Why the HECK are they referring to that man as pro-choice???? Why do the pro-lifers call me a pro-abort but he's pro-choice? That is so unfair.

Jess --

Do you think everything is about you? Perhaps that explains it all.

Oh lighten up Anon. But don't you think the terminology is a bit skewed?

I just read this and thought it might interest some of you. Please read the whole article before you comment. http://www.violentacres.com/archives/69/the-most-merciful-death-is-baby-death

Jess, I read it. It's an insane article written by a very, very sick person who needs psychiatric help.

You might as well argue that we should abort every single child, because who knows, those children we allow to live might grow up to become a new Hitler. It's INSANE.

Jess, if you base your decision to be pro-abortion on articles like THAT, I truly pity you.

I just found this article. So no, I didn't base my decision to be PRO-CHOICE on it. It does go along with my theory that people who don't want to take proper care of their children, just shouldn't have children. And I'm not talking about only abortion, it goes to all those people who think it would be "so fun" to have a baby and then completely loose interest after a week or so.

Again, why is the man in the video pro-choice whereas I'm pro-abortion.

Jess, because anybody can say anything and there will usually be enough differing opinions that you can always find somebody to disagree with.

Jess,

You asked us to read the article to the very end.

Well, this was the last sentence...

Every time a baby dies in the womb, I sleep a little easier that night.

Nice. Really nice.

Jess,

Some people on the pro life side call ALL pro choice people pro-abortion. I prefer to repsect your wishes and call you pro choice. You have to look at who is making the comment. Whoever called the clown in the video "pro choice" is probably not the same person that has called you "Pro abortion"...

I look around and see TV phenom Oprah Winfrey's outcry over some dogs being mistreated in so-called puppy mills, and I see the outrage and anger over some overpaid NFL superstar's mistreatment and of abuse dogs.

As shameful and inhumane as those things are, I find it much more outrageous, grave and insidious that human beings are being systematically slaughtered in abortion mills at a rate of 4,000 per day and there is nary a peep from the majority of our complacent citizenry or a complicit liberal media.

~ Blogger gregjaye, as quoted on blog A Good Choice, April 14

AMEN JASPER. AMEN.

Somg (continuing our conversation from the other topic):

Bethany, the pregnant woman has the same right to kill and evict siamese twins from her body has she has to kill and evict anyone else who is located there. Because it's HER body.

You're missing the point. Each siamese twin possesses their body too. Unless you think the siamese twins are only partially persons.
If each siamese twin is a separate person, then they have the right to autonomy over their body, which would mean that they should have the same right that a pregnant woman has, should they decide they do not want to share their body with another person anymore.

Giving a person a few weeks of interuterine life does not obligate her to give it more life.

Yes, it does. Certainly.

And I'd rather be conceived and aborted than never conceived at all.

I am sorry that you feel that way. Most people don't feel that way. Most people would rather not be killed. It's a very strange attitude and I have to admit I don't understand it. But I suppose that may be a result of the idea that in some way, you desire to be united with your siblings one day, on a subconscious level.

Bethany, you wrote "And I'd rather be conceived and aborted than never conceived at all.

I am sorry that you feel that way. Most people don't feel that way. Most people would rather not be killed."

Bethany, you are going to die. Do you therefore regret that you were conceived?

I would say if one of the twins wants to be separated, and the other does not, then the one who wants to be separated should have his way.

Wow, so you think that it would be justifiable homicide, to kill a BORN person who wants to live, just because the other person wants to live on her own?
At least you're honest. But scarily honest.

This position merely shows, sadly, how much our law and culture is based upon a male model of the body, and a male notion of bodily integrity. It doesn't account for a perfect normal, natural, non-pathological condition of more than 1/2 the popultion.
S.

Anonymous, you are absolutely correct. Your argument hits the nail right on the head.

Bethany, you are going to die. Do you therefore regret that you were conceived?

I surely hope that when I die, it is not at the hands of other people!

No, I never regret that I was conceived, and given the opportunity to continue living until my natural death!

Come November ALL of our options are fraggin idiots ... *sigh*

Conjoined twins are frequently separated. If one twin has a functional brain and the other has a rudimentary brain stem, but no more than that, is mindless, insensate, cant survive without being joined to another individual, is oblivious, would anyone criticize a doctor from separating the two even if one twin would not survive?

I'm not talking about that, Texas Red. I'm talking about two totally functioning conjoined twins. Imagine that both twins, with their minds fully functioning, sharing one single body, with 1 set of arms and legs.

If one twin wants to use that body all for herself, why should she not be able to remove the other twins' head so that she can be independent and autonomous?

And if you think that she should, how is that not murder, since the other twin obviously wouldn't want to be killed, and most likely would wish to keep the body too. Are siamese twins subhuman?

I'm not talking about that, Texas Red. I'm talking about two totally functioning conjoined twins. Imagine that both twins, with their minds fully functioning, sharing one single body, with 1 set of arms and legs.

If one twin wants to use that body all for herself, why should she not be able to remove the other twins' head so that she can be independent and autonomous?

And if you think that she should, how is that not murder, since the other twin obviously wouldn't want to be killed, and most likely would wish to keep the body too. Are siamese twins subhuman?

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 9:57 AM
****************************
Because one thinking feeling reasoning individual has as much right to the body as the other thinking feeling reasoning individual. But if one is a thinking feeling reasoning individual and the other is a mindless insensate nonviable oblivious body would anyone say removing it is wrong?

TR, you often talk about "mindless insensate nonviable tissue." What do you mean by a mind?

Because one thinking feeling reasoning individual has as much right to the body as the other thinking feeling reasoning individual.

