus.
    No one cares about your ill-informed opinions and pinchbeck philosophy. The only thing that matters is that laws are enacted and enforced preventing those like you from attempting to interfere in the private decisions of others and to ram your version of ethics down their throats--and so far the goal has been achieved which means that you and those of your herd are checkmated..

  • robertallen1

    Fetuses are biologically not humans. So when it comes to the issue of abortion (which really shouldn't be an issue except for you and those like you), it is entirely irrelevant.

  • Dennis Ford

    we seem to disagree on what is and what is not a human being. I will retract baby and rephrase human being.

    Everything else is irrelevant. If there were 0 adoptable human beings and 50,000,000 (to pull a number from thin air) wanting couples, it would not matter. The only thing that matters is.... wait for it:

    At what moment does a human being become a human being?

    If you can pull off a buzzer-beater 1 second prior, fine. I just want to know what that moment is.

  • robertallen1

    Once again, slavery was coercion; abortion is choice.

    Partial birth abortion is illegal and the law making it illegal has been upheld by the Supreme Court. That's all that matters.
    "When does a human become human?" Unanswerable, as it is cyclic and begs the question.

  • robertallen1

    By refusing to consult the link provided by Over the Edge, obviously for fear that it would shoot a number of your assertions out of the water, by failing to provide any evidence for your assertions, both hallmarks of wilful ignorance, and by attempting to worsen the situation, you are the one who's confused. you are the one who can't tell up from down.
    Now keep your ignorant nose out of other people's business.

  • over the edge

    you are answering my repeated questions with more questions. "At what moment does a human being become a human being" what? sorry but that question makes no logical sense. you presuppose it is human. but i will state that i agree with the law that until the fetus is viable without the mother. it is still part of the mothers body and until viability she gets all the say in the matter. again can you please address my link and answer my direct questions?

  • Dennis Ford

    You and I have a serious disconnect that is a major obstacle in our ability to have an adult discussion.

    "The only thing that matters is that laws are enacted and enforced preventing those like you from attempting to interfere in the private decisions of others and to ram your version of ethics down their throats"

    Fine. if ethnic cleansing laws are passed... let it be so. I can't wait for you to tell me that I have no say in the matter because "laws are in place" so people like me aren't authorized an opinion.

    At what moment does a human being become a human being?

  • robertallen1

    Your beliefs do not supersede basic biology and no one cares what you happen to feel.
    And once again, your question is cyclic and hence unanswerable.
    It's more than just disagreement. You are trying to coerce women into adapting to your version of morality (ethics). This makes my sense of ethics a lot better than yours, for I "allow" them a choice.

  • robertallen1

    But ethnic cleansing is coercion, not choice. You're not fooling anyone by this diversionary tactic.
    " . . . so people like me aren't authorized an opinion." Is that a legal statement or simply another cheap emotional appeal?
    As Over the Edge and I have pointed out, your question is cyclic and hence idiotic.

  • Dennis Ford

    Play semantics games all you will. I will find a new way to ask, then wait to see if you have any care to answer with any honesty.

    At what moment does a parasite become human?

    At what moment does a fetus become human?

    At what moment does a blob of cells become human?

    The matter at hand is; what is a human. At what moment did it become human?
    You seem to intentionally sidestep the idea of the mane dish; instead debate the garnishing.

    I don't mind if you and i disagree over what is human and what is not. I just want to know what you consider to be human.

  • Dennis Ford

    "Once again, slavery was coercion; abortion is choice."
    - Once again... Not for the child.

    Law is not all that matters. Law allows for atrocities all over the world, every day.

    ""When does a human become human?" Unanswerable, as it is cyclic and begs the question."

    By that logic, it is no different aborting a child after birth. It is answerable; not everyone cares to evaluate the problem at hand.

  • Dennis Ford

    I have submitted that no baby is wanted by anybody.
    I still argue that killing any human being is killing a human being- nothing more or less.
    I have stated when i believe a human life is sparked.
    you have done nothing but default to the law on the matter.

    At this point we understand each other. You, according to your arguments, default to the government and all laws are ethical.

    I believe a human being is such at the point it's heartbeat can be detected - and it must be treated as such.

    We just disagree.

  • robertallen1

    Except in your questionable estimation, the matter at hand is not what is a human, but rather the right of women to choose for themselves whether to undergo an abortion without interference from those like who would inflict the yoke of their morality (ethics) on them--as if you are any judge. In other words, what I or anyone else considers to be human is irrelevant.

  • Dennis Ford

    I will rephrase the question in a way you see better fit...

    At what point does human life spark into existence?
    How long does it have to survive postpartum?

    If, at any point, one takes action that stops a human heartbeat, i consider that to be homicide. That's is just my position on the matter. Honest people can disagree on that one, crucial element, but adoption statistics are irrelevant to the existence of human life.

  • Dennis Ford

    It's not unanswerable; it's just unknowable by you. You refuse to consider the matter. You default to government to make you decisions for you.

  • over the edge

    why do you continue the appeals to emotion? i agree with he doctors and science and in this rare case the government listened to the medical community on a medical question. i do not just "default to the government and all laws are ethical." you have also brought up slavery and ethnic cleansing among other analogies. you are free to have your beliefs but as was shown to you many of them are wrong. i do not personally think we should base such things on what we believe. it should be grounded in sound reasoning and backed by facts and the majority of the professionals in the field of study. i this case all of those things are on my side. i will walk away now as this discussion has run its course as far as i am concerned.

  • Dennis Ford

    It was the choice of the Japanese and Nazis in WWII.
    It is not the choice of the cleansees; it is the choice of the cleansers. You don't seem able to grasp light concepts.
    I can seriously help you with up and down. I bet i can have you master it in no less than 2 weeks.

  • Dennis Ford

    "what I or anyone else considers to be human is irrelevant."

    And that's how atrocities happen.

  • robertallen1

    Once again, you are very much in need of a few lessons in basic biology. It's not a child; it's a fetus, but what can one expect from someone who refuses to go to Over the Edge's link?

    When does a pig become a pig? When does a dog become a dog? Questions just as silly as yours--and talk about evaluating the problem at hand, just how does one abort a child AFTER birth?

    "Law is not all that matters. Law allows for atrocities all over the world, every day." And just what are these laws? And since when is abortion an atrocity (except to your limited intellect)?

    Again, you and those like you are trying to take away a right which women currently enjoy, thus compounding the problem by bringing us back to the era of coat hangers, back rooms and kitchen tables.

    I suggest that you read up on prohibition and its effects before keyboarding any more of your pernicious ignorance and nonsense and most of all, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!.

  • robertallen1

    Don't try to chalk it up to simply disagreement. It's far more and far deeper than that.. You are attempting to impose your version of morality (ethics) on everyone else and this makes you despicable. You are trying to take away a right women currently enjoy and this makes you contemptible. You are trying to compound a problem and this makes you pernicious.

  • over the edge

    lol and Goodwins Law comes into play again. i knew i said i was done but i had to address this. in one evening you have brought up slavery, ethnic cleansing and the Nazis. that is the triple play of arguments from emotion from someone with no facts to show. you win i am definitely done here

  • robertallen1

    If adoption statistics are irrelevant to the existence of human life, why did you bring them up? Or is this your dishonest way of trying to get out of going to Over the Edge's link?
    Once again, your two questions are irrelevant, no matter how you rephrase them.

  • robertallen1

    The question is unanswerable because it is cyclic--or perhaps you're as ignorant of logic as you are of basic biology.
    No, I support laws that permit women to choose for themselves whether to undergo abortion, irrespective of the likes of you.

  • robertallen1

    Ethnic cleansing is forced on the cleansees. Abortion is forced on no one. It's you who can't grasp these concepts.

  • Dennis Ford

    "it should be grounded in sound reasoning and backed by facts and the majority of the professionals in the field of study. i this case all of those things are on my side."

    Scientists, Doctors and common sense all said that blacks and Jews weren't human to an equal degree as us white men - but times change.

    100 years, 200, 300 years from now (if we survive that long) I will be happy i was among the enlightened.

  • robertallen1

    We were talking about abortions. It's amazing how a know-nothing like you tries to continually change the subject.

