flip flop flip flop.

It's a perfectly valid position.

I think religion is moronic and destructive, but I would kill and die to protect the right of others to practice their beliefs.
I think having more than two children is selfish and does horrendous damage to the planet, but I respect the right of others to live their lives the way they wish.
You can hate abortion, but you have an obligation as an American to respect the rights of citizens as defined in the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Giuliani's position is perfectly rational.

"You can hate abortion, but you have an obligation as an American to respect the rights of citizens as defined in the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

Laura, can explain to me where abortion rights is implied in these admendments?

"I respect the right of others to live their lives the way they wish."

With that line of reasoning, you must respect the terrorists who killed people on 9-11, since they were living their lives the way they wanted to, right?

Laura, 11:53a: Look around. You're about the only person left - whether pro-life or pro-abort - who is trying to defend Roe v. Wade on its merits.

Inherent in our system is the right to be left alone from the government. If the government said you must wear two pairs of socks at all times, there is nothing specifically in the Constitution that protects you, but the government is clearly overstepping it's role.

It's not a flip flop (See Mitt Romeny) to say abortion is wrong but should not be banned. It's a legitmate view, apparently based on the premise that the ban would interfere with personal rights and be unworkable in any event.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..
— Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution,of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.
— Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,or property, without due process of law�.
— Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,or property, without due process of law"

sounds like an anti-abortion statement to me.

Jasper, depends on whether the pre-born are citizens or persons.

Hal,

would you consider a living human a person?

I'm not sure Jasper. A "person" is generally defined as "a human being" so I thing the two mean about the same thing. Are you a "person" before you are born. Pro-lifers clearly would say yes.

When a person becomes a person is the essence of this debate isn't it?

Ok, so you think a living human is a person -good.

do you think unborn babies are living humans?

Bit of an anti Gulliani campaign lately Jill! Have you filed for you PAC status yet, or still operating under the $1000 wire?

I think my new nick for Heather4life is going to be Polly (the Parot).

Jill's response to Laura, translated: come on man, everbody's doing it... you can be our friend if you try it.

Jasper... Constitution quite clearly states "born"

It's not a flip flop (See Mitt Romeny) to say abortion is wrong but should not be banned. It's a legitmate view, apparently based on the premise that the ban would interfere with personal rights and be unworkable in any event.

I have never been able to understand this, mostly because I never been able to get any pro-choice advocate to explain what they mean by the statement "it's wrong" when they say "it's wrong for me but I wouldn't want to make sure people are not allowed to do it".

Since they obviously don't feel it's murder, what are the reasons that these people believe it is wrong? I have gotten the answer that the unborn child is a potential life, not yet a "actual" life but no one has given me any evidence as to how this could be, since nothing changes to the baby from conception onward, except developmental changes, which continue way past birth.

I have also heard that they "just don't like it"...

That still doesn't answer the question of "why" they don't like it.

I can say, I personally dislike cigarettes, but I will not oppose someone using them. I can also tell you without even skipping a beat the reason why I dislike cigarettes.

Why is it so difficult for those who say they would try to convince others not to abort, and think that it's wrong for them, to explain why it is wrong?

What is the context of the word "born", Cameron?

Cameron, I think free speach allows bloggers (and the rest of us) to support and attack canidates without registering with the government. I sure hope so. Look at Andrew Sullivan's support for Ron Paul today. Sure it helps the campaign but he's not part of the campaign.

Jasper, we're not going to find common ground by debating personhood. Regardless of whether unborn babies are human, I don't think government should be allowed to ban abortion.

Pro-choicers are not ignorant. I know that abortion "stops a beating heart." You think that all we have to do is underestand what abortion is and we would have to oppose it. I understand what it is. I'm just okay with it. That's what you're missing.

Hal, I just can't understand how such a nice guy like you can be okay with abortion when you say you understand what it is and what it does. I really don't understand that. Cameron liking abortion, I understand. SOMG liking abortion, I understand. You supporting abortion ,I just don't get, mainly becaue you seem like the kind of guy who wouldn't hurt anyone. But of course, all I have to go by are your words on a screen. Know what I mean?

Bethany, thanks for your kind words. I think if you met me you would have the same opinion. I'm a nice guy.

You're asking the ultimate question again. Is abortion right or wrong? Should government have the power to prevent it? When does a person have rights?

What you guys have trouble believing is that reasonable people can hold different views on these questions. You have an image of pro-choice "fanatics" when the reality includes very many people you would otherwise find reasonable and decent. I've been thinking what separates me from you on this issue. I really don't know the answer. I'll continue to ponder. ...

Cam-Cam, I get on rolls. I become particularly aggravated by pontius pilates who try the "I think it's wrong but don't want to tell anyone else what to do" line.

"...mostly because I never been able to get any pro-choice advocate to explain what they mean.."

I think Laura's analogy was a good one, and you just don't agree based on your personal notions, but, mostly you're not listening because you can't get past your brain screaming OMG the babieeeeeeeees.

You, Bethany, thinking women should be forced to do something with their bodies even when they would not wish to, I don't understand. Not just mostly, but wholly, no prolifer has ever been able to explain to me, or anyone with any modest capicity and influence in bioethics, why pregnancy should be compulsory.

You, Bethany, thinking women should be forced to do something with their bodies even when they would not wish to, I don't understand. Not just mostly, but wholly, no prolifer has ever been able to explain to me, or anyone with any modest capicity and influence in bioethics, why pregnancy should be compulsory.

Actually, we have, you just haven't listened. We believe the human right to life supercedes the right not to be inconvenienced. Inconvenience- death, which is worse. Death.

"I become particularly aggravated by pontius pilates who try the "I think it's wrong but don't want to tell anyone else what to do" line."

I think it’s wrong that people have to defer to the bible for ever right-wrong distinction, but who am I to prevent them from doing so. By your logic Jill, am I pontious pilate for not seeking a ban on the bible?

War does not determine who is right, war determine who is left.

Someone just sent this to me...thought it was pretty good.

"Pro-choicers are not ignorant. I know that abortion "stops a beating heart." You think that all we have to do is underestand what abortion is and we would have to oppose it. I understand what it is. I'm just okay with it."

Ok, then there's nothing else to disuss. This is where morals come into play.

or lack thereof...

"We believe the human right to life supercedes the right not to be inconvenienced."

No you don't... seriously think about what that means before you blither on: life v. inconvenience???