So, using the violinist argument (you can find it here) that pro-choicers frequently use, would you say that unplugging the violinist would be murder, based on your statement that a thinking feeling reasoning person has as much right to a body he is connected to, as another thinking feeling reasoning individual who is connected to a body.

And if you say, well no, the person didn't choose to have the violinist plugged in. Well, neither did a siamese twin ask for his/her twin to be plugged into him/her.

Bethany,

"Bobby, I may be wrong but I think you can purchase it at this link:"

Yeap, that's it. My school has a subscription, and I can access it when I'm on campus, but not from home. I emailed a friend who is on campus today, and hopefully he'll send me the pdf today.

Lots of good men at Stand to Reason.

TR, you often talk about "mindless insensate nonviable tissue." What do you mean by a mind?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 15, 2008 10:11 AM
*************************
More brain activity than just a functional brain stem, for starters. And that is all thats functional when the vast majority of abortions are performed. You can quibble over the 1% of 2% of later term abortions, but 97% are performed by 16 weeks, and over 90% are performed in the first trimester with over 60% performed by 8 weeks. If physical development continues but the brain stops developing in the first trimester youre basically going to have an anencephalic.

Because one thinking feeling reasoning individual has as much right to the body as the other thinking feeling reasoning individual.

So, using the violinist argument (you can find it here) that pro-choicers frequently use, would you say that unplugging the violinist would be murder, based on your statement that a thinking feeling reasoning person has as much right to a body he is connected to, as another thinking feeling reasoning individual who is connected to a body.

And if you say, well no, the person didn't choose to have the violinist plugged in. Well, neither did a siamese twin ask for his/her twin to be plugged into him/her.

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 10:11 AM
**************************
Conjoined twins (which is the correct term to use) are a matter of biology. You have what 'should' have been twins (or sometimes triplets etc) sharing one body instead of dividing into two separate bodies. The body 'belongs' to each of them 'equally'. It was what they were born with. Trying to compare that to someone "being plugged into" another person is really really stupid, Bethany - about as stupid as your analogy of a woman on a 9 month long boat ride.

They weren't joined together from conception, TexasRed. At one point in time, not according to their own will, they became joined together.

Why then should one twin not be able to say, hey, I want to be autonomous as I was before I was born. I want to be restored to my former state, I want to be an individual with an individual body, just like every other woman. What would be wrong with that, TexasRed?

And I still think the 9 month boat ride analogy was awesome, although I can't take the credit. It was Lauren's analogy. She thought of it.

OK. So a necessary condition for the fetus to be a human person is that they have a functional brain stem, correct?

"You can quibble over the 1% of 2% of later term abortions, but 97% are performed by 16 weeks, and over 90% are performed in the first trimester with over 60% performed by 8 weeks."

No, this is all correct. I am interested in defending the immediate product of fertilization, not special cases.

Sop let me ask you this. You mentioned that if the brain stops developing in the first trimester, the result is an anencephalitic fetus. No arguments there. Are you saying that an anencephalitic fetus is not a person? In other words, would killing a born anencephalitic baby be morally acceptable?

Also, if we can't already, we are most likely very close to being able to experiment on early embryos so that they develop normally except with only a functional brain stem (so that the brain does not develop any further than a first trimester fetus). Is it morally acceptable to create these fetuses with only a functional brain stem for the sole purpose of growing them until 30 weeks gestation, aborting them, and then harvesting their organs? After all, if they only have a "first trimester" brain, they are not human persons, and so creating these non humans for the purpose of obtaining organs should be morally permissible.

What's the boat ride analogy, Bethany?

They weren't joined together from conception, TexasRed. At one point in time, not according to their own will, they became joined together.

Why then should one twin not be able to say, hey, I want to be autonomous as I was before I was born. I want to be restored to my former state, I want to be an individual with an individual body, just like every other woman. What would be wrong with that, TexasRed?

And I still think the 9 month boat ride analogy was awesome, although I can't take the credit. It was Lauren's analogy. She thought of it.

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 10:47 AM
*************************
I would suggest you learn more about conjoined twins. Youre ignoring every point I already made to answer your questions, Bethany. Why is that? As I already said -
Conjoined twins (which is the correct term to use) are a matter of biology. You have what 'should' have been twins (or sometimes triplets etc) sharing one body instead of dividing into two separate bodies. The body 'belongs' to each of them 'equally'. It was what they were born with. Trying to compare that to someone "being plugged into" another person is really really stupid, Bethany - about as stupid as your analogy of a woman on a 9 month long boat ride.
Is this just too complicated and confusing for you to comprehend, Bethany?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/conjoined-twins/DS00869/DSECTION=3

Causes
Identical twins occur when a single fertilized egg splits and develops into two fetuses. The split normally happens during the first two weeks after conception. If the fertilized egg splits later, the twins will be conjoined. The degree to which the fertilized egg splits and when the split happens determines how the twins will be joined. The cause of delayed splitting isn't known.

OK. So a necessary condition for the fetus to be a human person is that they have a functional brain stem, correct?

***********************
No, Bobby, thats not even remotely close to what I said. Go back and read it again.

Bobby, the boat ride analogy is about a woman who goes on a boat ride with her baby, having enough food and water to last them for at least 9 months. She expects to arrive at her destination in 9 months.

About 5 months into the boat ride, the woman gets fed up with having to take care of the baby in HER boat. Since she obviously can't hand the child off to anyone else, and she doesn't want to take care of the child anymore, throwing the baby off the boat to die, according to pro-abortion logic, should be just fine. After all, she had no other options. She didn't want to have to take care of the baby, and there was no one else who could have taken care of the baby except the mother. The baby was completely dependent on the mother to keep it alive until the boat trip was over.