  • robertallen1

    "Scientists, Doctors and common sense all said that blacks and Jews weren't human to an equal degree as us white men - but times change." And what percent of these scientists and doctors are you talking about? Once again, trying to change the subject because you do not have the facts on your side--and if you're an example of enlightenment, so are Atilla the Hun and Ghengis Khan.

  • Dennis Ford

    "what can one expect from someone who refuses to go to Over the Edge's link"

    -Edge's link did not define humanity.

    "When does a pig become a pig? When does a dog become a dog?"

    -As a human life is sparked by the beating of its heart, life begins with other animals as well. That is consistent with my position throughout this debate; not like your "its unknowable" response.

    "And just what are these laws? And since when is abortion an atrocity" Laws allowed slavery in the United States. those were laws that allowed atrocities to take place... right here in the good ol' US of A.

    "you and those like you are trying to take away a right which women currently enjoy"

    -Farmers, at one point in American history, once, enjoy free labor - legally. People like me had our reservations.

  • Dennis Ford

    You support killing, what I consider to be, human beings. And that's just that.

  • Dennis Ford

    That is the triple play of things people feel are wrong, but don't say anything because of vocal opposition.
    All I have done is try to relate things that were wrong, but allowed to happen because people thought it was wrong, but said nothing.

    I thought better of you. I thought you could have an honest disagreement. I'm begging to suppose otherwise

  • Dennis Ford

    I was only responding to the term "unwanted baby" I didn't bring it up.

    Hyperlinks don't define human life. You have already said you have no idea what human life is or when it begins, so our debate is over in that regard.

    and for what its worth. there is no such thin as a couple wanting for a baby - and i hear there are something like 50,000,000 new-borns a day that no one knows what to do with. ....that was in a link someone sent me

  • Dennis Ford

    Abortion is forced on the aborted.

  • Dennis Ford

    The only relevant matter in abortion is whether or not an innocent human is being exterminated.
    By your logic, a woman should be able to snuff out her 7 year old (if she sees fit and there is a law on the books, of course)

  • Dennis Ford

    I'm trying to relate to you that, over time, our view (as a civilization) of a human being (medically, scientifically and morally) has evolved. Some of us still believe in evolution.

  • Dennis Ford

    "And what percent of these scientists and doctors are you talking about"

    -Enough to have slavery and the holocaust.

    Maybe you may remember when tobacco companies had doctors advertising on TV for them. It must be true - they are doctors.

  • Samuel Morrissey

    If anyone is opposed to abortion, my advice is; not to have an abortion.

    Abortion without a medical reason should be discouraged. But it is absolutely necessary that it be allowed, if only because wherever it is disallowed the practice is forced underground greatly increasing the risks to the pregnant woman.

    Until the first breath, the mother's life and health are exclusively paramount. An actual life should always trump a potential. If she decides for whatever reason that she does not want to go through childbirth which in itself carries significant risks, then she should have access to professional medical care to terminate safely. She is the one who has to live with the potential moral complications after the fact, no one else has any right to interfere, in my view especially men who will never face that decision nor the psychological harm it can do.

    Women are not baby machines, whether before or after conception. Until the baby is born, her body is her body, and the baby is merely an extension of that.

  • jackmax

    G'day Samuel,

    I agree with your post, however when you say medical reason are you referring to just physical or does psychological also covered in your statement.

    The reason I ask is if the woman got raped yet physically she and the fetus are in good health. Does the physiological trauma that may have effected the mothers true capabilities to raise that child in a truly loving and caring way, that should occur when a couple have (plan) a child, be taken in to account.

    Edit; psychological/physiological

  • docoman

    G'day Dennis,
    you ask when is a human considered a human.

    I would suggest that throughout our history we've taken that to be at birth.

    Ask yourself this; what answer did you give the last time someone asked you how old you are? Did you give a time measured from your conception, or 2nd trimester, or your birth?

    If you think about it, you've answered your question about when you consider you became human, the last time you gave someone your age.
    (I am assuming you use your birthday as your counting start point, I could be wrong in that assumption. Am I?)

  • Samuel Morrissey

    G'day good sir.

    To answer your question from my point of view I would say any personal reason, be it physical, financial, political, ideological or psychological/physiological. If the reason is good enough for the woman, it is good enough for me, but it has to be personal.

    Whether I agree with the reason or not. The only external reason is medical.

    I only say 'discouraged' because of the potential psychological trauma and/or guilt that can result, often immediately but sometimes in later life when an individuals outlook may well be different. This (again) is something the woman has to decide for herself. It is not a choice I envy.

    I have known women who treat it as par for the course, and over the course of a long relationship may have multiple early terminations. No contraception is 100% effective - apart from abstinence I guess.

    I have known other women for whom pregnancy and childbirth are ultimately terrifying, and the psychological stress they would certainly experience is for them, not worth the trouble.

  • jackmax

    I'm glad I'm male, but with saying that being a parent is both the most challenging and rewarding thing to have ever happened to me, and I would not change that for anything.

  • robertallen1

    1. Defining humanity has nothing to do with a woman's right to obtain an abortion and is a poor excuse for not going to Over the Edge's link.

    2. Are you aware of the 13th Amendment?
    3. Last paragraph makes no sense. What do farmers have to do with abortion? Just another red herring.

  • robertallen1

    No one cares what you consider to be human beings. You are trying to inflict your version of ethics (morality) on others and that's just that.

  • robertallen1

    Wrong according to YOU and YOUR CLADE. Now, mind your own business.

  • robertallen1

    "and for what its worth. there is no such thin [SIC] as a couple wanting for a baby - and i hear there are something like 50,000,000 new-borns a day that no one knows what to do with. ....that was in a link someone sent me." Well, why didn't you produce the link as did Over the Edge. This makes you a fraud.

  • robertallen1

    And the aborted is merely a fetus unable to make a choice of its own. So as usual, your argument is nonsense..

  • robertallen1

    By my logic, abortion has nothing to do with post partum. Another piece of idiocy.
    Once again, I don't see you volunteering to take care of any of these "innocent humans."

  • robertallen1

    Since then we've learned more about tobacco. On the other hand, you've learned nothing.
    One way or the other, what does this have to do with abortion or is it merely another emotional appeal?

  • robertallen1

    Absolutely. No one benefits from an unwanted child. Dennis Ford and those like him are merely would-be tyrants. What happened in the House of Representatives yesterday was despicable.

  • robertallen1

    Exactly, not all women are alike, except in 18th century novels.

  • Dennis Ford

    The question "how old are you?" means when were you legally born. You are avoiding the question of life. Abortion supporters press for the law, then default to the law they wrote as moral justification.

  • robertallen1

    Default to the law? Which law?

  • Dennis Ford

    you just don't want to get the point. you want the matter to be about a war on women. you can not accept that, if you are wrong about what a human is, abortion is murder - so you just say it's irrelevant.

    farmers are related because they enjoyed the right to kill other people because we didn't count them as people.

  • robertallen1

    If abortion is murder, what accounts for all the feticide laws specifically exempting it--and once again, the law is all that matters, not your chimera about what you believe to be the real issue.
    It's not what I want; it's what the facts show and the facts show that you and those like you are indeed waging war on women and endeavoring to bring us back to the age of coat hangers, backrooms and kitchen tables, all in the name of your so-called ethics. If anything, your ethics are the ones that need to be questioned.
    Although you have had plenty of opportunity to do so, you still haven't looked at Over the Edge's link--and we all know why.
    P.S. Which farmers are these?

  • Dennis Ford

    i conceded to your point (in an exaggerated fashion) because i was tired of you justifying abortion based on a stockpile of un-adopted babies. My point (which you didn't grasp) was that the baby surplus/deficit does't change what is or is not a human life. as you have stated, you don't know what life is and it's up to the mother. that's that. this argument about life can;t involve you because you don't know what it is.

  • Dennis Ford

    From a legal standpoint, minor children can't make their own decisions either. The state steps in on their behalf on matters of law, and their protection.

  • Dennis Ford

    You don't know me or what i have volunteered for. You want to argue about everything other than life, which you claim is unknowable. As far as the debate on life, you exclude yourself with that position.
    The main dish in this matter is life, everything else is a side dish.

  • Dennis Ford

    You must be intentionally missing the point. i have to believe you are not that dull.

