Abortion - murder in the womb, while the government looks the other way

word of the day
unfathomable

OK but no matter how much you protest abortions will occur. You can make them illegal, they will still happen.
It's like prostitution or alcohol drinking. Laws will not eliminate abortions. You want the government to help you on this? How ridiculous. The government cannot do a damn thing about this. Get over it.

This is such a bullshit issue. In fact in most modern countries it's a non-issue. The US is way way behind the curve with this stupid obsession.
Don't we have better things to think and talk about?
Things that can actually be changed?

Oh, look everybody. Another man blatantly telling women what to do without an ounce of awareness of how he sounds. And with poorly researched information, no less. Splendid.

Is there even information? It's all opinion... there was no researched information. And... uhh... how do i sound? I sound like a care about the life inside you pro-choice women have inside of you that you seem to not give a crap about... it sounds like YOU ready and willing to abort as soon as you see your home pregnancy kit turn blue without thinking for a second what the implications are: that a baby will never get to grow, develop, learn, feel, love, all of the other things we take for granted that are taken away from an unborn child when it is aborted. I respect women. I do. But I also respect the life inside a woman who thinks of abortion as an ok thing to do. Unbelievable.

And if it's such a useless issue stardust, why is it one of the most debated in our country. Why is it a viewpoint on current.com?? Because it is an important issue.

LFJ,

The information I'm referring to is your "9 out of 10" stat, which is incorrect. 9 out of 10 babies *that are born* will live; that number doesn't refer to the ratio of fetuses that are brought to term. You have some phenomenally misguided ideas about what a woman goes through to make this decision, and your tendency to assume things about those that disagree with you really shows off your inability to make a valid argument and your incredible lack of real-world experience.

If the child is unborn, then is it really killing?

Why is a person charged with 2 counts of murder when they kill a pregnant woman? Because the so-called pro-life movement lobbied hard for this; it is all part of their plan to outlaw abortion.

This is such a complicated issue, way beyond your simplistic mindset. Many women make this difficult decision based on the best interest of the unborn child. You probably have no concept of what life is like for poor women, battered women, women in prison, mentally ill women, the list goes on. These women make a decision as to what is best for the child (just as every mother does once a child is born); sometimes the sad fact is that it is better if they are not brought into this world.

Ummmm actually thats because the baby is EXPECTED.

I agree with some of your opinion but like I said in another comment if they out-law it people will still do it. And I don't think laws should be based on moral opinions. But I agree strongly that everyone should have the chance to live struggels or not. So I think the only difference in my opinion is to prevent un-wanted pregnance from ever happening. Oh and commenting on Jasso, ya even though its not born it is living even the smallest cell is still living and yes its still a human even though its not born.

Since you are so interested in saving all lives, and lots of people die because of organ shortages,would you support a law that would require you to donate blood or even organs anytime someone will die without a transplant? Perhaps a national database that will match you up with potential recipients? After all, if you think that women need to act as incubators when they get pregnant to save an egg or an embryo, how can you justify letting a complete person die if your body can provide a life saving solution? Are you worried about being inconvenienced? Are you so selfish that you would deny someone that opportunity to live?
By the way if you republicans are so supportive of life? why do you accept that 16,000 people die every year due to lack of health insurance, and red-bait everyone who tries to make it an issue? Even as the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world with. real live babies dying for lack of money, you keep whining about the "unborn".Why do you support every damn imperialistic war that your government wages, regardless of the cost in human life, especially that of innocent children. The truth is, that you don't give a damn about life, but only oppose the power that people, especially women, want to have over their own lives. Ditto for those who want to die in dignity rather than suffer until their last breath. That's why I never call you guys "pro-life" You are simply anti-choice.As for that abortion-as- genocide BS, boy, you really have drunk the kool aid.

LFJ, you make things much too black and white, as if the world were that simple.

And I'm going to take a guess that you supported the invasion of Iraq, the Death Penalty, and are against Gun control, all which lead to the deaths of others, it's horribly Ironic.

.......

I think you're just thinking about Pro-Choice the wrong way. When a woman says, "it's my body, it's my choice", she's not saying "I'm having an abortion". She's saying she wants to be allowed to make the moral decision on her own free will.

You, LowFlyingJets, were able to come to the moral decision that abortion is wrong in the absence of a law strictly forbidding it. If it truly is the most enlightened position on the matter, then abortion opponents should present the information to the masses in the same ways that allowed them to become Pro-Life.

Of course abortions should be minimized, but you can only do that in combination with REAL sex education and the proliferation of contraceptives. And in the case where a woman needs to come to a decision on having an abortion, she should be allowed to make that decision.