In no uncertain terms, you believe that the fetus' right to life exceeds that of all other humans. If that is not the case, then you should be advancing enforced organ donation to save any person at any developmental stage no matter if the organ donor is willing or not... just so long as they can spare the organ and a life is saved. You simply facilitate your disgusting disregard for bodily-autonomy by presuming, foolishly and sweepingly, unwholesome characteristics of the donor (e.g. not wanting to be inconvenienced, selfish, sluts, etc...) not unlike thief delusionally disparaging those he's robbing from.

We all have morals.

We all have morals.

Perhaps, but I would rather follow Jaspers and the Catholic Churches than the Charles Mansons...

We may all have morals. But some have rather loose ones.

"Ok, then there's nothing else to disuss. This is where morals come into play."

I didn't realize you people were actually having a discusion... so much as engaging in repetative transative bleatings.

Well Cameron,

With your intellectual and stimulating input how we not "discuss"...

Riveting.

Again.

MK: "Perhaps, but I would rather follow Jaspers and the Catholic Churches than the Charles Mansons..."

Perhaps, but that's not really the choice. I might not like Charles Manson, but there are a lot of people I'd be happy to follow before Jasper, the Church, or even my friend Jill.

No you don't... seriously think about what that means before you blither on: life v. inconvenience???

In no uncertain terms, you believe that the fetus' right to life exceeds that of all other humans.

Yes, in the case of all other humans who are pregnant with a child -Their child's life is more important than their right to be completely free from inconvenience.

Not that there is such a right (to be free from all inconvenience)...

Just as riveting as your Manson/morals false dilema. If your demagogy is any indication of your capacity for morals, I just might consider Manson mmmmmm not so bad by comparison.

Perhaps, but that's not really the choice. I might not like Charles Manson, but there are a lot of people I'd be happy to follow before Jasper, the Church, or even my friend Jill.

Talk about stating the obvious...

The point is, while everyone has morals, not everyone's morals are laudable. Some are quite questionable. Many lead to behaviors that are quite unsavory.

Just as riveting as your Manson/morals false dilema. If your demagogy is any indication of your capacity for morals, I just might consider Manson mmmmmm not so bad by comparison.
And your "faux" cyber creep is a better indication of your morals, Cameron?

"Perhaps, but that's not really the choice. I might not like Charles Manson, but there are a lot of people I'd be happy to follow before Jasper, the Church, or even my friend Jill."

Ok, that's your choice Hal. I hope you change your mind some day.

Cameron,

If your demagogy is any indication of your capacity for morals, I just might consider Manson mmmmmm not so bad by comparison.

For you that would actually be a step up...

Oooohhh, I've missed a doozy while I was at lunch.

midnite said: "I dont see it as a life b/c it is living off of another human being's body and nutrients, and it is not "living" in the world"

So, the day before the Mother gives birth (39-40weeks), she should be able to have an abortion legally? why not, it's not a life, correct?

"Yes, in the case of all other humans who are pregnant with a child -Their child's life is more important than their right to be completely free from inconvenience."

You can throw in emotionally loaded bs whereever you want, but it’s bs and you morality is suspect for having employed it. This has nothing to do with convenience and inconvenience, beyond the fact that you find it convenient to call other people names in order to support your illegitimate notions. I think you insistence on demonizing all those seeking abortions is indicative of stupidity at best and moral bankruptcy at worse. Doesn’t your bible tell you not to lie, to show compassion, etc.... You sound more like a Satan worshiper than a Jesus worshiper... filled with hate and bridled with anger. Why so much hate and anger Beth... were you one of those inconvenienced mothers? Do you resent your children? Are you really that stupid as to think that is the case for any and every mother seeking abortions, or are you just ugly inside?

Awww midnite,

I was just havin' fun with Cameron...you know, lull in the conversation...he baits me, I bait him...

I don't know what I'd do without that boy. I've grown rather fond of him. This way, I take out my frustrations on him and I end up beating the children less.

Laura,

You give your reasons for disliking religion and why you think families should be limited to two children. I may not agree, but they are reasons. Bethany can say why she dislikes cigarettes. I can tell you why I dislike rattlesnakes but support someone's right to handle them if they so wish.
You don't say why specifically you dislike abortion.

Hal and Laura

Where in the Amendments you mention does it say anything about abortion? I read one account where the Supreme Court talked of the right to abortion coming from "eminations arising from the penumbra" cast by what I believe were these amendments. "Eminations" are steam,vapor, or odor a "penumbra" is the shadow cast by the sun during an eclipse. This sounds to me like a combination of tea leaf reading and astronomy. By the way, any number of legal scholars, whatever their stand on abortion, have criticized the Supreme Court for their exercise of "raw judicial power".

"The point is, while everyone has morals, not everyone's morals are laudable. Some are quite questionable. Many lead to behaviors that are quite unsavory."

Like lying to would be mothers about abortion related risks, bombing clinics, killing doctors, threatening doctors, etc... ??

Cameron, your new nickname is Cut Throat Cameron. You can call me Polly.

see below, from a feminist blog, I just got banned for posting a link to abortion photos. Another nice reponse from the open-minded, tolerant people:

"Bottom line, Jasper: If you gave a shit about the poor widdle babies, you'd support birth control or even male responsibility, which my instinct says your backwoods trailer park ass doesn't."

You can throw in emotionally loaded bs whereever you want, but it’s bs and you morality is suspect for having employed it. This has nothing to do with convenience and inconvenience, beyond the fact that you find it convenient to call other people names in order to support your illegitimate notions.

Cameron, it has everything to do with inconvenience. And was I calling you a name?

I think you insistence on demonizing all those seeking abortions is indicative of stupidity at best and moral bankruptcy at worse.

That's your opinion...and I don't see myself as demonizing anyone. I just refuse to justify murder.

Doesn’t your bible tell you not to lie, to show compassion, etc....

Yes, and yes. Where have I shown no compassion to someone who was suffering?

You sound more like a Satan worshiper than a Jesus worshiper..

Really, that's just silly.

filled with hate and bridled with anger.

Who do you think I am angry with, Cameron. I am sitting her calmly, typing a message to you, every once in a while giving my daughter a little hug while she's reading Calvin and Hobbes. I am not angry at all. But you are starting to sound so.

were you one of those inconvenienced mothers?

Every mother is inconvenienced at one point or another in life. That's called reality.

Do you resent your children?

No, I want many more.

Are you really that stupid as to think that is the case for any and every mother seeking abortions, or are you just ugly inside?

I think while the cases may be different for each woman, the outcome is still the same.