    My point is that doctors and scientists change their positions. I listed three and you were unwilling to touch the two scientific position that supported the two biggest atrocities in modern history.

  • Dennis Ford

    The law that provides abortion. You're quite out of you league if you don't follow.

  • Dennis Ford

    "law is all that matters"

    Maybe to you. Bad laws are written that allow for injustice to take place. defaulting to the existence of a law is weak. especially with our legal past.

    You still want to argue about things that don't matter. Only life matters. If it is not a living human being, they can all be killed without justification. You said you don't know what life is.

  • robertallen1

    Bad laws can be changed, only abortion isn't one of them. Once again, all that matters is that women have the option to abort or not to, irrespective of would-be petty tyrants such as you who would criminalize them for exercising this option--and saying that life matters (whatever that means) is saying nothing.

  • robertallen1

    Again, which law is this? There are a number. Is it any of them? In other words, what goes against YOUR sense of morality (ethics) should be criminalized. Who are you to judge?

  • robertallen1

    Wich scientists supported slavery? Those who supported the holocaust constituted only a small minority of the scientific community. So there was no change of positions.
    Another dishonest attempt to change the subject.

  • robertallen1

    Once again, how many times have you volunteered to take care of any of this unwanted life or does your concern stop at the end of the journey through the birth canal or after the C section?
    As for life, what type of life are you referring to? If it is human life, a breeding bull is worth far more than a human.

  • robertallen1

    You still don't get it because you would rather not. The term child refers to post partum, a completely different story.
    P.S. You still haven't gone to Over the Edge's link. I wonder why.

  • Dennis Ford

    We disagree. I believe what matters is the life of a human being. we should leave it at that.

  • Dennis Ford

    Who should judge another who takes the life of another? Good logic.

  • Dennis Ford

    Your inability to grasp concepts is a failure of the concept, itself.

  • robertallen1

    By the way, isn't the mother a form of human life? If so, I haven't heard you express any concern for her, only for the parasite inside? And why does this concern stop at the end of the journey through the birth canal or after the C section?
    P.S. The stockpile of unadopted babies which at first you falsely claimed didn't exist is major, not some side issue.

  • Dennis Ford

    That's a nice way to view the world.

  • robertallen1

    In case you haven't heard, the mother about whom you've shown no concern is more of a human being than the fetus inside her. This makes you a hypocrite.

  • Dennis Ford

    I had two of you coming with rapid fire arguments. I didn't see his link. I doubt it had anything to do with life.

  • robertallen1

    A non-response.
    P.S. It's a fetus and nothing more.

  • Dennis Ford

    Unless she is about to die as a result of the pregnancy, her life is still intact.

  • Dennis Ford

    Her life isn't about to be ended.

  • robertallen1

    An evasion and a non-answer.
    It's you who fails to grasp concepts such as the right of the woman (a form of humanity which you refuse to stand up for) to choose for herself and not be intefered with, degraded or criminalized by the likes of you.

  • Dennis Ford

    We disagree on that. Honest people can disagree.

  • robertallen1

    Non-responsive.

  • robertallen1

    Adoption statistics have everything to do with life--despite your doubt, a poor excuse for not bothering to check out the cite indicated by Over the Edge. And don't tell me you didn't see his link (as a matter of fact, this is the first time you've mentioned this). If I did and I went to the site, you can do so as well.

  • Dennis Ford

    You hold human life to different values. I believe them all to be equal. People have, since the beginning of time, held different values for different kinds of people - it always leads to lives being taken. Women have the right to kill their unborn. I totally grasp it, I just don't like it.

  • Dennis Ford

    You think cows are worth more than human beings... that doesn't deserve a response.

  • robertallen1

    And so is her choice.
    I notice that you have not responded to the rest of my post. I wonder why.

  • robertallen1

    A fetus has no life, merely a parasitic existence. Once again, I don't see you showing any concern for the mother or for what happens after delivery and this makes you a hypocrite of the vilest type.

  • Dennis Ford

    "Adoption statistics have everything to do with life"

    No it doesn't No statistic makes a living thing.

  • robertallen1

    Your likes and dislikes are irrelevant. What's relevant is that you keep your nose out of other people's business.

  • robertallen1

    Find me one case where a breeding bull (not a cow) has been put down for either killing or maiming a human being.

  • Dennis Ford

    At some moment in time, it becomes life. You claim to have no clue when, and no desire to figure it out.

  • Dennis Ford

    I respond to all.

    -Dennis: I believe human life is ended when a heart beat is stopped.

    -Robert: Its's her choice, that's the law, bulls are worth more than people.

    You don't add value to the debate.

  • Dennis Ford

    People being told to mind their business goes hand-in-hand with every atrocity ever commuted.
    I believe that killing an unborn baby is the same as killing a newborn baby and all I've done is say so.

  • robertallen1

    Despite your unjustifiably exalted view of human life, breeding bulls are worth more than people and so are wars and military actions in general.
    You don't add knowledge or intelligence to the debate.

  • Dennis Ford

    Why are you talking about cows?

  • robertallen1

    A woman's private choices are none of your business--and don't try to divert the issue. It won't work.

  • robertallen1

    To demonstrate to you that human life is not as valuable as you say it is (the crux of your anti-abortion argument) and never has been.

  • Dennis Ford

    "breeding bulls are worth more than people"

    Maybe to you, they are. Human beings are worth more to me.

  • Dennis Ford

    Her private choice to kill her unborn baby, that i consider to be human is her legal right.
    I understand that; I just believe its not right. All I've done is say so.

  • Dennis Ford

    Human life in not valuable to a lot of people. Millions have been killed because some people don't value human life.

  • robertallen1

    Believe what you want as long as you don't try to interfere with a woman's choice to decide for herself whether to undergo an abortion.

  • robertallen1

    That's the reality, whether you like it or no, and as long as breeding bulls remain a valuable commodity, you'll never be able to change it.

  • Dennis Ford

    Because I was in a handful of threads and i wasn't searching for it.

    you said the link was about how many orphans there are. i accepted that there are millions of unwanted newborns in the orphanages. What more do you want.

    My point is that a surplus or deficit of newborns doesn't define life.

  • Dennis Ford

    As long as we don't value the lives of the unborn, they will be killed too. No change.

  • robertallen1

    Just where did I state that I don't know when life begins--or is this another lie on top of your hypocrisy?

  • Dennis Ford

    You said that when life begins is cyclic and unknowable. I suppose you slept on it and you now have an evolved position.

  • robertallen1

    And just why should they?

  • robertallen1

    And my point is that for purposes of abortion, life doesn't need to be defined.
    If you've accepted that there are millions of unwanted newborns in orphanages, why do you insist upon using your morality (ethics) to add to the problem by caviling against women for exercising their legal choice to abort?

  • Dennis Ford

    • 10 months ago
    ?

    "And just so you understand me. I have no idea when human life begins. To me, it is simply a biological question and nothing more."

    you've said it a few times.

    I'm debating when life starts. You claim no knowledge. We will just have to agree to disagree.

  • robertallen1

    Fine with me. Let's not have any more newborns than can be sustained--and I don't mean in orphanages.

  • robertallen1

    No, I stated that the question was cyclic, hence illogical, hence unknowable. Get your facts straight. Now matter how you try to rephrase it, it has nothing to do with the issue of abortion.

  • Dennis Ford

    I support that. But i don't believe ending life is the answer.

  • Dennis Ford

    Whether the baby is a living human being has everything to do with the issue of abortion. We disagree on that matter and you can't agree to disagree.

  • robertallen1

    Other than better education, especially about contraception (which, by the way, doesn't always work and is inapplicable to cases of rape), what is?

  • robertallen1

    That's fine as long as you and your clade don't try to interfere with a woman's legal right to choose for herself. The problem with you and those like you is that you do.

  • Dennis Ford

    Oh a zinger... you got me. OK now I agree with you. We have to kill the unborn to help them out. We know they will end up in an orphanage and that's worse than death. Since that's the case, we may as well do a solid for the kids in the orphanages and kill them too.

  • Dennis Ford

    Nothing is worse than someone who stands up for life - nothing.