The only reason Texas Red doesn't like this analogy is because it shows how clearly flawed her argument is, that a woman has a right to kill her baby simply because she is the only one the baby is dependent on.

Sop let me ask you this. You mentioned that if the brain stops developing in the first trimester, the result is an anencephalitic fetus. No arguments there. Are you saying that an anencephalitic fetus is not a person? In other words, would killing a born anencephalitic baby be morally acceptable?
****************************
An anencephalic isnt going to be viable, Bobby. Not ever. You may force it to survive by intense medical intervention and keeping it in an ICU but I know of no hospital which doesnt allow an anencephalic to not be put on life support in the rare event it survives more than a few moments after birth.

Also, if we can't already, we are most likely very close to being able to experiment on early embryos so that they develop normally except with only a functional brain stem (so that the brain does not develop any further than a first trimester fetus). Is it morally acceptable to create these fetuses with only a functional brain stem for the sole purpose of growing them until 30 weeks gestation, aborting them, and then harvesting their organs? After all, if they only have a "first trimester" brain, they are not human persons, and so creating these non humans for the purpose of obtaining organs should be morally permissible.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 15, 2008 10:49 AM
*************
Where do you get these bizarre delusions?

okay, Texasred, I did not know that about conjoined twins. Touche.

However, at the same time, the twins are still unique human beings, both are indivuals, are they not?

TexasRed, What is bizarre about it? planned parenthood makes a profit selling organs of aborted babies right now. Is it really unthinkable, what Bobby mentioned?

"An anencephalic isnt going to be viable, Bobby. Not ever."

Really? http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10495

The only reason Texas Red doesn't like this analogy is because it shows how clearly flawed her argument is, that a woman has a right to kill her baby simply because she is the only one the baby is dependent on.

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 11:21 AM
********************
Bethany, its an imbecilic analogy. Whining 'Well uh uh uh ... there could be a woman in a boat .... uh uh uh and she might have a baby with her .... uh uh uh ....and she might decide she didnt want to be in the boat with the baby .... uh uh uh ... and thats just like being pregnant!' Only an idiot would try to pretend its somehow significant and relevant and meaningful. And no one ever said killing a baby was legal. Its not. Removing mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue from the uterus of a woman who doesnt want it there IS legal.

Bethany, its an imbecilic analogy. Whining 'Well uh uh uh ... there could be a woman in a boat .... uh uh uh and she might have a baby with her .... uh uh uh ....and she might decide she didnt want to be in the boat with the baby .... uh uh uh ... and thats just like being pregnant!' Only an idiot would try to pretend its somehow significant and relevant and meaningful. And no one ever said killing a baby was legal. Its not. Removing mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue from the uterus of a woman who doesnt want it there IS legal.

It's a perfect analogy, TexasRed. Some people might call it a "hypothetical".

If the baby is completely dependent on the woman, but only 9 months, it is parallel to pregnancy whether you like it or not.

okay, Texasred, I did not know that about conjoined twins. Touche.

However, at the same time, the twins are still unique human beings, both are indivuals, are they not?

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 11:24 AM
*********************
Identical twins (triplets etc) arent unique genetically. Genetically they are 'the same person'. They are just copies. Intellectually twins will develop into 'different' people to one extent or another. If you have two thinking reasoning heads and one body then they both have an equal 'right' to the body. One does not have 'more' right to the body than the other. If you have one thinking reasoning twin and another twin that only has a moderately functional brain stem, but its nonviable, mindless, insensate, oblivious, then there is no reason why the twins shouldnt be separated if the thinking reasoning twin wants to do so.

It's a perfect analogy, TexasRed. Some people might call it a "hypothetical".

If the baby is completely dependent on the woman, but only 9 months, it is parallel to pregnancy whether you like it or not.

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 11:31 AM
*****************
Bethany, the analogy is imbecilic whether you like it or not.

TexasRed, What is bizarre about it? planned parenthood makes a profit selling organs of aborted babies right now. Is it really unthinkable, what Bobby mentioned?

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 11:25 AM
************************
And you can prove that how, Bethany? A valid source of information?

"No, Bobby, thats not even remotely close to what I said. Go back and read it again.

Where do you get these bizarre delusions?"

You see, TR, this is why I can't talk to you. You don't respond to what people say, you only come back with mockery. What I said about a necessary condition for persnhood succinctly describes your position in a manner that philosophers who support abortion-choice would understand, regardless of whether or not you know it. And of course you didn't answer the question. I didn't expect you to.

I tried to to have a rational conversation with you above. I've tried many times. I've listed for you before all the abortion-choicers I've had rational conversations with. I'm going to do it again. Ray, Dan, Doug, Sally, Hal, Edyt, Leah, Lyssie, Amanda, reality, SoMG, Hieronymous. I've never had one with you. Until you start showing respect, I'm done.

viable
One entry found.

viable

Main Entry: vi·a·ble
"An anencephalic isnt going to be viable, Bobby. Not ever."

Really? http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10495

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 15, 2008 11:26 AM
************************
Yes, Bobby, really. There is nothing 'normal' about that.

Pronunciation: \ˈvî-ə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita — more at vital
Date: circa 1832
1: capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb

Texas Red, is 20/20 a good enough source for you?

"Those who tuned into ABC's news weekly 20/20 on March 8, 2000, watched as correspondent Chris Wallace produced evidence of what he termed "a thriving industry in which aborted fetuses women donate to help medical research are being marketed for hundreds, even thousands of dollars." Wallace interviewed several people involved in the harvesting of fetal body parts and produced a price list from one firm, Opening Lines, offering fetal spinal cords for $325, fetal reproductive organs for $550, fetal brains for $999 (if less than eight weeks), and the like.