Cut Throat Cam, what exactly is soooo great about abortionists? Tiller looks like John Wayne Gacy, Carhart, well he looks like he starred in Dawn of the Dead. So on and so forth.

Cameron,

Like lying to would be mothers about abortion related risks, bombing clinics, killing doctors, threatening doctors, etc... ??

Yes, now you're getting it! Exactly like that.

Which is while you'll never catch Bethany, Jill, Valerie, Hisman, Jasper, Samantha, Rasqual, John Mary, or myself engaging in any of those activities.

You on the other hand...

. This way, I take out my frustrations on him and I end up beating the children less.

If I had coffee right now I would have spit it all over the keyboard. That sure did give me a good laugh, MK.

jasper, they are so stupid!

"And your "faux" cyber creep is a better indication of your morals, Cameron?"

I'm not the pious one here (i.e. no facade of moral superiority). Also, my cyber creep thing is actually funny for some, just so long as it's not reaching the level of harasment. I'm sorry you're too peevish to enjoy sexually loaded humor exceed your Andy Griffith limit.

Bethany,

If I had coffee right now I would have spit it all over the keyboard. That sure did give me a good laugh, MK.

Yes, well, it made the children quite happy too!

Like lying to would be mothers about abortion related risks, bombing clinics, killing doctors, threatening doctors, etc... ??,

No, the pro-life side does not condone those who do things that do things like kill abortionists, threaten, or bomb clinics. People who do that are no more pro-life than you are. Pro-life does not equal- willing to murder in order to promote your cause.

jasper, I swear you should have seen the one I came across. These folks made Cam look like a saint.

I'm not the pious one here (i.e. no facade of moral superiority).

Could've fooled me! :)

Also, my cyber creep thing is actually funny for some, just so long as it's not reaching the level of harasment.

Which it did...

I'm sorry you're too peevish to enjoy sexually loaded humor exceed your Andy Griffith limit.

I'm sorry that that is the extent of your ability to find humor in things.

jasper,they deleted my comment yesterday too.

"I think while the cases may be different for each woman, the outcome is still the same."

OMG... is that reasonable concensus? Can we go back to the legitimate question then, and possibly, maybe stop demonizing all mothers?

When and why does a fetus have a right to the unvolunteered body/organs of another when nobody else does? I've heard some thoughtful and challenging repsonses to this question which didn't require emotionally/loaded and unfair characterizations. What've you got now, inconveniance aside?

OMG... is that reasonable concensus? Can we go back to the legitimate question then, and possibly, maybe stop demonizing all mothers?
When and why does a fetus have a right to the unvolunteered body/organs of another when nobody else does? I've heard some thoughtful and challenging repsonses to this question which didn't require emotionally/loaded and unfair characterizations. What've you got now, inconveniance aside?

Because pregnancy is a unique situation which is different from most, and must be therefore handled differently.

Again, I haven't demonized women who have had abortions.

Oh, man, you guys! Let's not divert to petty insults. We do have a topic here, yes? Abortion. Guiliani's stand. Let me give an opinion:

Now, by definition, Mr. Giuliani is not flip-flopping. His opinion has remained constant through these quoted testimonies: he does not like abortion (hates it, in fact), he would counsel women against it, but he does not want to interfere with their right to one.

This opinion is more common than you might think, eh?

"When and why does a fetus have a right to the unvolunteered body/organs of another when nobody else does?"

I diagree with your premise: "unvolunteered"

Cameron,
In regards to this statement
"You, Bethany, thinking women should be forced to do something with their bodies even when they would not wish to, I don't understand."

Well Cameron, I don't understand.
This statement could clearly apply to all of the young girls and women who are forced to abort by parents, boyfriends, and husbands because abortion is legal.

Even upon going to the abortion mills women have stated they were never offered any other options other than to abort. As one women stated, "Once you are in the abortioner's office there is no choice." Women have testified they changed their minds on the table but were told it was too late. Lies Lies Lies.Why weren't these womens allowed to leave??

If abortion clinics are "pro choice", then why don't the mills offer any other options to girls and women who may clearly be undecided and not comfortable enougth to go ahead with the procedure. Adoption information, crisis pregnancy center information, material on organizations could help them with their pregnancy and if applicable get out of abusive relationships.

I have read so many testimonies from women who said they were so hoping some pro-life counselers would have been protesting on the day they were driven to the mill by family or significant others so they could run to them for help because nobody else wanted to listen to them.

Also, how can you explain that abortion mills are so afraid of women's rights to see ultrasounds of their babies. Hummm........this also doesn't sound like they are helping women make "choices".
These places are out for money and are manipulating women every day into abortion.

They are ultimately guilty in psychologically forcing vulnerable women into their money grubbing blood stained hands.

"Because pregnancy is a unique situation which is different from most, and must be therefore handled differently."

Indeed... it is unique because the fetus and mother are inextricably linked, but stating the obvious is not a justification/rationale. Would you care to elaborate further?

"Again, I haven't demonized women who have had abortions."

Um... saying anyone seeking an abortion is doing so for conveniance sake is, in addition to unfair sweeping generalization, an unsavory characterization intended to advance your argument illegitimately.

"I diagree with your premise: "unvolunteered""

LMAO.

Short of redefining words of the english language to suite your purposes, which is a common rightwing ploy, would you care to elaborate??

When and why does a fetus have a right to the unvolunteered body/organs of another when nobody else does?"

I diagree with your premise: "unvolunteered"

oops, double post..

why is a pregnancy unvolunteered?

Sandy, Terrific post!

the baby or fetus(as cam likes to call it) didn't put itself in the mothers womb? The mother and father did. So, it's not an un-volunteered use of the mothers body

Jasper,

Get real. Didn't you know that consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy?

Jasper:

It is if it's rape.

MK: "Get real. Didn't you know that consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy?"

I know you meant that sarcastically, but it's true. Most of the time, people do not have sex for the sole purpose of getting pregnant.

"Jasper:

It is if it's rape."

Although this is a tough sitution, it's still not the baby's fault, he didn't put himself there.

"I know you meant that sarcastically, but it's true. Most of the time, people do not have sex for the sole purpose of getting pregnant."

but pregnancy is somthing that could happen if you have sex, so if you're not responsible to take care of a baby, then don't have sex.

Cambo, 1:55p, thou doth protest too much on my use of "pontius pilate" to describe the pro-choice position. Ever heard of "martyr," as in "Justin Martyr," or "Benedict Arnold," to describe someone as a traitor?

You are too reviled by the Bible, Cambo, like Dracula to the cross. Perhaps we should start wearing a garlic necklace when you're online to protect ourselves from you.