  • robertallen1

    Once again you confuse pre partum with post partum or is this merely part and parcel of your wilful ignorance or merely a pretense at idiocy?
    One way or the other, you haven't answered the question--not that I expected you to.

  • robertallen1

    The only thing you stand for is the escalation of a problem based merely on your concept of morality. You still haven't answered the question as to what you propose in addition to better education with respect to contraception. Could it be perhaps because you have nothing to offer except for your poor man's version of ethics.

  • Dennis Ford

    I'm not confused. I hold their lives to be equal. I was trying to demonstrate that to you. ending a life doesn't help the life ended. We disagree on the idea of life.

  • Dennis Ford

    That's it. Once you have educated people and subsidized contraception, there is nothing left.
    My argument is based on when human life begins. I can't stamp approval on ending a human life because it's just easier for everyone.

  • robertallen1

    "I was trying to demonstrate that to you. ending a life doesn't the life ended." Makes a lot of sense!

  • Dennis Ford

    focusing on typos and editing mistakes doesn't isn't an argument.
    We disagree on when life begins. Agree to disagree and get over it.

  • robertallen1

    First of all it's only a fetus. Second and worse, you are forcing a woman to go through the ordeal of childbirth whether she wants to or not, making her a mere birthing machine--and no one is likely to argue that she is not a human life. This makes you a would-be petty tyrant and a vile hypocrite.

  • robertallen1

    As long as you mind your own business.

  • Dennis Ford

    We disagree on that. I believe it is a human being. I value it's life the same as anyone else's That's hardly tyrannical. Agree to disagree and get over it.
    Stop with the childish belligerence.

  • Dennis Ford

    Nothing to see here. Keep it moving.

  • docoman

    Hmm. Ok, so I'll rephrase it for you. If I were to ask "what is your age?", the answer you'll give is a count from your birthday till now. Not from your conception or some gestation stage till now. Someone's tombstone often states their age at death, counted from birth to death, even before many current laws were written, regardless of where in the world and what legal system they're under, if any. It seems to me that's just how we do it, even if it's unsuitable for your point of view. That's how we count our age, from birth.

    When does a plant become alive / life? Is a seed alive? Do we count from when it's a viable seed, or from when it's planted, or when we see it's germinated and growing under it's own 'steam'. How far do you go with humans? Is a sperm or unfertilised egg a human yet? Half a human maybe?

    If it's all about saving life, how do you morally justify the murder of the doctors mentioned ?

    And was it really only 'Abortion supporters' that wrote the US's current laws as you said?

    I don't consider myself an 'Abortion supporter', but I do feel it's the woman's call what happens with her own body. If a fetus is unable to live without being what amounts to a part of it's mother still, it's not yet it's own, independent life. It's still just the potential to be. That's just my opinion, I'm fine with you having yours and it being different.

  • robertallen1

    What you believe is that your version of morality gives you the right to tyrannize over women whom you couldn't case less about except as delivery machines, just as you couldn't care less about what happens after birth. Attempting to paint my exposure of what you really stand for as childish belligerence is tantamount to your depiction of yourself as a humanitarian.

  • Dennis Ford

    Using the logic of "when is your birthday?" I've never had a pregnant woman ask me if i wanted to feel the parasite, ball of cells, fetus or anything else kick.

    I never said anything about killing doctors. Killing people is wrong - period

    I believe a human with a beating heart is alive, in or out of the womb, and I believe it should be treated as such. When do you believe a human is a human?

  • Dennis Ford

    True. conversely, what you believe is yours. But only one of us is acting like a child (hint: it's you)

  • robertallen1

    And I'm fine with that too, except that Dennis Ford and cellmates aren't.

  • robertallen1

    How often do we CROSS a bridge? How often do we ask for a GOOD cup of coffee? So what if the pregnant woman misuses the term baby. In short, that's no argument.

    So killing is wrong - period? Suppose I kill someone who intends to kill me? Suppose I kill someone who intends to kill my loved ones? Suppose I assist someone with a terminal disease who only wants to get it over with and die?

    P.S. You're not going to fool Docoman with that cyclic question.

  • robertallen1

    At least there's plenty of room in my belief for both pro life and pro choice and this makes me a thousand times better than you and your admitted attempts to tyrranize over women's rights to choose for themselves and render them as merely delivery hoppers. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • docoman

    A human is a human if they're from the genus Homo in my opinion, alive or dead doesn't change what they are.

    If it's when a heart is beating, what standard of measurement do you use? When you can hear it? Feel it? Using what, your hand, your ear, an ultrasound? What standard should be applied?

    I can see your point and why you feel that way, but a human has a heartbeat within weeks, long before they have any hope of surviving independent of it's mother. That's going to be a person if all goes well, but isn't yet.

  • Dennis Ford

    "So what if the pregnant woman misuses the term baby"

    -It isn't a matter of the term being 'misused' It is what she considers (what is inside of her) to be.

    "Suppose I kill someone who intends to kill me?"

    -You have a right to self defense, and the choice was made by an attacker in that hypothetical.

    "Suppose I assist someone with a terminal disease who only wants to get it over with and die?"

    -People have the right to terminate their own live. I say again, their own lives. The terminally ill have a right to do with their life as they see fit. The trend is that the terminated party made a choice that resulted in their life ending; by attacking, someone else, or by submitting to a disease.

    "P.S. You're not going to fool Docoman with that cyclic question."

    -I'm sure he can take care of himself

  • Dennis Ford

    That was baseless and nonsensical. you're just lashing out.

  • Dennis Ford

    I'm using the Heartbeat as a beginning point for what I consider life. I submit, I may be way off. that's the case on both sides of the matter. I'm trying to get you to tell then you believe the moment is that a human life is such, and when do you believe it deserves the same protections.

  • robertallen1

    I consider that I am CROSSING a bridge. I consider that I'm DOUBLE-JOINTED in my left thumb. That doesn't make it so. It makes no difference what a woman happens to call the temporary parasite inside her. Your argument is specious.
    You are the one who made the uncategorial statement that killing is wrong - period. And now you admit the right to self-defense and to suicide, even assisted suicide, in cases of terminal illness. In your simplemindedness, you have no idea what you stand for.

  • robertallen1

    It certainly beats anything you have to offer. On second thought, just what do you have to offer--that is to solve or alleviate a problem of your own making? Talk about baseless and nonsensical.

  • Dennis Ford

    I didn't think i needed to state my opinion on every extreme circumstance. The post was about murdering a doctor, not your double-jointed thumb.
    None of that defines what is a human life. We disagree on what is a human life. Get over it and move on.

  • robertallen1

    You're asking Docoman to make a medical determination which neither your nor he is competent to make.

  • Dennis Ford

    You support ending life, I don't. We can agree to disagree on the matter.

  • robertallen1

    You are the one who claimed that because the preponderance of women call the temporary parasite inside them babies, that they are indeed babies. You can't cover up your ignorance through an evasion.
    As long as you continue to attempt to interfere with women's rights to choose for themselves regarding abortion and tyrannize over them, I will not be moving on. Get over that.

  • Dennis Ford

    Doctors detect the heartbeat. Stop trying to steer other peoples conversations away from the concept of life. Doc can debate on his own merits.

  • Dennis Ford

    "You are the one who claimed that because the preponderance of women call the temporary parasite inside them babies, that they are indeed babies"

    No I didn't. I observed what her opinion of it was.

    We disagree on when life begins, and you want a fight about other things. We disagree. Move on.

  • robertallen1

    Obviously you have nothing to offer except to create and add to a problem of your own making--and this makes you contemptible. Once again, we can agree to disagree only when you cease trying to intefere with a woman's legal right to decide for herself whether to undergo an abortion.

  • robertallen1

    "If it's when a heart is beating, what standard of measurement do you use? When you can hear it? Feel it? Using what, your hand, your ear, an ultrasound? What standard should be applied?" You haven't answered Docoman's question, probably because you can't and thus true to form you seek to evade it.

  • robertallen1

    If that's the case, why did you bring it up at all.
    P.S. As long as you keep endeavor to justify depriving women of their legal rights to an abortion, I'm not going to move on.

  • docoman

    My apologies for the time to post sometimes, I'm capped (bandwidth throttled) and painfully slow here. :(

    From what I've read, the heart usually starts beating between the 5 and 6 week mark. It changes when the mother usually first hears the heartbeat apparently, but is commonly around the 10 to 12 week point, sometimes earlier.