The basis of the concept of freedom and liberty is the ability for us to use our own judgment to come to morally good decisions. You have to give people the tools to come to good decisions, and then actually allow them to develop as a free human being by letting them make those choices.

what if i said this?

murder. i should be able to make the moral decision on my own free will.

you see the problem with that? its a moral decision, yes, but it needs to be outlawd because its fundamentally wrong for everyone. as is abortion

I think you know why that's a bad metaphor. When someone is murdered, it's apparent, without a doubt, that the person killed is alive. There is no moral decision because there is no doubt. With abortion, it's different, because the state of "living" isn't clear. The definition differs from religion to religion, and even between different branches of medicine. It's not a "cut and dry" issue. If it were, there'd be no debate. Correct?

You could at least do well to admit that it's not cut and dry, and that the Pro-Life position is clearly meant to change public perception. Just so we're clear, that means mind control, rather than letting people fully develop into a self-realized being.

Clearly, LowFlyingJets, you're not getting much love for this opinion. And I'm with those who think you're misguided. I'll give you props for using some kind of math and presenting an almost palatable anti-abortion argument, but you're still wrong.

The law that states 'murdering a pregnant woman counts for two' was only passed at the federal level a few years ago...by a Republican-controlled Congress...and signed by a Republican president, for the sole purpose of providing anti-abortionists with exactly this kind of argument. It's not a law that represents the consensus of this country (as are say, laws against murder). It's as conceptually baseless as any of the laws that extended slavery in the 1850's. It's merely political posturing and ideological pursuit.

And if you're looking to the law to determine who is a human and who is not, then try this one: We don't give fetuses Social Security numbers. Why not? It's because we recognize - at the Federal level, by law - that life doesn't start until birth.

I wouldn't watch that c**p if you paid me. Don't let a crack head abort a fetus when it's a few weeks old, but it's OK for republicans to start wars so lower class citizens can join the army and go off to be slaughtered in the name of republican greed. Makes sense to me.

mulcahey, i didnt have a social security number til i was like 3 or 4. i know people that havent had one all their lives, due to errors in the system. i guess i wasn't alive til i was 4, and these people i know arent alive at all. instead of aruging poltiics, maybe i need to go get treated for schizophrenia

and the reason i dont get supporting comments is because this is a overwhelmingly democratic site (i work for a company that represents current tv, and they practically begged us to get republicans on here) second of all, you're more prone to respond to something you dont agree with than something you do in a situation like this.

One more time Low! If this site was heavy republican, you'd never see me in it. You mentioned that I always bring up Lil W. Any sit I've ever, and I mean ever, been to that is heavy republican, all I have to do is make one simple comment about something positive some Democrat has done and I get bombarded with "Baby murder", "faggot", "communist", "antiAmerican", "immoral", etc. They never have an answer or strategy for fixing anything, they can only attack and mislead and misinform.
You know what makes me sick, but hopeful at the same time?? It's all those republican wannabees that have been saying "I wish I had known before I voted for him." Yea, right, stupid. And you'll probably vote for him again the next time the lie sounds promising, but maybe not.

well you need to stop going to republican sites dominated by 9 year olds. im a conservative and im not afraid to come on here, a company started by al gore himself, and argue my points. you guys give really really good arguments and im learning a lot about both republican and democratic politics because of it... i really appreciate it. its too bad a couple of radical, immature republicans have to ruin it for all of us. for now, i'd like to keep debating on here. at least i know there are smart people going up against me

Low Flying~
I'm stoked!!! You're not a real republican after all. There is hope. That's actually been my point all along. I could see it in you. You're a good boy. A little misguided, but willing to learn. More than I can say for real republicans. Their problem is that they really are prejudiced about way too many things and allow no leeway in life for the rest of us to be individuals. That is what this country is all about and that is what should be defended above all else. Our freedom to choose for ourselves. And the way for that to happen, along with fewer abortions, is to have a fair and equitable economic system where everyone can have a decent paying job. You'd be surprised how many ills could be cured if we could get rid of the ultra greed that has been allowed because of our democratic/capitalistic society, which I, of course, love.

abortion is not a woman's right. it's not her body. it's not her organs and tiny little fingers and toes, arms and legs kicking around. this argument that "well they'll happen anyway, it's just like prostitution or prohibition" is such a terrible cop-out. choosing to pay a prostitute to have sex with you and killing a baby are vastly different. choosing to drink a 1/2 bottle of jack and killing a baby are vastly different. can anybody say "victimless crimes"? want to drink some booze? fine. you're only hurting yourself and damaging your own body. want to have sex with person you paid? fine. it's your money. you're only risking your own health. you people who make that argument, I just DO NOT understand it. and by the way, to ObiaMan, you've obviously encountered what we call "neo-cons" who call you faggot or commie or whatever. these are not republicans. these are facist shills who have hijacked my beloved party using the power of the religious right. these are not true conservatives at all so please refrain from lumping republicans into this god-awful neo-con establishment. small government, non-interventionist foreign policy, no welfare state, no world police, no nation building, no entangling alliances, truly free trade and truly free markets. these are the foundations of true conservativism and neo-cons represent none. they're big government loonies spending like a liberal and ruling like a fascist.