As part of his report, Wallace sought reactions from both pro-life and "pro-choice" perspectives. Among those he spoke to was Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt. Feldt gave what appeared to be a strong condemnation of the whole sordid affair. Presented with ABC's findings, Feldt told Wallace

It seems inappropriate. Totally inappropriate. Where there is wrongdoing, it should be prosecuted. People who are doing that kind of thing should be ­ should be brought to justice.

However, those who read Feldt's statements as a repudiation of the practice of dissecting aborted babies and using their body parts for research are mistaken. Not only does Planned Parenthood support the harvesting of baby parts for research, but it actually also has at least one clinic that helped supply aborted babies to firms featured in Wallace's 20/20 report."

Read the rest here:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL05/randy.html

Until you start showing respect, I'm done.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 15, 2008 11:38 AM
***************
Come up with something that deserves respect, Bobby.

I tried to to have a rational conversation with you above. I've tried many times. I've listed for you before all the abortion-choicers I've had rational conversations with. I'm going to do it again. Ray, Dan, Doug, Sally, Hal, Edyt, Leah, Lyssie, Amanda, reality, SoMG, Hieronymous. I've never had one with you. Until you start showing respect, I'm done.

Right on, Bobby.

Bethany, the man who "revealed" those details later refused to repeat his accusations under oath in front of Congress when he would face perjury charges if he lied. And i asked for a valid source - NRL isnt.

Come up with something that deserves respect, Bobby.

His comments and opinions deserve a lot more respect than yours do, TexasRed.

Even most of the pro-abortion supporters here respect Bobby for his respectfulness, kindness, and honesty. Not to mention the fact that he can carry on a debate superbly!

He has never once resorted to insulting a poster here. He never had to.

Bethany, the man who "revealed" those details later refused to repeat his accusations under oath in front of Congress when he would face perjury charges if he lied. And i asked for a valid source - NRL isnt.

Can I see the context of this please?

Watch this, TexasRed:

http://www.ldi.org/Abortion_Information/Baby_Body_Parts/ViewVideo.cfm?video=1

Wow, based on your understanding of viability, I guess a lame child would be considered non-viable, because he does not live "normally" outside of the womb.

Haha, I love how Bethany and Bobby talk about showing respect, all the while calling us pro-abortion supporters and abortion-choicers.

Really respectful. Seriously though. Thanks for showing respect, hypocrites.

Here is the PDF file that Bobby mentioned about Conjoined twins:

http://www.sketchesbybethany.net/fulltextv1.pdf

Haha, I love how Bethany and Bobby talk about showing respect, all the while calling us pro-abortion supporters and abortion-choicers.
Really respectful. Seriously though. Thanks for showing respect, hypocrites.

Is "abortion supporter" an insult, Edyt? Why?

Gotta run and make lunch. Will be back later today.

This isnt an objective source either - but still -
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/prochoicepress/00spring.shtml#fetal

Fetal Tissue "Scandal" Implodes Anti-Choice Left with Egg on Their Faces

On March 9, a U.S. Congressional committee hearing took place to investigate claims that aborted fetal tissue was being sold illegally for a profit. The hearing was supposed to be a triumph for anti-choice Republicans, but it turned into a debacle when their star witness, Lawrence Dean Alberty, admitted he had lied about his knowledge of illegal activity. He also confessed to being a paid spy for Life Dynamics Inc., a Texas anti-abortion group.

Last year, Alberty (using the pseudonym "Kelly") had alleged in a videotape that he had "first-hand knowledge of the illegal, for-profit sale of fetal tissue" and had witnessed nearly 40 late-term abortions. He had claimed that viable babies were sometimes aborted alive, then killed to harvest their organs.

Alberty is a former employee of tissue donation companies Anatomic Gift Foundation, and Opening Lines, which collect tissue from hospitals and clinics and distribute it to researchers. He began to suspect that Opening Lines was selling the fetal tissue at a profit. (Under U.S. law, fetal tissue can be donated but not sold. Reasonable costs can be recovered for staff, facility, and transportation costs.) Alberty says he contacted the FBI to investigate, but he received "no help." Then he contacted the Texas anti-abortion group Life Dynamics Inc., to help publicize his story. In a videotape produced by the group, Alberty was disguised as a woman and made claims that he witnessed profiteering from fetal tissue sales.

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) in Washington DC, played a pivotal role in exposing the information produced by Life Dynamics and Dean Alberty as nothing more than inflammatory anti-choice propaganda. Working over several months with pro bono counsel Fay Clayton, NAF discovered the identity of "Kelly." Alberty had infiltrated NAF after becoming a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and was even paid to attend NAF meetings and turn over all documents from the meetings to Life Dynamics. NAF worked with Fay Clayton to subpoena all documentation relating to Alberty's employment with Life Dynamics. This turned out to include confidential patient records (stolen from clinics where Alberty had worked), tapes of NAF meetings, and receipts of 23 payments from Life Dynamics to Alberty totalling more than $20,000. According to his Congressional testimony, Alberty had also given documents to Life Dynamics that he stole from his employer, Opening Lines, describing procedures used in removing fetal organs, types of organs ordered, and names of researchers.

After establishing "Kelly's" identity and procuring this evidence against Alberty, NAF obtained a sworn affidavit from Alberty in which he recanted most of the charges he made on the Life Dynamics videotape. NAF produced the affidavit at the Congressional hearing as evidence. In the affidavit, Alberty stated that he had "no personal knowledge of any instances in which an employer of mine charged any fees or received any compensation for retrieving fetal tissue in violation of any of these laws." He added, "I am not a physician and am not qualified to make medical judgements about fetal viability." Alberty also stated in his affidavit that Life Dynamics may have changed some of his answers and even substituted someone else for some of the footage without his knowledge.