    I think a person gets the same rights as everyone the moment they're born. I feel the potential for 'life' begins at fertalisation, but is not realised until the 'potential person' moves from fetus to baby, the moment they're born.
    I could be wrong, that's only my opinion, and not an experienced or very educated one at that.

    I'm not saying they're nothing till then either. Or that abortions should be an off-handed, easy decision. What's best for the potential child and the mother and other family should all be considered. They are potentially a baby, if all goes well up to and including birth, they will become a living human baby. And should have some protections, I believe I read the term 'feticide' earlier, which to me makes sense. I don't class an abortion as that. Bashing a pregnant woman to end the pregnancy does.

    You saying;
    "-It isn't a matter of the term being 'misused' It is what she considers (what is inside of her) to be." doesn't seem to match up with a heartbeat being the determining factor to me. What if that mother never considers what she's carrying to be anything other then an unwanted burden, some sub-human?

  • robertallen1

    Not as long as you continue to attempt to deprive women of their legal right to an abortion.

  • Dennis Ford

    It is beating when it is beating. it doesn't matter how it was detected. legally, i would defer to the doctors on what is the most accurate way to detect a heartbeat.

  • Dennis Ford

    It was in response to Docs consideration of life based on the how old are you question.

  • robertallen1

    Then your observations on abortion are worthless.
    P.S. You don't order anyone offline. Your last post will be reported to a moderator for further action.

  • docoman

    Then I think you misunderstood my point. We count from birth onwards, not conception, or heartbeat detection, or anything else.
    It would seem to me the 0 point in our age count is naturally where we'd consider the start to be.
    P.S I agree with jackmax, I'm glad I'm male and will never have to make and live with that decision.

  • robertallen1

    "Using the logic of "when is your birthday?" I've never had a pregnant woman ask me if i wanted to feel the parasite, ball of cells, fetus or anything else kick." As it is non-responsive to Docoman's question, once again, why did you bring it up?

  • Dennis Ford

    I appreciate your honesty in the matter. It's nice to have an adult conversation with an adult.

    Is the 'potential life' actual life, as you see it, at any point before exit from the birth canal? That is to say, before its realized to be a human baby, was it? even 5 minutes, a month or a trimester or two earlier?

    "What if that mother never considers what she's carrying to be anything other then an unwanted burden, some sub-human?"

    - As for her, she would just be in the camp that doesn't recognize human life prior to birth. I've never attacked that belief, I just have a different belief.

  • Dennis Ford

    I've shared my opinion. I wont apologies for that.

  • Dennis Ford

    oh boy... not that

  • Dennis Ford

    I get your point on age. that's more of a legal matter than a philosophical one. It would be a cumbersome mechanism to try dating people by the moment they developed conciseness.

    -and ya, male bodies are a lot less to keep up with. we can all agree on that

  • Dennis Ford

    everything you just don't want to answer, you discount, then attack. i'm done dealing with you.

  • robertallen1

    How does one date people by the moment they developed conciseness?

  • Dennis Ford

    That's my point.

  • robertallen1

    And your point is?

  • Dennis Ford

    counting age by the date of birth is easier

  • robertallen1

    So then you admit it had nothing to do with Docoman's question--just another of your irrelevancies such as your definition of life and when it begins.

  • docoman

    Assuming all goes well, from the moment of conception there is going to come a baby. I can see the argument that from then on it could be called life. I call and consider it 'potential life', because even though they're live cells, they haven't lived outside of the mother. Right up to the moment we're born, we're still unrealised potential. Full term or not. The reality is, we have to pick some point to say "there, that's the start point". To me, and as I've said I'd suggest throughout most of our history, that point has been birth. When we first become a separate being from our mothers, and take our first breath for ourselves. 5 minutes earlier, we still needed mum's O2.

  • robertallen1

    I agree and that's why we do it, but what does this have to do with conciseness?

  • Dennis Ford

    things don't make sense or not make sense based on your understanding. You're blinded by something that doesn't allow you to engage in a debate productively.

  • Dennis Ford

    You lost track of the conversation.

  • Dennis Ford

    That reasoning, though completely valid, allows for mid-birth or partial-birth abortions. If one holds the unborn in a low regard, that may not be troubling. but to someone who considers that a human with a life and self awareness, it's very disturbing.

  • robertallen1

    Non-responsive as usual.

  • robertallen1

    Once again, non-responsive as usual. How does conciseness enter into this?

  • docoman

    Do you know of any culture or legal system that doesn't take birth as the starting point to count our age?

    I will have to disagree with you on that point, I think it's as much if not more a philosophical and medical matter as a legal one really. I think it's not only because of ease, it's philosophically our 'start' in this world, before that we were in the womb and needed mum every minute. As far as I'm aware, everyone has always counted our age from birth, regardless of their law.

  • robertallen1

    Once again, in this country partial-birth abortions are illegal and have nothing to do with Docoman's post, yet another red herring. If you're disturbed, that's your problem. Don't make it everyone else's.

  • Dennis Ford

    The bottom line is, if its not a live human being with the protection under the law, then it can be terminated any second before complete birth.
    If it is not a live human being, women are being denied medical procedures for nothing due to the ban on partial berth abortions.
    The details of when its heart is beating, when it is sensitive to pain, when it has an awareness of self (if at all) and how much do we even care as a society.
    It can have all those things and not be be considered by society equal. many animals exhibit those traits and are not equal. in history many people were not considered equal and enjoyed no legal protection.

    In the end, I view it as i do, at the onset of a heartbeat, but i use self-expression as my only tool to end abortion. people speaking up as a collective is the best way move forward. writing laws that ban this or that doesn't change society; it just causes debates that often turn violent.

    I believe we, as a society, will eventually reach a point when we consider the position of the unborn.

  • Dennis Ford

    Why is there a ban? if its sub-human, women should be able to terminate it as it crowns, right?

  • docoman

    Hang on mate, picking a point to say where mum's rights end and her growing fetus' start doesn't automatically mean the unborn is held in low regard. I disagree with late abortions unless for pressing medical reasons.
    One of my sisters had a few miscarriages before having her 4th and last child. I've never heard her say she had more then 4 children, and if you knew her you'd know she would never demean or disregard the unborn. She's a very caring person, chose nursing as her career. That's just the unfortunate fact. She only had 4 babies. Those others ended up unrealised potential.

  • Dennis Ford

    What i'm saying is, we have to pick a point where it is deserving of personhood. Somewhere between conception and the cutting of the cord is a good window. We are all here with awareness of self and desire to live. there was a point when we didn't have any of that. we need to put in an honest effort to figure out when that happened

  • robertallen1

    "If it is not a live human being, women are being denied medical procedures for nothing due to the ban on partial berth [SIC] abortions." Any evidence of this?

    Your cheap appeal to emotion in place of fact simply won't conceal your bottom line: to use what you call self-expression as a cover-up for your attempt to inflict your version of morality on others and trample on, abridge and eliminate women's legal rights to abortions, thus relegating them to no more than birthing (note spelling) machines, as much a forward-looking collective as Prohibition.

  • robertallen1

    Partial-Birth Aborton Ban Act (2003) 18 U.S.C. 1531. Because birth has already started.

  • robertallen1

    Even if she had had them aborted, it doesn't make her any less of a person.

  • robertallen1

    "Somewhere between conception and the cutting of the cord is a good window." And just what other choice is there?

  • docoman

    You're right, we've made many mistakes in the past, and no doubt will continue to in the future, hopefully we can learn to not repeat as much as we have.

    The fact there is feticide laws (I recall here in Aus a man being charged and jailed for bashing his pregnant girlfriend in a successful attempt to abort the pregnancy) would suggest that at least to some extent the unborn is considered, both in society and in law. (at least in some places)

    Maybe a more relevant question is, does an unborn's rights ever supercede it's mothers, and if so, when?

  • robertallen1

    Was the voluntary or involuntary on the part of this man's girlfriend? That's why in the United States almost all the feticide laws contain exceptions for abortion.

  • docoman

    He attacked her, she wanted to have the child. It stirred up the same debate, when does a fetus have legal rights.
    Edit- he was up for assault for attacking her, and I believe he also got charged for causing the death of the fetus.