Zombie!!! (aptly named)

The "people" you claimed hijacked your beloved party stole it a long time ago I'm sorry to inform you. The fascists used to call themselves the Federalist Party when Abe and his band of thieves hijacked the South at the expense of tens of thousands of lives. It's been the same party all along. How much you figure that war cost?

Liberal spending?!?! All the programs the Democrats have started over the years to help the needy don't add up to the expenses we've incurred due to your party's wasteful horrendous spending. The difference is the Democrat's spending helps everyone while your party's spending only helps the rich, and to a gross extent.

And I sure didn't know that a fetus in a woman's womb had wiggling fingers and toes right off the bat. I learn something new every day from you all-knowing republicans. Your only argument is strictly religious in nature and has no business in our legal system. You're the one balking about liberal spending. Yet you're willing to force what is probably predominately a lower class have a whole bunch of babies they do not want and cannot afford, which would result in our welfare system growing 10 fold in short order. If a woman does not want a baby to the point of opting for an abortion, then what kind of life do you figure that person will have if it's mother is forced to bear it????

If it's a religious thing, then how does the baby actually suffer? It is terminated, it did no wrong, it goes back to heaven. Maybe the woman gets her act together, with a decent partner, and has another baby whom they take very good care of. A lot of people are just not competent/capable/suitable,etc. or responsible enough to be having babies and eventually putting their troubles off on all the rest of us. The baby goes to heaven. What can be better than that? And if the woman actually did a wrong, eventually she will answer to God. Why do you want to be the judge? Why do you feel you're that intelligent and wise to assume such a position?

I would never, ever suggest any woman have an abortion. But, I also would never, ever put in woman in prison for having an abortion 2 weeks after she conceived after a fit of passion over came her and she had unprotected sex at 18 years of age. I'm assuming you're not putting any restrictions on who and when and why and how.

And are you telling me that if your pretty, intelligent young sister, who seems to have a bright future ahead of her, became pregnant from being raped by some ugly, semi-retarded, escaped convict, should be forced into having "his" baby, and then granting him partial custody since he is the father??????????? No lines drawn? If so, where??????

Get rid of the extreme financial differences between the haves and the have nots, commit to serious education on an equal basis for all, quit imprisoning people for victimless crimes on an unequal basis, and make other improvements to the quality of life for all of our citizens, and abortions would probably go out of existence except for those republicans trying to hide their inappropriate behavior.

"if the woman actually did a wrong, eventually she will answer to God"

ok. if a woman murders, let's just not punish her because she'll be punished by god someday.

what an ignorant thing to say

ObiaMan, (my response is in parts, apparanty I went over the 4,000 character max.) look I understand your passion and anger on all the issues you've spoken of, but some of what you're saying is putting words in my mouth, my friend.

"The "people" you claimed hijacked your beloved party stole it a long time ago I'm sorry to inform you. The fascists used to call themselves the Federalist Party when Abe and his band of thieves hijacked the South at the expense of tens of thousands of lives. It's been the same party all along." I don't think Abraham Lincoln was a fascist, but what I'm referring to is the ridiculousnous of the religious right. I guess in reference to Iraq and the neo-cons and our situations of today, I was just referring to the "conservative revolution" of the 1980's under Ronald Reagan when we saw the religious right truly gain huge amounts of power in respect to the Republican Party. And as for liberal spending and helping the masses vs helping the rich, I'm not defending the Republicans in any way. I didn't defend them and I'm ashamed of them. In my post, what I stated was my support for the true conservative beliefs, which I also listed. I don't know if you're confused or misinformed but you seem to be directing a lot of misguided anger towards me in your post. I do not support the war, our interventionist foreign policy, or anything the Republican party of today is doing for that matter. Liberals have great ideas for taking people's money to help the poor, well sorry buddy, I don't support the entitlement system or a welfare state or a nanny government that supports you from cradle to grave. I have strong libertarian beliefs and don't want the Federal government taking anybody's money for anything. I hate taxes, I hate government intrusion, I hate wire-tapping and the defrauding of our civil liberties and the blatant disregard for the US Constitution. If you want to hold the Democratic party on a pedestal like they're the champions of the needy, fine, but they're not. A welfare state only keeps people poor and in respect to the Democratic party and the Republican party, I only have this to say: same shit, different piles. I referred to "spending like a liberal" because a traditional conservative belief (which has been trampled for so so long) is lower taxes and much less wasteful spending. That which governs best governs least, you know. So I'm sorry but don't come across attacking me like I'm the big government neo-con because I agree with you that they're the evil filth of the earth, alright?