@ Jasper:

"So, the day before the Mother gives birth (39-40weeks), she should be able to have an abortion legally? why not, it's not a life, correct?"

Well, I really dont see the point in answering this Jasper, b/c ID&X has been banned except if the mother's health is in danger. So really a mother can't just walk into a clinic two days before her due date and say "Hey! I've waited long enough and I dont think I want to be a mom anymore". They will laugh at her and not do the abortion. But to make you happy, I will answer the question.

I honestly can not rationalize a mother going through 39-40 weeks of pregnancy and then just changing her mind. If it were legal (which it is now not), if she wanted to, I gues she should have the right to go through with it, if that's what she so desires. I honestly would find that horrid and cruel, but again, it's not my body or my decision. Do I agree with her decision? No not really.

Are you happy now?

Jasper: "so if you're not responsible to take care of a baby, then don't have sex."

Nooo no no no. You don't get to use that argument. Self-righteousness has no place in debate. You cannot just say "don't have sex" and expect people to just agree and go on their merry, celibate way.

If YOU don't want a baby, then YOU don't have sex. If I don't want a baby, but I still want to have sex, then I have every right to do so.

jasper, I have no desire to be pregnant, under any circumstances. There will never be a case where I desire this. Should I never have sex, according to your view on morality?

Midnite:"I honestly would find that horrid and cruel"

why would that be horrid and cruel, you said the fetus wasn't living until it was born?

Leah: "Nooo no no no. You don't get to use that argument. Self-righteousness has no place in debate. You cannot just say "don't have sex" and expect people to just agree and go on their merry, celibate way."

I don't get to use that argument? says who? this is the exact reason why we have 50,000,000 abortions. People having sex who are not responsible enough to raise children. So, they take the easy and brutal way out- "ah what heck lets have an abortion"

"Because pregnancy is a unique situation which is different from most, and must be therefore handled differently."
Indeed... it is unique because the fetus and mother are inextricably linked, but stating the obvious is not a justification/rationale. Would you care to elaborate further?
"Again, I haven't demonized women who have had abortions."
Um... saying anyone seeking an abortion is doing so for conveniance sake is, in addition to unfair sweeping generalization, an unsavory characterization intended to advance your argument illegitimately.

What is "I can't afford it"? It's an excuse of convenience. In America, anyone who is willing to work can get a job and get paid, or even get on welfare if they are either unwilling or unable to work. Then there are programs like WIC which help you to pay for food (I actually was on WIC the first year of my marriage when I was 18 and pregnant). There is no reason to use "I can't afford it" as an excuse, except that it is inconvenient for a person to have to come up with the extra funds to support a child.
"I'm not ready".... this is an excuse of convenience over the life of a child.
"Don't want to be a single parent"...it's inconvenient to be a single parent, but it's possible, and many people do this.
"Don't want anyone to know I've had sex or I'm pregnant". Another inconvenience excuse. It would be inconvenient for her if anyone found out, because she would have some uncomfortable conversations for a while.
"too young or immature to have a child". Again, convenience. Children can be put up for adoption.
"I already have all the children I want".
Inconvenience.
"My husband, partner, or parent want me to have an abortion."
Not only inconvenience, but coersion by friends or family to abort, which is even worse, and certainly not pro-choice.
"health problem of mother or baby."
Inconvenience. Yes, it's tough, and I certainly sympathize with any woman who is going through health problems while she is pregnant. A friend of mine for over 4 years, who is pro-life, recently found out she is pregnant. Two weeks later, she informed me that she has lymphoma, which she previously thought was just her thyroid acting up. She is now awaiting treatment, but hoping that the doctors will do everything they can to ensure that she and her baby are both safe.
She is about 8 weeks along. I am praying every day that she will be allright, and that her baby will make it.
Yes, it's inconvenience to have to deal with health issues AND have to go through all the things that go along with pregnancy...inconvenience is not always minor. And by the way before you make it out like the pregnancy is her problem...the problem is the lymphomia. It only happened to be recognized at the time she found out she was pregnant.
Sometimes inconvenience is tough, very tough. I don't take it lightly. But when it comes to choosing one over the other, right to life supercedes right to not be inconvenienced.

And in the case of a baby who is unhealthy, if you are afraid you'll be inconvenienced by medical bills or time spent (like in a down's syndrome child, or spina bifida), inconvenience. (and there's always adoption).
And if you know your baby is going to die anyway, why add more guilt to yourself, instead of just letting it happen the way it should naturally? It's about convenience, not wanting to have to deal with the emotions and the time being pregnant with a child who might not live but for a few hours. Convenience, Cameron, Convenience. I'm not saying I'm not sympathetic, quite the contrary. I feel terribly for these poor people who have to deal with situations like this. But killing an innocent unborn child isn't the answer.

As for rape, I'll quote from a website which says it better than I can:

"But what of those rare occurrences when pregnancy does result from rape? Is it fair to expect a woman to suffer the inconvenience and hardship of carrying a child to term when the conception was without her consent? Such cases are obviously both emotionally and ethically difficult. A Christian answer will involve the more basic question of the personal status of the unborn child: Is the unborn a potential or an actual human being? It is not difficult to imagine how the hardship to the woman might outweigh the value of a merely potential life and therefore justify abortion. But if the newly conceived life is an actual human being, that would take precedence over the possible hardship and inconvenience to the woman, and abortion would not be an option."

By the way, all those reasons are from Planned Parenthood's site.

"jasper, I have no desire to be pregnant, under any circumstances. There will never be a case where I desire this. Should I never have sex, according to your view on morality?"

use natural family planning. not abortion.

Midnite,
You keep saying that it is no longer legal to have a late term abortion and this is simply NOT true.

Jasper, I dont think abortion is an option taken lightly by an woman (except those few that abuse it). And for you to automatically assume that it is shows you are the one lacking compassion, not me.

"use natural family planning. not abortion."

Use birth control. Be responsible. Heaven forbid something goes wrong and you (relative term) decide that you are not ready to be a parent, thank goodness that you still have the option to abort.

Above all, do not be so ignorant to think that only married couples have sex. It has never been that way and it never will be.

Leah, I am not answering for Jasper, but since you mentioned it, I don't use birth control at all, not even natural family planning. I believe personally that God opens and closes the womb and if He feels fit to give me one, I can handle it. There's no "I'm not ready for a child, so I'll abort the one I just created" here.