  • Dennis Ford

    There is a moment when the unborn deserves equality, at least.

  • docoman

    I can agree with that mate, it comes down to at what point. It's no doubt a subjective question with differing answers.

    I can't remember being circumcised, but I bet I felt it at the time. :( If I was 'bumped off' at the same time I wouldn't have known what was going on, and obviously that was after I was born. If I'd had to grow up without love in my life, struggling hard to survive like some I've seen, I think in many ways it'd be a 'harsh kindness'. I've seen street kids (overseas) that breaks your heart at how hard it is for them just to find enough food to scrape by. I don't know if I'd want to have to hack that, or just skip the lot and not know any different.

  • robertallen1

    What you have described (and I'd like to read about the case) is the same thing as an attack on a pregnant woman which is why most of the feticide laws in this countries have exceptions for therapeutic abortions.

  • robertallen1

    Almost all the feticide laws in this country have exceptions for abortions performed voluntarily by licensed physicians. So your statement says nothing.

  • robertallen1

    Exactly--and those like Dennis Ford only seek to add to the problem in the name of their misbegotten morality which they attempt to inflict on others at no matter the cost. No one gains from the birth of an unwanted child, least of all the child.

  • docoman

    It's just gone past 7 am here mate, I'm off to get a couple hours sleep. Struggling I am a bit now :) It was a few years back, and I'm not exactly sure of the laws, I'll have a look this afternoon. It was in Queensland, something like 9 or so years ago, it caused a fair debate and a lot of disgust and anger. Abortion doesn't seem to be anywhere near as big an issue here as it seems to be over your way. Abortion is an available option I believe, I haven't personally dealt with it though so don't know very much. Always been lucky and diligent with contraceptives, I don't want to have to face an unwanted pregnancy.

  • Dennis Ford

    The circumcision reference makes a good point. I've been around the world too, and I've seen kids and adults in the harshest of conditions. But the human condition is to press on. All of those people chose life. When making the decision of life or no life for someone else - every possibility must be explored.

  • robertallen1

    No, those street urchins did not choose life, but rather had life thrust upon them. And what makes you think you such an expert on the human condition?

    "When making the decision of life or no life for someone else - every possibility must be explored." Including abortion.

  • docoman

    G'day mate, I had a bit of a look for that case I had in mind and couldn't find it. There is a little on wiki under 'Child destruction', but much more on the wiki page 'Abortion in Australia' about the situation here.

  • robertallen1

    Thank you.

  • robertallen1

    Read all about it. Unfortunately Governor Perry has called the legislature back into special session on July 1 for 30 more days of discussion on a bill which never should have made it this far in the first place. I guess the Texas Legislature has nothing better to do than spend a lot of time and resources attempting to take away a right which women currently enjoy--and as Ms. Davis pointed out, these proposed requirements such as admitting privileges to a local hospital, ostensibly in the name of health, are merely a cover up, for there are no such requirements for medical institutions providing vasectomies, etc..
    While I applaud Wendy Davis for her heroic action (and I think it's safe to say you do too), on the other hand, had she been on the other side and pulled the same antic, would we regard her as a heroine. So much for objective morality.
    I wonder what Kateye, a Texan, has to say about all this.
    Your thoughts.

  • over the edge

    i am not a fan of the filibuster even if in this case it works to my advantage. at least Texas requires an actual filibuster. my opinion is that if passed this bill will simply force women out of state or far worse to terminate a pregnancy.

  • robertallen1

    "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." U.S. Const.,Article IV, Section 2. In other words, "California here I come . . . "
    If the law passes, perhaps Planned Parenthood and other groups will form something like the underground railroad to help transport women to other states to obtain THERAPEUTIC abortions--and there is nothing those hayseed religees in Texas can do about it.

  • Kami Waive

    Just because a child is unwanted by their parents it doesnt mean that nobody wants them ever. Speaking as an adopted child from a teenage mom, I know this. I deserve to live and deserve life and have grown up with my adoptive parents who love me and consider me a blessing. What makes the abundance if your comments more annoying is the fact that you're a man! HAVE YOU EVER BEEN PREGNANT?! Well I have, I have 3 children and my first child was unplanned but as soon as she was born I knew she deserved life and if I have aborted her I would have killed my own beautiful baby girl. When you stop a beating heartbeat and cut the living developing and beating heart of a fetus into pieces and call that a "choice" and refuse to see it as murder then you're clearly delusional. If all unwanted children can be opted to be killed then people should start burning down orphanages. HERE'S AN IDEA, STOP SLEEPING AROUND IF YOU CANNOT FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS. USE A FREAKING VIBRATOR! .

  • Kateye70

    So you had a choice, and you exercised that option. Good for you. You beat the adoption odds, too. Good for you.

    One would think, however, that having become pregnant three times--and at least one time, accidentally--you'd educate yourself on abortion statistics before making unwarranted assumptions about who gets pregnant and might choose an abortion over carrying a baby to term. (Hint: It's not who you apparently think it is.)

  • Kateye70

    At 24 weeks, a fetus is barely capable of surviving even with extreme medical intervention. The child, if it survives, is often left with lifelong problems due to lack of development time, so that one has to wonder whether the medical intervention is ethical or not. Don't forget the devastating financial consequences either. Those seem to be conveniently forgotten when the subject arises.

    Not every fertilized egg is able to implant; not every implanted egg is viable; not every developing fetus is capable of survival.

    I truly question the decision to intervene in these cases. As the great-aunt of a child whose short life was nothing other than a medical experiment, the cost is far beyond the (astronomical) financial one, and can be devastating to many lives in multiple ways. If you can hear the bitterness, good.

  • robertallen1

    What makes you think that you have the right to decide for others? You made a choice; others have the right to make a choice as well and if it bothers you that that their choice is the opposite of yours, that's your problem.
    And spare us the emotional crap about a heart beat, Until delivery, what's in the womb is no more that a parasitic section of tissue called a fetus.
    As for adoption, I suggest that you read the latest figures from the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, not that you will, for your type is too busy dictating to others rather than doing any research. It's a shame that everyone else has to contend with people like you.

  • robertallen1

    Somehow, I find it hard to imagine you as a great aunt, but one way or the other, I can fully understand your anger. Those like Megan Hoyt and Kami Waive only exacerbate the problem and, believe me, they are far from well-meaning.
    Angry to hear about things in Texas--but at least you have Wendy Davis who might stand a fighting chance of unseating Rick the Prick--one can only wish. .

  • robertallen1

    Over_the_Edge and anyone else:
    It might be worth your while to check out RH Reality Check and perhaps post a link to it.

  • robertallen1

    Three cheers for Judge Wickham Corwin of North Dakota for his recent ruling!!! Perhaps a link should be posted to "Abortion Rule on Hospital Access Blocked in North Dakota."

  • robertallen1

    Three more cheers for Judge William M. Conley of Wisconsin for his recent ruling!!! Perhaps a link should be posted to "Abortion Provider Hospital--Access Law Halted in Wisconsin.

  • belgianchic

    I didn't know planned parenthood supported bestiality! you learn something new every day ;)

  • Shelby

    Just curious, how do you feel about a woman who was raped and wants an abortion

  • Dennis Ford

    I understand her reasons for wanting to abprt the pregnancy. I can understand how that situation can lead to mental health issues for the mother that might end in a suicide. If that's the case, a woman should be authorized to abort. The fact remains, however, that the unborn is not the rapist, and is recieving a death sentence anyway. If a woman is courageous enough to carry the child to term and either raise it or offer it for adoption, she is probably a braver soul than I.

  • robertallen1

    Completely irrelevant. You don't go deciding for somebody else. Second, you can't kill what hasn't been born yet.

  • Brandi Witman

    Planned Parenthood never mentioned sex with animals. Propaganda much?

  • Shelby

    But the problem is, they shouldnt have to go through a bunch of crap to be authorized to abort. For one then if she gets the abortion everyone will know she was raped and she prob doesnt want people to know that. Also you will have people claiming rape left and right so they can get abortions. There is no way to solve this problem without leaving it how it is because no one can answer when does life begin because theres the science definition and the religious definition and we all know they will never agree

  • Dennis Ford

    You made a few points and i'll try to address them in order.