Questioned about the discrepancies, Alberty testified, "I would go by the affidavit. When I was under oath, I told the truth. Anything I said on a videotape not under oath is a different story." However, Alberty did continue to assert that some abortion providers "would use lengthier procedures when performing abortions if it meant keeping a fetus intact."

The day before the hearing, on March 8, the investigative news show 20/20 had broadcast a program about the fetal tissue controversy. The show featured both Alberty and a pathologist from Opening Lines, Dr. Miles Jones, who was recorded by a hidden camera. Jones discussed making thousands of dollars a week selling fetal parts, and made other comments that seemed to imply the existence of a profitable trade in fetal tissue, such as that "market forces" drive the cost of fetal body parts.

Jones was subpoenaed to testify at the hearing but did not appear and was held in contempt of Congress. A week later, Jones wrote letters to Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh denying that he trafficked in fetal tissue, saying that his secretly-recorded comments had been shown out of context and that "nothing could be further from the truth." Jones asked that Alberty be investigated for "corporate espionage" and called for the investigation of Life Dynamics as well. In a separate statement to the press, Jones implied that the allegations against him were racially motivated. Jones, who is black, said, "Oh to be in Salem or under the spreading Southern oak tree," apparently referring to witch hunts and lynchings. It is worth noting that 20/20 presented no actual evidence to prove that any of Dr. Jones' comments were accurate, such as real customers, for example.

However, Planned Parenthood Federation of American President Gloria Feldt called Jones' actions "inappropriate." She said, "Where there is wrongdoing, it should be prosecuted. People who are doing that kind of thing should be ... brought to justice." In a letter sent to 20/20, Feldt wrote, "Planned Parenthood supports research using fetal tissue in accordance with legal and ethical guidelines and are deeply concerned about the attempt by some to profit from the humanitarian contributions of courageous women."

We agree with Feldt, but must emphasize that no-one has been found guilty of anything yet, and that these allegations involve only a single individual, Dr. Miles Jones, at a single company, Opening Lines. This is hardly the "thriving industry" the anti-choice claims exists. Meanwhile, not a shred of evidence exists that any abortion doctor or clinic is knowingly involved in illegal profiteering from fetal tissue.

His comments and opinions deserve a lot more respect than yours do, TexasRed. (only in YOUR opinion, Bethany)

Even most of the pro-abortion supporters here respect Bobby for his respectfulness, kindness, and honesty. Not to mention the fact that he can carry on a debate superbly!

He has never once resorted to insulting a poster here. He never had to. (thats a lie - he just insulted me because he couldnt deal with the discussion)

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 11:48 AM
******************
Keep looking hypocritical, Bethany. You do is so well ... must be all the experience -

Wow, based on your understanding of viability, I guess a lame child would be considered non-viable, because he does not live "normally" outside of the womb.

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 11:58 AM
*******************
Thank you for again looking really stupid, Bethany.

Is "abortion supporter" an insult, Edyt? Why?

You know damn well it's meant to be insulting and you're not a child so I shouldn't have to explain why.

I have never referred to any of you as "anti-choicers" or any other derogatory term because I know you prefer to be called "pro-lifers".

Maybe that's the journalist in me, but I can't fathom the reason for being intentionally disrespectful of a self-chosen title.

Although when I think about how disrespectful the lot of you were to the story about Thomas Beatie, and how he couldn't self-identify as a man, it makes a lot of sense. You don't care about any one else's opinions or point of view, all you want is your own and your own to dominate over everyone else's. Well, that's not very pro-life. That's just controlling.

Bethany, boats are not bodies. The right to kick someone off your external property (boat) is different (weaker) than the right to kick someone out of your body.

I say if you own a boat, and a fish jumps in your boat, even though you consented to putting your boat out in the water, then you have every right to throw that fish RIGHT BACK WHERE IT CAME FROM.

No fish in my boat, please.

Edyt, the term "abortion-choice" is used to describe someone who believes abortion should be legal. It does not imply that you would have an abortion, nor should it be confused with the term pro-abortion. Never once have i used that term. The term "pro-choice" is ambiguous in the sense that it does not say what you believe someone should have the right to choose. Granted, it is accepted that the term pro-choice has "abortion rights" understood, but I think that if one wants a term to describe someone who supports abortion to be legal, the word "abortion" needs to be somewhere in that term. It only makes sense. right?

I reject the whole attempt to analogize a person's property (boat) to a person's body.

You own your body in a much more intimate way than you own your property.

You can give your property to someone else, but not your body.

You do not feel pain if I strike your property; you do feel pain if I strike your body.

Allowing another person on your property does not subject you to major medical/surgical trauma. Pregnancy, if carried to term, does.

There are too many essential differences to call property-ownership equivalent to body-ownership or to make legitimate arguments based on their equivalence.

Pro choice recognizes a womans right to look at her circumstances and decide what is best for her. Whether she does or does not continue a pregnancy, pro choice recognizes her right to be the one who makes that decision. I am pro choice and no more in favor of abortion than gestation. I am FOR the woman being allowed to do what she knows is best.

You know damn well it's meant to be insulting and you're not a child so I shouldn't have to explain why.

no, I honestly don't, Edyt. Why should it be insulting? It is what you support, isn't it? Do you or do you not support abortion?

I have never referred to any of you as "anti-choicers" or any other derogatory term because I know you prefer to be called "pro-lifers".

"Anti-choicers" would be a dishonest label. It isn't "choice" we're against. It's abortion. The term "anti-choice" doesn't accurately describe what choice we are against. However, even despite this, I have never been too bothered with it when you guys call me anti-choice.. And Texas Red does that plenty. I don't put that into the category of the insults, because I believe that many people say that automatically, just as I say "pro-abortion" automatically.