Midenite:

we'll, I still don't know why you would find abortion horrid and cruel at the 39th week?

you said the fetus wasn't living until it's born.

please tell me why it's horrid?

Thanks

Bethany: "Leah, I am not answering for Jasper, but since you mentioned it, I don't use birth control at all, not even natural family planning"

That's fine, Bethany. If that works for you, that's your choice and I respect that greatly. But you wouldn't get an abortion, anyway, so I don't see how this works to prove a point.

well, you assumed that Jasper would.

(relatively)

See, look, how can you make a moral judgement and tell him to "be responsible" by using birth control, but you can't make a moral judgement to say, "Be responsible...take care of the child in your womb."?

No I didn't. You must have misunderstood/misinterpreted what I said.

I probably did, looking back on it. Sorry about that. I had a brain fart again.

Darn it, I do that so often too. I seem to sometimes read up a few posts and not look further up till I've already responded. There's just so many posts to be read. I'll try to be better about that, cause it does lead me to misunderstand posts at times.

Jasper:

I think it's horrid and cruel b/c most mothers at that point in their pregnancy, have a name for their child, have clothes, a room etc. They've felt their fetus kick their tummy and move around. Almost all abortions done by ID&X are b/c the mother's helath is at risk, not b/c she changed her mind.

And actually they are *only* done now if the mother's health is at risk. Id&X is illegal except under those circumstances any ways.

Midnite,

I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight...but you are just not getting it....

The reason we HATE the health exception is that ANYTHING can be a health exception. Not a life exception, a health exception. That means hang nails, twitches or a blue mood...

Id&X is NOT the only way to do a late term abortion.
It is one METHOD. Late term abortions are still legal. For any reason...

Why aren't you getting this?

You guys are aware that abortion is the #1 political issue for about 1% of all voters?

Conservative activists fear war dwarfing social agenda
By Susan Milligan, Boston Globe Staff | April 7, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Social conservatives seeking to ban abortion and same-sex marriage are worried that their agenda is increasingly being overshadowed by the war in Iraq, making it more difficult for their voices to be heard in Congress and the presidential campaign than at any time in more than a decade.
While conservative social issues were widely considered pivotal in President Bush's victory in 2004, social conservatives say they fear the 2008 elections will be decided by an event out of their control -- the war -- and dominated by Republican presidential candidates who are faithful to the party line on Iraq but less supportive on gay rights, abortion, and end-of-life issues.

Ken Blackwell , a Republican who ran unsuccessfully for governor of Ohio last year, said conservatives will have a hard time pushing their agenda to the forefront of the presidential campaign until the war retreats as an issue.

"I don't think we have to win the war by the next election. But I think we have to make more Americans believe the war is being prosecuted competently, and for a reason," said Blackwell, who recently joined the Family Research Council as senior fellow for family empowerment.

"If the public attention is that the war is being prosecuted in an incompetent, clumsy, or incoherent fashion, it becomes a greater challenge to focus attention" on matters such as abortion, stem cell research, and gay rights, he said.

Tony Perkins , president of the Family Research Council, was even more gloomy in his prognosis, saying Republicans appear to have strayed from the conservative social agenda.

"The way the presidential campaign is shaping up, it looks like a continuation of November's elections," when Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress, Perkins said. "It was a disaster for Republicans because they had lost their way on [conservative social] issues."

So far, Iraq has dominated the presidential campaign in both parties. A poll released Thursday by Diageo/ The Hotline indicated that Iraq was by far the single most important issues to voters, with 30 percent of all respondents -- 21 percent of Republicans, 38 percent of Democrats, and 32 percent of independents -- naming their opposition to the war as the most critical issue facing the United States today. The issue was far ahead of healthcare, the economy, immigration, terrorism, and the environment, all of which scored in the low single digits on the importance scale.

Another 4 percent of all voters (including 6 percent of Republicans, 2 percent of Democrats, and 4 percent of independents) call their support of the war the most important issue.

Social issues ranked lowest. Religious and family issues were the most important for only 2 percent. Opposition to abortion rights was first for less than 1 percent. And same-sex marriage -- pro or con -- was first for less than 1 percent.

Meanwhile, conservative priorities such as abortion restrictions and constitutional amendments banning flag burning and same-sex marriage are not on the radar screen of Congress, where even leading GOP lawmakers have been distracted by war issues.

"Iraq is the elephant in the room, and until that gets resolved one way or the other, it will continue to dominate the dialogue," said Whit Ayres, a GOP consultant.

Nonetheless, social issues have always served as a rallying point for core Republican voters, driving up turnout and, in some cases, providing the margin in closely contested states. But this year, activists say, they are discouraged.

In Ohio -- where activists in 2004 made same-sex marriage a central issue, helping President Bush wrest the critical state from Democratic nominee John F. Kerry -- social conservatives "feel as though their issues are constantly being pushed to the back burner," said Mark Weaver , a Columbus-based GOP consultant. "There's a frustration there. But they don't see a candidate they can coalesce around" who will bring those issues to the forefront of the national political debate, Weaver said.

The current leaders for the presidential nomination aren't emphasizing social issues. Former mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York -- who supports the Iraq war and the "surge" of additional troops to Baghdad -- was asked frequently about the war during a recent trip to New Hampshire. He never mentioned social issues, nor was he asked about them.

Senator John McCain of Arizona is to officially launch his campaign with a speech next week on Iraq. Meanwhile, the one Republican emphasizing social issues, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, is near the bottom in polls.

"War and peace drive everything else into the background," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics and religious liberty commission.

Aggravating the conservatives' frustration is the lack of a strong presidential candidate to rally behind. Many conservatives are skeptical of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney because of his past comments appearing to support abortion and gay rights. Giuliani, married three times and a supporter of abortion rights, is making inroads among mainstream Republicans -- but is still seen as too liberal for many socially conservative voters.

"There's not a lot of difference between Rudy and Hillary and Obama and Edwards when it comes to social policy," Land said, referring to the leading Democratic candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina. "If the Republicans nominate a Rudy Giuliani, you will see a decline in voting among social conservatives."

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

http://www.drhern.com/

http://www.drtiller.com/

http://www.texasabortioninformation.com/home.htm

http://www.saferabortion.com/

Well, MK, if you're not trying to pick a fight with me, why act like that? I consider a health exception to be something of this nature: the mother has cancer and needs chemo/radiation, she needs a heart transplant, she needs brain surgery. I consider the health exception to be a life threating issue not something silly like a hang nail.

Midnite,

I'm not trying to act like it...I'm frustrated because you keep saying that we don't have to worry about late term abortions anymore and it's simply not true.