    First, I didn't shay she should have to go through any crap. I said that, in my opinion, she should be allowed to abort based on mental health, while noting that the baby within was not the rapist.

    Secondly, the prospect that women will lie about being raped isn't relevant to whether abortion should be legal or illegal. abortion needs to be judged on its own merits.

    lastly, as your point to life, we now understand Blacks, Jew, women, the Irish and Native Americans to full fledged human beings.This was not always so in this country. Our ideas evolve over time.

    I see Americans, especially American Women, moving toward to position that live begins at various stages of development within the womb. Some consider life to have begun at the point of conception, some when the heartbeat begins, some when the baby "looks like a baby" and other when it is viable on its own. I also see more and more - young women - who are disgusted with the concept of abortion. American Women have the most influence in this cultural argument of our time - and young women will be driving the discussion in the future. Within a generation, I expect a strong majority of Women to push to end abortion or limit it to it's earliest stages.

  • robertallen1

    Who the hell are you to be dictating when a woman should be allowed to have an abortion?
    What you see and what you expect to see as the trend in American Women is irrelevant. When it comes to private matters such as the decision as to whether to abort, the majority do not dictate to the minority.
    Anyone who would force a woman to bring her pregnancy full term is about the most despicable being on the face of the earth.

  • robertallen1

    No one cares what you believe. As you mentioned, choice is the law and it's a good law for it also allows for "pro life" and militates against any interference from you or your verminous clade. In short, it's you who add nothing and subtract everything.
    And yes, bulls are worth more than people, ask any breeder.

  • robertallen1

    Bravery doesn't pay the bills.

  • Laurie Bertram Roberts

    I love that the girl in the beginning is naive enough to think abortion will end. That's nice.

  • Kami Waive

    And its a shame that people have to contend with your kind ROBERT! Are you even female?!! Are you even in the position to make such unwarranted comments about a fetus being a parasite, when you can never ever understand or even dare fathom what it feels like to feel a child growing inside you a human being be ripped apart from inside you. If a fetus is such a parasite then why do women feel such intense emotional upheaval when they decide to abort, if the fetus is a "parasite" why even take time to make the decision and have any emotions towards it?! If you have an actual parasite growing inside you, would you think twice to have it removed?! I think not. BUT WOMEN DO! and dont you dare even say or comment about how women feel while pregnant and that decision making process the go through in deciding whether or not to keep the baby! YOU WOULD NEVER UNDERSTAND simply because its not possible for you to be placed IN THE SAME situation! So while your busy busting on and COMMENTING NEGATIVELY ON ALMOST ALL VIEWS THAT OPPOSES yours then why dont you take time and read about millions of testimonials of women who deeply regret having an abortion later on in life. YOU SAY I'M DICTATING TO OTHERS WHAT THEY SHOULD DO, WHEN YOU DO EXACTLY THE SAME BASED IN YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS. A hypocrite and a fool! I hope you never have children, for they will always be bothered by the notion that if they were not born in the most convenient place and time for you, you would have decided to call them a parasite and get rid of them. So really buddy, the shame is on you!

  • Kami Waive

    Yeah, so sad for your life plans and future dreams that a consequence to your actions had to die so you can continue to lead the life you want.

  • Kami Waive

    People always equate not killing a child and carrying the child to full term with parenting. There is that forgotten notion of adoption. Giving birth is not the same as parenting, and no one is even forcing you to parent if you're not ready, all that is being asked is you not kill or hinder the life of a human child, your child. Give your child a chance to live,

  • Kami Waive

    Wow! You bust on me by saying that I enforce my beliefs onto others, when you not only do the same, but actually have the audacity to assume the intentions of people who comment here, just because it opposes your views. Tell you what ROBERT, I doubt that you are well meaning yourself.

  • robertallen1

    Biology is biology whether you like it or not, whether it agrees with your emotional makeup, what you think everyone's emotional makeup should be and whether you acknowledge it or not.

    Not only do you claim to speak for all women, but you promote the idea of forcing them to go through the tribulations of pregnancy and delivery against their will. This renders you beneath contemptible.

    It's impossible to dictate choice. Now, butt out of other people's private business, you ignorant would-be tyrant.

  • robertallen1

    Better 50,000,000 abortions than one unwanted child.

  • robertallen1

    Despite having been advised to do so, you've obviously not read the latest figures from CCAI, which is hardly surprising considering that you'd rather remain ignorant.
    One way or the other, mind your own business!

  • robertallen1

    What you doubt is of no consequence, especially considering the level of intelligence displayed in your posts. Now keep your nose out of other people's business.

  • Kami Waive

    Its ironic that you say that ROBERT, when you're doing the very thing you claim to condemn. You have repeatedly and religiously chastised almost every single commenter here, whose views contradict or derail from yours, and yet you accuse me of "forcing" my ideas on every woman, when I only uphold the principle of taking responsibility for the consequences of one's initial choices. You call me an "ignorant tyrant" , i must admit, ROBERT, that gave me quite a laugh especially given that if there is anyone more detached and ignorant in the EXPERIENTIAL CONTEXT of this issue it would be you, ROBERT! So unless you have somehow created a technology that would enable you to GET PREGNANT, GO THROUGH THE EXPERIENCE OF HAVING TO DECIDE WHETHER TO KEEP THE BABY OR NOT, HAVING GIVEN BIRTH TO A CHILD then I suggest that you be the one to mind your own private business.

  • Kami Waive

    Why not read the millions of testimonials of women who ultimately regret having had an abortion and how that decision had stayed with them for decades, and yet you call me ignorant. Your fool! this as a mother and a woman is my business! Why not mind yours.

  • robertallen1

    Since when is upholding choice being tyrannical? You are the one opting for rescinding a woman's LEGAL right to choose for herself whether to bring her pregnancy full term. a decision which is clearly none of your goddam business. You are the one forcing your moral views on everyone and sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. You are the one who promotes coercing a woman into undergoing the travails of pregnancy and delivery whether she wants to or not. In short, you are about the lowest excuse for a human being there is.

  • robertallen1

    Like you, these "millions of women" have no business making decisions for others. I don't suppose you've read about the "millions of women" who haven't regretted their decision in the least--they too have no business making decisions for others.
    Inflating yourself as qualified to speak for all women and mothers renders you worse than ignorant and heinous.

  • mikeysbro

    Nothing like legalised murder, up next euthanasia, then the poor and homeless. The dehumanization and final solution agenda hard at work.

  • robertallen1

    It is impossible to murder the unborn--but again there's nothing like ignorance and deceit, is there--especially the ignorance and deceit allowing you the license to juxtapose abortion to euthanasia and the final solution.

  • mikeysbro

    Really, so if you were sucked out of your mothers womb before being born you would still be alive today? That would truly be a miracle of epic proportions. Though I don't believe that you were, nor could be.

    Thus if a human is alive and living in a womb and one decides to kill that living human it is considered murder. When a human is murdered one doesn't debate if it was actually murder based solely by the criteria of the location of where the murder occurred.

    If humans can be dehumanized by propaganda to kill babies that could be born but are yet still alive when unborn then there are no limits to human depravity.

    Euthanizing the elderly is much easier to justify than murdering babies. Thus it is currently being debated world wide as another step in the dehumanising agenda of population reduction.

    Thus the propaganda continues marching forward toward the final solution.

  • robertallen1

    It is still just a fetus, not a full-fledged human being and a mother has the LEGAL right not to bring her pregnancy full term--unlike the final solution, it's totally VOLUNTARY, get it?
    And speaking of voluntary, just what's the matter with euthanasia? The next step to something is not a valid argument against a current practice.
    Not only are you one in an all too long line of universally ignorant religees, but a would-be tyrant as well and everything you stand for is beyond despicable.

  • mikeysbro

    ok no one in the womb is a full fledged human that is obvious.
    Though that does not change the fact that that unborn human can be born and become an adult human. Neither does that mean that an unborn human is not human, none of the unborn dna is different than an adult human dna.
    This only means that that unborn humans have no rights according to corrupt laws. Corrupt enforced laws by corrupt governments are immoral and dehumanise humans. This has been witnessed in previous history many times enforced by many governments.
    So much for a voluntary solution, just another pack of lies.