Maybe that's the journalist in me, but I can't fathom the reason for being intentionally disrespectful of a self-chosen title.

What is disrespectful about it, Edyt? It is just basic logic. If you support abortion, you are an abortion supporter. The term "pro-choice" is simply a euphemism to block out the reality of what you support. If you truly think that abortion should be a womans' right, and you fight to see that it remains such, then you shouldn't be offended by the use of the term "abortion proponent". You should wear the title as a badge of honor.

Although when I think about how disrespectful the lot of you were to the story about Thomas Beatie, and how he couldn't self-identify as a man, it makes a lot of sense. You don't care about any one else's opinions or point of view, all you want is your own and your own to dominate over everyone else's. Well, that's not very pro-life. That's just controlling.

It's controlling to disagree with someone else's lifestyle? Then aren't you controlling to disagree with the way I live my life right now?

I reject the whole attempt to analogize a person's property (boat) to a person's body.
You own your body in a much more intimate way than you own your property.
You can give your property to someone else, but not your body.
You do not feel pain if I strike your property; you do feel pain if I strike your body.
Allowing another person on your property does not subject you to major medical/surgical trauma. Pregnancy, if carried to term, does.
There are too many essential differences to call property-ownership equivalent to body-ownership or to make legitimate arguments based on their equivalence.

You miss the point, SOMG. It's not about the womans ownership to the boat, or her body. It's about the fact that if the baby is dependent on ONLY her for a certain period of time, whether that gives her the right to kill it or not.

I say if you own a boat, and a fish jumps in your boat, even though you consented to putting your boat out in the water, then you have every right to throw that fish RIGHT BACK WHERE IT CAME FROM.
No fish in my boat, please.

Please, Edyt. So the boat should not be analogous to the woman's body, but a fish can be analogous to a human child?

Bethany, you wrote: "It's about the fact that if the baby is dependent on ONLY her for a certain period of time, whether that gives her the right to kill it or not. "

I agree that simple dependency alone does not give the caregiver the right to kill the dependent. However, being dependent on material (nutrients, oxygen, etc.) taken across the placenta FROM INSIDE THE CAREGIVER'S BLOODSTREAM gives the caregiver the right to refuse to continue donating these materials, even if her refusal kills the dependent. Requiring to inject metabolic waste products across the placenta INTO the caregiver's bloodstream gives the caregiver the right to refuse to accept the dependent's waste products, even if THAT refusal kills the dependent. Finally, being located inside the caregiver's body gives the caregiver the right to kill and expel you at will, because it's her body.

None of the above conditions applies in the boat analogy.

I agree that simple dependency alone does not give the caregiver the right to kill the dependent.

You are not in the majority of the abortion proponents in your arguments though, SOMG. Your claim that it would be justifiable for the other siamese twin to kill his/her twin because one wants to own the body fully proves this point. Most abortion supporters also do not admit that the child is a person, as you do. And I'm sure that most abortion supporters would not wish to have been created and then aborted, rather than not existing at all.

I don't care what the majority of abortion proponents think.

However, being dependent on material (nutrients, oxygen, etc.) taken across the placenta FROM INSIDE THE CAREGIVER'S BLOODSTREAM gives the caregiver the right to refuse to continue donating these materials, even if her refusal kills the dependent. Requiring to inject metabolic waste products across the placenta INTO the caregiver's bloodstream gives the caregiver the right to refuse to accept the dependent's waste products, even if THAT refusal kills the dependent. Finally, being located inside the caregiver's body gives the caregiver the right to kill and expel you at will, because it's her body.

I don't see that it's different, SOMG.

Okay, let me change the analogy a bit.

The woman has only enough food to feed herself, and she is breastfeeding, to keep the child alive.

NOW the child is dependent on the woman's BODY in order to live (I think this was in the original analogy and I completely forgot it), so does that make it okay for her to dump her over?

I don't care what the majority of abortion proponents think.

I'm just sayin...

However, being dependent on material (nutrients, oxygen, etc.) taken across the placenta FROM INSIDE THE CAREGIVER'S BLOODSTREAM gives the caregiver the right to refuse to continue donating these materials, even if her refusal kills the dependent. Requiring to inject metabolic waste products across the placenta INTO the caregiver's bloodstream gives the caregiver the right to refuse to accept the dependent's waste products, even if THAT refusal kills the dependent. Finally, being located inside the caregiver's body gives the caregiver the right to kill and expel you at will, because it's her body.

This assumes that a woman's body should not normally operate by carrying a child within it. That being pregnant is akin to being diseased.
That it should operate like a man's body. Is this what you are implying?

This assumes that a woman's body should not normally operate by carrying a child within it. That being pregnant is akin to being diseased.
That it should operate like a man's body. Is this what you are implying?

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 2:03 PM
**********************************
Refusing to admit just how detrimental and debilitating a pregnancy can be is dishonest.

Refusing to admit just how detrimental and debilitating a pregnancy can be is dishonest.

I think everyone gets that pregnancy is a hard thing, TR.

I mean if it weren't, guys would do it. lol.

Bethany, pregnancy is reality. Fantasizing about 'Well - uh - there could be - uh - this boat and maybe there could be a woman on the boat and uh uh she might have a baby with her and uh - thats just like being pregnant!' isnt reality or anything close to it.

Refusing to admit just how detrimental and debilitating a pregnancy can be is dishonest.

You keep putting words in my mouth, Texasred. I never claimed that women who are pregnant cannot suffer. A woman's body is designed to go through pregnancy, and does it successfully in the great majority of times. Especially here in the USA. If the woman's body has a problem during pregnancy, many times it is caused by an underlying condition, sometimes obesity, sometimes a disease which she had previous to the pregnancy. If a woman is healthy, pregnancy does not have to be detrimental at all. In fact, it can be quite enjoyable, as you know.