While you may consider the health exception to be life threatening, the rest of the abortion industry does not agree with you.

Health means anything. ANYTHING!

Why do you think we fight so hard to keep it out of any new laws? We don't fight the life clause. We fight the "HEALTH" clause because it's a scam...

Jill, help me out here!!!!

So, since Im pretty much a political retard, most of the finer points of the Rudy thing are lost on me.

I do have a question, Jill: is that picture a representation of Johnny B? I have always found it so interesting how my grandmother reveres the long-bearded likes of John the Baptist, Peter, James...but despises ZZ Top and the Greatful Dead because they "just look nasty." Funny old people.

MK, do you have big plans for the theater next weekend?

midnite:"I think it's horrid and cruel b/c most mothers at that point in their pregnancy, have a name for their child, have clothes, a room etc. They've felt their fetus kick their tummy and move around."

so you think it's horrod and cruel just for the mother? what about the "fetus"?

leah":"Use birth control. Be responsible. Heaven forbid something goes wrong and you (relative term) decide that you are not ready to be a parent, thank goodness that you still have the option to abort."

you already made the "decision to be a parent"

jasper, natural family planning is an incredibly irresponsible method of birth control if you are using it to prevent having kids. I double up on condoms and the pill, have Plan B ready if something messes up, and know exactly what will cause the pill to fail. As I use all of these methods of birth control, wouldn't you say I have certainly not concented to pregnancy?

"Leah, I am not answering for Jasper"

Bethany, you can answer for me anytime- thanks

Hey! I'm back!

Jasper: "you already made the "decision to be a parent"

No. You made the decision to have sex. That, as I have already tried to explain to you (whether or not you absorbed what I was saying is a whole different question), is not the same thing.

But now we're going in circles.

Samantha,

Unfortunately, I am having surgery in the morning and do not think I will be a theatre any time soon.

Unless of course I can pull a Padre Pio and bilocate?

But I will be watching any and all reports...

Be my eyes?

MK, I am talking about when the mother's life is at risk, serious risk, aka she might die b/c of the pregnancy. That's the only health exception that I would consider for a later term abortion. And I am sorry, but from my understanding, late term abortions (Parial birth as y'all call ) have ben banned. Please correct me if I am wrong here. I am trying to explain that exceptions (I stated above) should be the only "exception" for late term abortions.

The Church's teaching:

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

SamanthaT, who's Johnny B?

MK I will be there! Young Will Turner is my weak spot, it seems.

Midnite,

I'm trying to correct you. But you're not making it easy.

If you are saying that in your opinion health should mean life threatening, that's fine.,

But I am saying, that the law says, health can mean mental health, financial stress, physical health, too many children at home...

I can find it online but I can't cut and paste it because it's on PDF.

Here is the link with the law written out. Read both the Roe vs Wade and the Doe vs Bolton...

http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/pdfs/oct04.pdf

Partial Birth is a METHOD. It is not synonymous with late term. It is simply ONE way of performing a late term abortion...

Do you see the difference?

Jill,

I need some help here defining health exceptions and why late term abortions are still legal....

PLEASE!!!

Jill, John the Baptist. Methodist lingo, I guess... that's what you get when your preacher is fresh out of Asbury ;)

Samantha,

I know. I fell in love with him as Legalos. Now stop torturing me. Johnny and Orlando on screen at the same time, and I'm stuck in bed...STOP I SAY!

Samantha,

No one but a person high on pot would have thought Stephen Stills made sense had he changed the words of his 1970 free love anthem to, "If you can't be with the one you love, honey, hate the one you're with" or "... love the one who hates you."

I believe that is a person "high on pot"...although his name could be Johnny...

Oh great, we're back to Johnny...

jasper, good thing I'm not Catholic.

Ah, that Johnny B. As far as I know, his weak spot was locusts, not pot.

MK~

Where did all the rum go?

Ok, Midnite, listen up. One reason the Supremes upheld the partial-birth abortion ban was because - as Kennedy said in their opinion - there were other more readily available methods available to abortionists, including D&E and induced labor.

In fact, some pro-lifers complained Kennedy went to too much trouble explaining exactly how an abortionist could get the job done in other ways.

Late-term abortion is still live and well, pardon the pun.

Thank you Mk & Jill. I apparently read the case wrong. That you for correcting me. I do appreciate it.

YW

Midnite,

I have some trouble understanding(its me not you!) your post so I would just like to comment that if a woman's health or life is truly endangered, she can go to the nearest hospital equipped to manage her care and she can safely and legally receive whatever care is necessary to protect her health and life.
An early labor can be induced, as I have seen happen in life threatening situations, or an early C-section can be done. This is far more humane for the baby and safer for the mother than a partial birth abortion. Sadly the baby cannot always be saved, but whatever is necessary to protect the health and life of the mother will be done. There's no medical justification for PBA and the "health" exception is, as MK says is a scam, since a woman is already covered legally in the event her health is truly threatened. Thankfully in this day and age, with medical technology what it is, that is rarely the case.
For example, at one time women with rheumatic heart disease were signing their death warrants if they became pregnant. The mortality rate was 60%. Better medical care and management reduced it to less than one half of 1%, and these days, who ever sees rheumatic heart disease? Better medical care reduced its incidence. Another example is the improved care and management of diabetic women as well.

Leah,

How nice to see you back. I enjoyed our last discussion very much, even if I did suffer a "senior moment". When like me, one is a lot older than dirt and slightly younger than God that can happen.

Samantha,

Johnny, Orlando and Rum...You are a cruel, cruel woman...

Maybe they'll give me some good pain killers and I can hallucinate all three into my bedroom...

Honestly Midnite,

If I came off as snippy I'm sorry. I was just getting sooooo frustrated.

Pre surgery jitters...

Laura: "You guys are aware that abortion is the #1 political issue for about 1% of all voters?
Conservative activists fear war dwarfing social agenda.
By Susan Milligan, Boston Globe Staff | April 7, 2007"

Laura, the Boston Globe is most left-wing paper in the country. I really don't trust them for anything.

Bethany,

"I feel terribly for these poor people who have to deal with situations like this. But killing an innocent unborn child isn't the answer."

I think you'd have hard time supporting your faux feelings for the aborting mothers in light of your perceptions that it is always for their convenience. Not exactly a compassionate spin that would fly with them... and please video tape it next time you accuse a mother of aborting for her convenience.