    These corrupt governments give preference of one group over another. Usually to those who make the most noise. Unborn babies make virtually no noise.
    Well now you ask what is wrong with euthanasia run by the government ? Come on you are old enough to remember the final solution silly question...lol
    Thus it is clear who you are, you support dehumanising humankind. You call me a tyrant but you support the murder of those who have no choice, if anyone is despicable it is you. How you justify murdering babies is same insanity that the Nazis used on those whom they dehumanised and murdered.

  • robertallen1

    There is nothing more dehumanizing than producing unwanted children.
    Now, who the hell are you to be inflicting your version of morality on others?
    Once again, linking a woman's LEGAL right to choose whether to bring her pregnancy full term to the Nazis is further evidence of your basic dishonesty, ignorance and deception.

  • mikeysbro

    once again denying societies most vulnerable their human rights is a crime.
    You support taking away that choice thus you support depopulation aka eugenics.
    The only version of immorality is your version that is forced upon those that have no rights according to a corrupt government.
    There are many couples that cant have children and would be glad to have one.

  • robertallen1

    According to the latest report from the United States Census Bureau, there are 7.9 billion people on the face of the earth. We can do with some depopulation through birth control and abortion.
    Which legal document provides human rights to fetuses and while you're at it, let's see the source of your claim that there are many couples who cannot have children and would be glad to have one and then read the latest report from CCAI--not that you will, but it's on the internet.
    It's you and your vile clan who support taking away a LEGAL right which women currently enjoy. It's you and your despicable horde who would force a woman to undergo the tribulations of pregnancy and delivery merely to ram your version of morality down everyone's throat. It's you and ignorant religees like you who constitue one of the lowest forms of life on earth.

  • mikeysbro

    really, maybe if you stopped eating meat the world could support allot more people since most corn is used to feed animals and large amounts of other grains as well.
    Add to that small organic farms which increase yields through raised beds farming.
    there are no legal documents for unborn children because they are denied any rights from the freedom haters and immoral people who support corrupt governments.
    you already take away the right of the unborn who is not given any choice thus you are the one who despises any choice or freedom

  • robertallen1

    You haven't the faintest concept of sustainability, another new-found area of your ignorance.
    It's funny that someone who would deny a woman her LEGAL right to opt for an abortion calls others freedom haters. It's even funnier that someone who would force a woman to suffer the ordeals of abortion and delivery no matter what condemns those who support a woman's choice to immorality. It's amazing that someone who would force his morality and the idiotic and tyrannical religion accompanying it down other people's throats accuses others of despising choice or freedom.
    In sum, you are not only the ignoramus' ignoramus, but the hypocrite's hypocrite.

  • docoman

    G'day mikeysbro,
    where do you live mate? Do you have a veggie patch and grow your own food? Or do you buy from a grocery store? I take it you are a vegetarian or vegan, is that correct? I grow some of my own veggies, but not enough for all year supply, so still buy some too.

  • jackmax

    When are you going to stop being a hypocrite and start answering the questions being put to you. You say people insult you however I've noticed that the evidence presented to me in our attempted discussions have been contrary to your claims with evidence to confirm what we both already know

  • jackmax

    Opinions are like A$$holes mate everyone has one, but there are some like yours that should only be exposed whilst on the toilet...
    You have not right to deny female there right to choose.
    I have a five year old son and the evening my partner ask me what should we do? my response was it's not up to me it your body I will support you in what ever you decide, although my own selfish wants was to have our child.
    My point is we males only control over unwanted children is condoms because that's the final say you have. Because if you make a deposit you have no say in the interest it may reap

  • docoman

    We also have our own chickens which we get eggs from, and use their waste as fertilizer. My garden bed is a raised bed, that's watered with a drip system from a tank that's filled from the roof above me now. I make my own compost, the only thing I've brought in, apart from seeds, is a couple loads of topsoil, manure, and some lucerne had for mulch. The only bug killer I've used is a homemade brew of blended garlic and fresh chillies soaked over night and strained, then sprayed onto the unwanted bugs etc.
    So it is I believe what you call 'organic'.
    I also live in a suburb, admittedly probably bigger then your average size block, my garden is 6m by 9m, so I get a fair bit out of it, more then enough for myself, I give most of it to my family. When my brother finishes getting his place ready, we'll start raising our own chickens there to slaughter. No hormones to help growth, free-range chooks and eggs. He's got the room and is out of town. So for now I buy my meat.

    So answer your own questions mate. Where do you live, do you have your own sort of garden going too?
    IF you're in an apartment, if you have any sort of balcony, or you could even on a window sill, do a small garden if you want, even if it's only herbs. Cooking with fresh herbs tastes much better usually.
    Are you a vegetarian or vegan, or do you eat meat?

    Do you follow your own advice is what I'm asking.

  • mikeysbro

    that's great mate keep up the good work you are helping your kids future...

  • robertallen1

    You haven't answered jackmax' question. Is the answer too embarrassing?.

  • docoman

    No mate, I don't have my own kids. I have a couple nephews that have helped, one young one in particular that loves it, but not my own.

    Are you a vegetarian or vegan or meat eater, have you got a veggie patch going? Easy questions mate.

  • Kami Waive

    Since you started berating and commenting in every single post that opposes your views. Im not shoving my views to other people, I'm simply voicing them out while you feel the need to argue and berate every single individual who opposes abortion claiming that they are being a tyrant. The mere fact that you cant even see makes me so sad for you. Seriously ROBERT?! None of my business? if there is someone here whose VERY ESSENCE OF THE ISSUE IS NOT THEIR BUSINESS that would be you! YOU'RE A MAN ROBERT. You will never have experience what a woman goes through NEVER. You may shove all the data you can see and think, you may present all these 3rd party opinions but you can never describe to me how it felt like that that moment that stick turned 2 lines and all this weight is in your shoulders yet you realize how amazing it feels to be the sole carrier and provider of this little human life. You're a man and thats nothing against you. But to act as if you know anything at all. As if I dont have a right to say anything and be here when between the two of us there is absolutely nothing you can contribute that the internet cant provide. i'm here to give something more than data to speak from experience WHERE IT MATTERS. Because you can be the head of all the research institutions that promotes abortion but being a man you will never fully understand. I am not shoving my beliefs ROBERT, I'm simply speaking from experience and I know I'm not perfect and I may have said things that offended other people but YOU BRINGING DOWN AND BERATING EVERY WOMAN HERE WHO OPPOSES YOUR VIEWS OFFENDS ME BECAUSE YOU AS A MAN CAN NEVER UNDERSTAND not at the same level women do. I look at my children and I feel compelled to apologize for all the rude things I said to you or for offending you. I want to be a better example to them hence I am doing this. I hope you can have a reflection of your own Robert, and see what it is in you that makes you feel compelled to promote an issue you ESSENTIALLY know nothing about. Again, I'm sorry for the offense.

  • robertallen1

    To hell with your experience and to hell with your children. Sticking your nose into what is clearly none of your business and attempting to dictate to others on private matters such as the decision to abort make you low and despicable and turning abortion into a sexist issue vile--I'm not trying to dictate to women. you are!!!

  • Samantha

    I cannot believe how closed minded people are. If a woman wishes to keep her uterus empty then she will. It's her decision! It's her body! and if those christians think that abortion is the most terrible thing to do and women should not have one - tell that to victims of trauma, rape or incest who choose not to bring a baby into this world.
    As for the men in this documentary who comment that they hate abortion so much and that they want all the clinics to shut down. THAT IS NOT YOUR RIGHT! No uterus, No opinion. You cannot judge a woman for wanting an abortion when you do not even know what she is doing.. what if she is sexually/physically abused by her partner? what if her contraception failed? What if she makes $100 a week and cant afford to support herself let alone a child? What if she finds out that her child will be severely disabled and will suffer everyday of its life? THATS a womans right and its her choice.
    These decisions need to be made by women - not by arrogant pricks. And as for the women who hate abortion my advice is simple - spend your time doing more useful things like going to uni and getting a decent job and if you hate abortion that much then dont have one, nobody is forcing you to. Just leave the women who made that decision alone

  • over the edge

    voting the comment up just isn't enough. i have to say great post