Bethany, pregnancy is reality. Fantasizing about 'Well - uh - there could be - uh - this boat and maybe there could be a woman on the boat and uh uh she might have a baby with her and uh - thats just like being pregnant!' isnt reality or anything close to it.

It's called a hypothetical. And it's not so far from reality that it could not happen.

I'm really appalled I have to have this discussion with you, Bethany. But I really shouldn't be surprised.

Pro-lifers and pro-choicers are making two separate arguments. It's flat out stupid to equate pro-choicers as pro-aborts, because pro-choicers are not pro-abortion! They do not want there to be more abortions, they do not want everyone to get an abortion, they do not think abortion is a great and fantastic thing that everyone should experience in their lifetime.

Pro-choicers feel that abortion is a personal decision and that it is only the mother's CHOICE that should be relevent. The pro-choice argument also argues that women have the right to CHOOSE to have children, use contraceptives, adopt children or have your children adopted. In short, it's about putting the decision in the hands of the mother, and not the government. That's why it's not pro-abortion, it's pro-choice.

It's not a question of whether I do or do not support abortion. I am out of the equation. It is only one person's decision, and that is not mine (unless I happen to get pregnant, but in that case the only decision I get to make is for the life of my child and no one else's).

Pro-lifers like to say pro-abortion because it makes pro-choicers sound like they just want all babies dead. You know it, I know it. It's insulting and disrespectful and does not represent what the pro-choice movement really stands for.

If anti-choicers is a dishonest label, so is pro-aborts. You say it automatically because you've been trained by the pro-life side to say it automatically.

It's not "basic logic," it's TWO DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE SAME THING. So if you want to be a respectful human being to both pro-lifers and pro-choicers, you'll refer to them by what they prefer to be called, and not slide in disrespecful terms meant to mislead.

It's not controlling to disagree with someone's lifestyle, but it is disrespectful to intentionally disregard their thoughts and feelings on the matter. I actually care to be respectful, but if you choose not to, fine. I can't tell you what to do, but that's not going to stop the fact: It's disrespectful.

No, Edyt, it doesn't make you sound like you want all babies dead. It makes you sound like you support legalized abortion, which you do.

Look, check it out in the dictionary if you don't believe me.

pro-a·bor·tion (pr-bôrshn)
adj.
Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion
Pronunciation: (primarystress)promacr-schwa-primarystressbodotr-shschwan
Function: adjective
: favoring the legalization of abortion
- pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(schwa-)nschwast/ noun

Before they came up with the euphemism of "choice", we were "anti- abortionists" and you were all "pro-abortionists". Then, the word "choice" came along, and you decided that sounded better.

If you don't want people to think you support abortions, then stop supporting them. Honestly.

Bethany, you wrote: "This assumes that a woman's body should not normally operate by carrying a child within it."

No it doesn't. I assert (not assume) that her bodily functions, including life-support, should be under her control. Normal or abnormal.

"That being pregnant is akin to being diseased. "

Nope. My argument says nothing whatsoever about disease.

"That it should operate like a man's body."

Nope. Men don't have abortions.

"Is this what you are implying? "

I am implying only what I have written. You are attempting to answer my argument by claiming it makes (or implies) assertions that in fact it does not make (or imply). In the philosophy business (I was a philosophy major) this is called a "straw man argument", and it proves nothing.

And no, I don't do it to hurt your feelings, I do it because I feel dishonest when I refer to you as "pro-choice". I know what "choice" means. I held "choice" in my hand when i miscarried a year ago.

Refusing to admit just how detrimental and debilitating a pregnancy can be is dishonest.

You keep putting words in my mouth, Texasred. I never claimed that women who are pregnant cannot suffer. A woman's body is designed to go through pregnancy, and does it successfully in the great majority of times. Especially here in the USA. If the woman's body has a problem during pregnancy, many times it is caused by an underlying condition, sometimes obesity, sometimes a disease which she had previous to the pregnancy. If a woman is healthy, pregnancy does not have to be detrimental at all. In fact, it can be quite enjoyable, as you know.

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 2:11 PM
*******************************
Go back and look at your own comment. A womans body may NOT work 'normally' when she is pregnant. It could even kill her. Whether 'diseased' is the right word is quibbling over semantics. It doesnt matter 'how often' it happens. It happens. But even in the best of times the last part of pregnancy is very stressful physically. Saying that stress somehow doesnt matter because its 'natural' is laughable. If the woman doesnt want to endure this stress why do you imagine you have the right to tell her she HAS to simply because YOU think she 'should'? And I never said I enjoyed being pregnant. I said I didnt have any problems with my pregnancies.

Again, Texasred, you're assuming I've implied that woman don't ever suffer or die while pregnant.

You were replying to my statement that women are designed to carry children. And they are. That's how they are made, naturally.

Women are different than men, why? For many reasons, one of which being their ability to carry and give birth to offspring.

Again, Texasred, you're assuming I've implied that woman don't ever suffer or die while pregnant.

You were replying to my statement that women are designed to carry children. And they are. That's how they are made, naturally.

Women are different than men, why? For many reasons, one of which being their ability to carry and give birth to offspring.

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 2:28 PM
*******************************************
You try to pretend the suffering of someone else is inconsequential as long as she continues a pregnancy. You belittle demean and denigrate what SHE goes through because TO YOU its "all worth it". And if she doesnt agree then you hate her. I was commenting on what you said to SoMG -whether or not you could call a pregnancy a 'disease' is quibbling over semantics.

Bethany, pregnancy is reality. Fantasizing about 'Well - uh - there could be - uh - this boat and maybe there could be a woman on the boat and uh uh she might have a baby with her and uh - thats just like being pregnant!' isnt reality or anything close to it.