Again, you still haven't answered the question: When and why should gestation be compulsory? You're avoiding it. As long as you persist in myopically recasting it in the fetus-centric realm (when is killing justified), you'll get no where in convincing anyone that you have any substantive arguments, as you've clearly indicated you recognize the mother and fetus are inextricably linked, yet you laughably avoid any acknowledgment or consideration that the mother has rights.

Cameron,
In 99.9% of the cases the mother is pregnant because she voluntarily had sex.

In those 99.9% of the cases, the womans rights to bodily autonomy end the minute she "chooses" to have sex. And the minute the sex leads to a pregnancy.
period.

No one is avoiding anything.

Aren't you feeling well? You've been acting almost human for hours now. You're scaring me.

MK, concent to sex is not concent to sperm inside the birth canal. Sex has purposes besides procreation, and as the majority of people who are sexually active use some sort of prevention of pregnancy, procreation is not at all a reason for sex. Why, then, should the woman forcibly endure something that she did not concent to?

Less,

Cameron asked me at what point a womans rights to bodily autonomy end and I said the minute she consents to sex.

I am well aware of the fact that you don't agree.

In my opinion this is extremely immature behavior that stems from the selfish motive of wanting your cake and eating it too. Responsible sex should not mean sex with birth control, but accepting responsibility for the consequences of having sex.

Pregnancy is one of those consequences. If you aren't willing to accept this responsibility then I believe you are not responsible enough to have sex.

It's that simple. Obviously you don't agree. If you and all other pro-choicers agreed, we would have a website, now would we?

"wouldn't have a website is what I meant."

Less,
Sandy here.
You stated:
"MK, concent to sex is not concent to sperm inside the birth canal."

"and as the majority of people who are sexually active use some sort of prevention of pregnancy"

"Why, then, should the woman forcibly endure something that she did not concent to?"

According to statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI)(The Alan Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood and openly supports abortion and widespread access to contraceptives.)

Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.[13]

On average, women give four reasons for choosing abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[12]

First of all, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the only form of birth control that doesn't allow sperm into a woman's body is condoms. Correct??

Second, there is ONLY 27% of women using birth control responsibly enough to try and avoid pregnancy.

If it is used inconsistently why bother at all???

Anytime you have sex, you are knowingly taking a risk to become pregnant even if you have used birth control effectively. As we all know, no birth control aside from abstinence is 100% effective.
The reasons given why women seek an abortion just don't appear after they find out they are pregnant. These are known factors in a woman's life as she decides to engage in unprotected sex.

MK: unfortunately, I think many pro-choice folk read talk of pregnancy as a consequence and align the notion with punishment as a consequence. Responsibility for one's actions isn't an issue for those for whom the unborn are disposable.

Er...the point I forgot to make was that the unborn as subject is lost in talk of the unborn as consequence. It's not considered a Thou as long as it's a deemed a mere consequence of My choices.

Sorry, I realized my 27% was incorrect. Too high. Should have taken 13% of 76% and 14% of 49% to come up with an acurate percentage of those women using birth control correctly. But I am sure you all get the point.
Sandy

@MK: I'm sorry to hear you have to have surgery, I hope it isn't for anything too serious. :( Anywho, I wish you the best for a speedy (Vicodin-induced hazed...) recovery. :)

MK, what you have not explained is why you believe you have the right to force your beliefs on others. Why should an entire nation abide by your opinion? What makes you that special?

Sandy, do your statistics homework. The statistics you cited are from a sample of women who have chosen to abort. This is not representative of women as a whole, only women who have chosen to abort in the United States.

Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15-44 are currently using a contraceptive method.

Also from Guttmacher.

These are the statistics for contraception

You were using the ones for abortion only. Hope that helps.

Less, well, the only plus to MK thinking all HER opinions should be imposed on the rest of the world means that she supports us in thinking OUR opinions should be imposed upon the rest of the world.

Or else she's just a hypocrite.

My computer went down today.

So, it wasn't until now that I was able to sit back and take a look at all the posts. It's a pathetic conversation and waste of everyone's time to try to argue with someone who pretends to be very smart but is actually an imbecile.

Its comments were typical and I can see how he plays us pro-lifers like a fiddle. He says something outrageous to get us mad and then we respond in kind. In the meantime he's laughing his head off. He really cares about no one, so why bother with him?

Here's the solution: Let's pour heaping coals of kindness on his head. Shower him with kindness and love no matter what he says. Agree with him, and say how he's right and that's nice sonny.

I would like all of the pro-lifers on this sight to do this, NO MATTER what he says. It may take a few weeks but, eventually he will go away because the guy is sick and pathetic. He gets his jollies setting people off who are passionate about a life-death issue. We should not give him the time of day by arguing with him because he really hates women. If we don't let him do it any more he will no longer enjoy it and dissappear.

Does everyone agree?

Interesting that you would suggest that course of action, HisMan, because I have never seen you to show kindness to anyone you disagreed with before.

I think Bethany is on crack.

And perhaps Bethany thinks you are on LSD. Is there some relevance in your rude comment, or was it just meant to be inflammatory?

I agree His Man.

Im sorry, HisMan, to whom were you referring?

I think he's talking about Cameron, and I agree with him.... I don't know why I keep replying to him despite the fact that I know he's purposely trolling and enjoying every minute of it.
I guess because my answers will still be read by others who may take it to heart. But I do agree that if we all left him alone, he would leave.

Samantha, thank you. :)

I also agree that Cameron is just here for rattling chains. I have tried several different approaches with him and he still seems to waste time. In my opinion, I don't think he's here for a serious debate.

Less,
You confuse me. I thought the topic of this web-site is abortion. Not just birth control usage.

In regards to your comment:
"Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15-44 are currently using a contraceptive method."

The statistics I found would still be a subset included in this overall statistic which doesn't change the fact that women who abort are not responsible enough to use contraception effectively.

natural family planning is an incredibly irresponsible method of birth control if you are using it to prevent having kids. I double up on condoms and the pill, have Plan B ready if something messes up, and know exactly what will cause the pill to fail. As I use all of these methods of birth control, wouldn't you say I have certainly not concented to pregnancy?

No, because you already know that with all those contraceptive methods, there is still a chance you could become pregnant. This is why you have already admitted you've had times that you worried that you had become pregnant, and you have already decided at those times, that if this happened, you would have an abortion. If your birth control methods were as reliable as you try to make them out to be, you would have no fear at all that you might become pregnant, ever.

And I believe that Jasper uses natural family planning to space out his children but if a child is conceived in spite of their natural efforts, they will welcome the child into their home, because it is God's gift to them.