OK and moving on to your rant on abortion pegging me as a "christian". You obviously spend a lot of time misjudging people because I am MOST certainly not a christian or religious AT ALL for that matter. You said: "Your only argument is strictly religious in nature and has no business in our legal system." This is not true at all and I don't where you pulled that from. My argument is based on what I believe to be universal laws. I think killing is wrong. I don't give a fuck what any religion says, I still think killing is wrong. You must have me confused with LowFlyingJets or something, lol, because the more I dig into your rant, you're just getting angrier and angrier and making wilder and wilder accusations.
"And I sure didn't know that a fetus in a woman's womb had wiggling fingers and toes right off the bat." I never said right off the bat, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's a person. This is not a religious argument.

I'm stating my opinion that a baby/fetus/embryo/whatever is not the woman's body. That's all? And yet you have nothing to say on that except this whole "forcing women to do this and burdening the system" ok we can talk about that and I'll address those points later but why don't you actually challenge the point I made which is: "abortion is not a woman's right. it's not her body." You go on to say this: "you're willing to force what is probably predominately a lower class have a whole bunch of babies they do not want and cannot afford, which would result in our welfare system growing 10 fold in short order."
haha holy cow man, what is this based on at all except sheer liberal anger? 'probably a predominately lower class having a whole bunch of babies which they do not want and can't afford' is it my fucking problem that they're having "a WHOLE BUNCH of babies"? No. It's not. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex. Where do get off telling me I'm forcing people to have a whole bunch of babies? This is ridiculous. The entire welfare system itself is fucked and it keeps people poor and if a woman is poor and keeps having babies, say 6, 7, 8, 9, more and more sex and more and more babies, what the hell do you want ME to do about it?? Why is it so hard to want to encourage PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I understand unintended pregnancies occur. but "whole bunches"? come on. we learn the birds and the bees as youngsters, everybody knows what happens.
I don't believe a woman should be forced to bear it but I believe we need to dramatically overhaul the adoption system and let mother's give kids up for adoption if they can't afford it. You go on to say "And if the woman actually did a wrong, eventually she will answer to God. Why do you want to be the judge? Why do you feel you're that intelligent and wise to assume such a position?" Wow. You must argue with religious people a lot. I'm not assuming I'm high and mighty and all-knowing and all-powerful. I'm just assuming killing is wrong and wish we could look at the society which doesn't encourage personal responsibility in the least bit. I would never, ever suggest any woman have an abortion. You said "I would never, ever put in woman in prison for having an abortion 2 weeks after she conceived after a fit of passion over came her and she had unprotected sex at 18 years of age." I don't want her to go to prison! Where are you getting this ridiculous slander? I want her to understand the concequences and again, try and look at a society which encourages irresponsibility. "a fit of passion" come on. "fits of passion" cause lots of things, it's an explanation, not an excuse. More of your accusations: "And are you telling me that if your pretty, intelligent young sister, who seems to have a bright future ahead of her, became pregnant from being raped by some ugly, semi-retarded, escaped convict, should be forced into having "his" baby, and then granting him partial custody since he is the father??????????? No lines drawn? If so, where??????" ok this one made me laugh, abortion is a serious issue but you really elaborated on the character development didn't you? maybe what you should have asked me is just the last part, about lines drawn. Yes, I do believe that when a woman is raped, that pregnancy should be able to be terminated by abortion. Killing is wrong and it truly saddens me greatly, but there are situations where it occurs. I don't support forcing a girl who was raped, which of course would be a totally NONconsensual, to go through pregnancy and childbirth when she had no intention of having sex whatsoever. You see? This is not an issue of personal irresponsibility. This is an issue of rape and it's a much different situation than when I see young girls parading down the street in a pro-choice parade wearing shirts that read "sluts for choice" which is disgusting.

OK so you have my position and if you would have simply asked before assuming I'm a redneck, religous fundamentalist biggot. And finally you say this: "Get rid of the extreme financial differences between the haves and the have nots, commit to serious education on an equal basis for all, quit imprisoning people for victimless crimes on an unequal basis, and make other improvements to the quality of life for all of our citizens, and abortions would probably go out of existence except for those republicans trying to hide their inappropriate behavior."


I agree mostly with what you're saying. I don't know how you would go about "getting rid of the extreme financial differences between the haves and the have nots" but if you're referring to government transfer of wealth and a socialist approach I greatly disagree. If, however, you're thinking more along the lines of stopping our imperialistic foreign policy, stopping having troops in 130 nations around the world, stopping nation building and spending trillions of dollars overseas borrowed on credit from foreign governments at a rate of 3 billion per day and printing money out of thin air which is backed by nothing by the Federal Reserve which creates inflation and rises the cost of living and the price of commodities and hurts poor people the most, by bringing ALL of those trillions back home and giving it back to the people who earned it and also investing in infrastructure and green technologies so we can get off foreign oil and so we can have a healthy, thriving, free-market economy which incourages immigration instead of scapegoating it and lastly setting an example to the nations of the world through peace and prosperity here at home rather than through the barrel of a gun on their doorstep as invaders, than I agree. I agree with seriously helping our education system, and we should do away with the income tax and and also allow schools to be accountable to the parents, NOT the Federal Government which I hardly trust in the first place. In short, I'm no religious bigot, so please don't peg me as one or put words in my mouth. I just believe killing is wrong. I believe we need to totally change our foreign policy. I think we need to abide by the Constitution for a change. I think we need to restore personal freedom and personal responsibility. I agree with legalizing victimless crimes. So, it seems, that your rant was based on hardly anything I said. You made a wide variety of incorrect accusations and actually, didn't even challenge the point I was making. Let's try this again, shall we?

PS - On the Lincoln/fascist thing. It sounds like you're supporting the CSA and their secession from the US, is that correct? Let me say that the South attacked first, initiating the war my friend.

Well, we're all glad to see the Republican side of things on here. I can tell you that the opinion of most Pro-Choice people is that they don't like abortion. We just think that given the right tools (education & health) that abortion can be minimized to near zero. This is especially obvious when you realize that the majority of women that have abortions are low-income, under-education, and not healthy. We don't need the government to remind us of how to be morally decent people, that's why people go to church or look to academic ways of finding morality (i.e. they come to morality on their own).

I think what zombie_loves_brains is getting at is that the recent shift in Republicanism is clearly more authoritarian than what Democrats used to be. To take that one step further, most of the Democrats since Bill have been pro-business, anti-authoritarian. So there is a pretty sharp change in both parties. (I meant authoritarian in terms of restricting choice/freedom)

But this is supposed to be about abortion, and I'll have to defend Mulchahey here. What he's meaning to say is that it's impossible for a fetus to get a SSN. I mean, try to get a fetus a SSN... It's possible for anyone to get an SSN that is already born.

What I find interesting is how inconsistent most anti-choice people are (though I dont know if this person feels that way) when it comes to ANYTHING other than a fetus. They will be pro-death penalty. They will be pro-torture oops I mean enhanced interrogation techniques. They will be pro-war on the grounds that other peoples lives arent as valuable as our own. None of these people who feel so passionately about abortion give a second thought to animal testing and abuse or factory farm animal abuse. Nor do we see them on the news demanding a change to our international free trade agreements on the grounds that it prompts abuse of child labor in other countries. Again Im not saying this particular person feels that way on these issues. Im saying that in general the passion these advocates feel for a fetus seem weirdly limited to prebirth. Again they don?t seem to care about animal health and welfare nor are they campaigning tirelessly to raise taxes so our orphanages have better conditions and more money. And again they seem fairly indifferent or possibly oblivious to the living conditions of children in other countries such as Mexico or South America or China. I would totally support and respect the Pro-Life Movement IF and only if they actually espoused and lived a Buddhist attitude of nonviolence for ALL creatures. That would mean being against war, against torture, against the death penalty, against animal testing, against factory farms in addition to being deeply involved in campaigning to improve the lives of children in less developed countries like our neighbors to the south. That we could all respect because theyd be walking the talk. In the absence of that I could still support the Pro Life position very easily IF their position was that this is such a personal and subjective issue that each woman must be allowed to make it on their own. Being a melting pot and a democracy we will never have universal agreement on such subjective issues. That is why we dont have one national religion. It makes sense to simply keep it legal and let each person make their own decisions. There will never be agreement on something so subjective as when a collection of cells becomes alive. At a basic level this is a religious call and should be left to each person and each religion to decide for themselves. Thats just how it has to be in a melting pot with so many diverse cultures and religions. We have to agree to disagree and stop demonizing those that view things differently.

key word there. UNBORN!