"Every child a welcomed child"

Bethany, I think you really hit on my whole perspective of the abortion issue. I am all for people having sex if they want; I just think that if they are going to engage in intercourse, they should be prepared to carry the pregnancy if their birth control methods fail. People who see abortion as a safety net are not, in my opinion, mature enough to have sex.

"I also agree....Squak"

Here's your cracker Polly!

Abortion is murder.

"Pregnancy is one of those consequences. If you aren't willing to accept this responsibility then I believe you are not responsible enough to have sex."

Totally agree, MK.

I totally agree, Samantha. Squak. :)

I agree Samantha and SH [squak]

Bethany,

Most smokers are fully aware of the risk of cancer... should they be denied treament because they knew?
What I see here is the old consent to sex = obligatory gestation argument (aka the “responsibility argument”), however there is no scenario in bioethics in which knowledge of risk makes response to said risk, should it be realized, obligatory. What you have here is the classic "is then ought to be" logical fallacy. Specifically you think; pregnancy IS a result of sex, therefore gestation OUGHT to be obligatory. The reason this doesn't fly legally, ethically, or philosophically, or with anyone with a capacity for nuance, is that such is/ought arguments require the is and ought be connected via some sort of acceptable argument. In other words, why ought gestation compulsory. Simply saying it should be so isn’t sufficient when we’re talking about curtailing human rights. You all simple say it is and ought to be with no further elaboration, but in the realm of ethics and philosophy the acceptable is-ought arguments provide a line of reasoning which connects the two and makes the case.
There are a couple specific reasons why this sort responsibility argument is flawed; first and foremost is the typical judgmental tone. Ultimately, it is appropriate to make a judgment, and that’s pretty much the nature of the whole debate, but in doing so one must weigh things and treat factors fairly. In the responsibility argument though, the sex is bad tone presumes guilt prior to weighing anything. Second, the mother could not have conceived the fetus without it being dependant on her body, and she is not meaningfully responsible simply for having conceived. The harkens back to the unprecedented reality that the mother and fetus are inextricably connected; in one case you are all about the fetus' right and in denial that their may even be a woman involved then the next minute you're wholly making your case entirely based on your presumptions about the mother's behavior. This is that transative thing... when fetus having more rights than other humans is pointed out, you retreat to presumptiuosly putting the burden of obligation on the mother. Then when that is deconstructed, you go back OMG it's a baby with a right to life. And on and on and on... never actually making a case for any of your notions, simply switching the notions when convenvient.

Sorry Hisman and everyone else, I just can't resist the bait.

Most smokers are fully aware of the risk of cancer... should they be denied treament because they knew?

Haven't we already covered this? A pregnant woman deserves all the treatment she can get. Killing the baby is not treatment for a disease.

Specifically you think; pregnancy IS a result of sex, therefore gestation OUGHT to be obligatory.

Sex has nothing to do with the ultimate reason I think abortion should be illegal. No one should have the right to take intentionally take the life of an innocent human being, ever. It's really that easy.

; in one case you are all about the fetus' right and in denial that their may even be a woman involved then the next minute you're wholly making your case entirely based on your presumptions about the mother's behavior.

Where have I ever denied there was a woman involved, Cameron? Now you're just being silly.

You have claimed quite clearly that a mother's bodily autonomy ends as soon as she's pregnant. i.e. fetus has more rights than any other human.

Then, upon my pointing out that you consider the fetus to have more rights than any other human, you say ... ya but the mom had sex knowingly...

That's pretty much it in a nut shell--no substantive arguments... just retreat to different argument.

You have claimed quite clearly that a mother's bodily autonomy ends as soon as she's pregnant. i.e. fetus has more rights than any other human.

The right not to be killed is not any more than any other human's rights. Right now, the human fetus has less rights than any other human being. We're just asking that they be given the right to live. Not too much to ask in my opinion.

"The right not to be killed is not any more than any other human's rights. Right now, the human fetus has less rights than any other human being. We're just asking that they be given the right to live. Not too much to ask in my opinion."

Again... you're asking they have rights to another's body and organs which are unvolunteered. A right to life that no other human enjoys.

Like I said, (as I already covered this) the pregnancy of a woman is a unique situation, and therefore must be handled in a unique way.

I would hardly call "it's always wrong" a unique way of handling a grey realm.

Well, fortunately, it doesn't really concern me whether you agree

Wow, you definitely are on crack. Good job at contradicting yourself so easily.

Kristen.....squak.

I agree Bethany . . . Squak

Wow, you definitely are on crack. Good job at contradicting yourself so easily.
Posted by: Kristin at May 17, 2007 10:38 AM

Nice try, Ilana/Kristin.

... Ooookayyyy... You're weird.

Confirming dual personality alert: Ilana and Kristin, one and the same.

No, actually, we're not. Kristin and I live near eachother and share a provider, and perhaps an IP address. But I don't know about those things.

Busted troll! Told ya!

Lol, it matters not whether you believe me or not. Kristin is currently taking a history final, or she'd be here to back me up too. We share a wireless connection. Does that mean we have the same IP? Yeah, I think so.

Ilana, I share a wireless connection with my husband and we do not have the same IP.

Yes and Santa Clause and I share an IP address too.

Bethany, that was directed at Ilana/Kristen. However, I see she left.

My roommate and I both shared the same IP, as we both used the same wireless network. I believe that everyone in the dorm shared the same IP, as we all shared the wireless connection. Its quite possible that Ilana is telling the truth.

OK Ladies,

Please don't laugh. I admit it. I'm a real computer dummy. What is an IP? I'm kind of lost here concerning Ilana/Kristen.

Mary,

an IP adress is:

n IP address (Internet Protocol address) is a unique address that certain electronic devices use in order to identify and communicate with each other on a computer network utilizing the Internet Protocol standard (IP)—in simpler terms, a computer address. Any participating network device—including routers, computers, time-servers, printers, Internet fax machines, and some telephones—can have their own unique address.

An IP address can also be thought of as the equivalent of a street address or a phone number for a computer or other network device on the Internet. Just as each street address and phone number uniquely identifies a building or telephone, an IP address can uniquely identify a specific computer or other network device on a network.

Jasper,

How interesting,thank you. Like I said I am no computer genius so I appreciate the info. I learn so much on this site!

It's difficult to assess the significance of a single IP appearing multiple times among users in ways some folk find odd or suspicious. When the various ways IPs can work (NAT, etc.) meet how people think about people, assumptions are perilous.