It's called a hypothetical. And it's not so far from reality that it could not happen.

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 2:13 PM
*******************************
Its called being ridiculous.
We have something like 6,000,000 pregnancies in the US per year. About 4,000,000 women give birth, about 1,000,000 women end their pregnancy and a whole lot of other pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. How many women do we have deciding to take 9 month long boat trips, alone, with only an infant with them? 'Well ... uh uh uh ... it COULD happen uh uh uh and then it would be just like being pregant!' is idiotic.

You try to pretend the suffering of someone else is inconsequential as long as she continues a pregnancy.

No, I help women through their pregnancies, which is what volunteering at a CPC is all about.
I make sure they know that they have access to medical care which is either affordable or free, and I make sure they know about WIC and programs like it, while donating maternity clothes, providing support, we will even drive women to and from the doctor if they request it, and much more.
It's not like I turn a blind eye to the suffering of pregnancy. Like you said in the other topic, "But if you have rough pregnancies then I guess its something you just have to endure."
The only difference is that I am there for those women when they get pregnant, and after they have the babies too.

You belittle demean and denigrate what SHE goes through because TO YOU its "all worth it".

How is saying "It's worth it" degrading what they go through?

And if she doesnt agree then you hate her. I was commenting on what you said to SoMG -whether or not you could call a pregnancy a 'disease' is quibbling over semantics.

You can stop putting words in my mouth. I don't hate anyone who has had an abortion.

Its called being ridiculous.
We have something like 6,000,000 pregnancies in the US per year. About 4,000,000 women give birth, about 1,000,000 women end their pregnancy and a whole lot of other pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. How many women do we have deciding to take 9 month long boat trips, alone, with only an infant with them? 'Well ... uh uh uh ... it COULD happen uh uh uh and then it would be just like being pregant!' is idiotic.

You clearly don't understand what a hypothetical is designed to do.

And by the way, abortion has always been illegal to save women's life. So if a woman's life is ever threatened by abortion, no matter whether it's legal or illegal, she will be able to have her abortion.

And by the way, abortion has always been illegal to save women's life. So if a woman's life is ever threatened by abortion, no matter whether it's legal or illegal, she will be able to have her abortion.

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 2:51 PM
***************************
There were two states where abortion wasnt allowed for any reason - will have to go back and look that up. But how much of a risk does SHE have to take to keep YOU happy? If she has a 10% chance of dying is that *enough* reason for you to *let* her have an abortion? Does it have to be more than that? 20%? 25%? 50%? more than that? 75%? 80%? or a guaranteed 'she will die if we dont' kind of scenario with no other option? Just HOW much risk do you think someone ELSE should be FORCED to take just to keep YOU happy? What does someone ELSE have to endure? How much do THEY have to suffer before YOU 'concede' that maybe they 'should' be 'allowed' to end a pregnancy?

Its called being ridiculous.
We have something like 6,000,000 pregnancies in the US per year. About 4,000,000 women give birth, about 1,000,000 women end their pregnancy and a whole lot of other pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. How many women do we have deciding to take 9 month long boat trips, alone, with only an infant with them? 'Well ... uh uh uh ... it COULD happen uh uh uh and then it would be just like being pregant!' is idiotic.

You clearly don't understand what a hypothetical is designed to do.

*************************
I understand exactly. And its NOT supposed to be so far fetched and so ridiculous and so absurd as to make the person who came up with it look like an idiot.

There were two states where abortion wasnt allowed for any reason - will have to go back and look that up. But how much of a risk does SHE have to take to keep YOU happy? If she has a 10% chance of dying is that *enough* reason for you to *let* her have an abortion? Does it have to be more than that? 20%? 25%? 50%? more than that? 75%? 80%? or a guaranteed 'she will die if we dont' kind of scenario with no other option? Just HOW much risk do you think someone ELSE should be FORCED to take just to keep YOU happy? What does someone ELSE have to endure? How much do THEY have to suffer before YOU 'concede' that maybe they 'should' be 'allowed' to end a pregnancy?

Doesn't matter what I think. It is the doctor's opinion, based on his experience with each woman, that matters there.

I understand exactly. And its NOT supposed to be so far fetched and so ridiculous and so absurd as to make the person who came up with it look like an idiot.

Okay, Texasred, obviously you win the argument by calling me an idiot. @@ I'm impressed.

TR, please make your points without the "stupid," "idiotic," "ridiculous" name calling.

TR, please make your points without the "stupid," "idiotic," "ridiculous" name calling.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 15, 2008 3:15 PM
*******************
Can antichoicers make their points without offering stupid, idiotic, and ridiculous arguments?

There were two states where abortion wasnt allowed for any reason - will have to go back and look that up. But how much of a risk does SHE have to take to keep YOU happy? If she has a 10% chance of dying is that *enough* reason for you to *let* her have an abortion? Does it have to be more than that? 20%? 25%? 50%? more than that? 75%? 80%? or a guaranteed 'she will die if we dont' kind of scenario with no other option? Just HOW much risk do you think someone ELSE should be FORCED to take just to keep YOU happy? What does someone ELSE have to endure? How much do THEY have to suffer before YOU 'concede' that maybe they 'should' be 'allowed' to end a pregnancy?

Doesn't matter what I think. It is the doctor's opinion, based on his experience with each woman, that matters there.

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 3:07 PM
************
oh - you want it to happen and youre certain thats how it should 'be' but you quickly wash your hands of any suffering or pain or deaths which may occur and insist it was 'the doctors' who 'made a mistake' - YOU didnt have anything to 'do' with it .... someone ELSE can actually bear the burden of making these decisions - your little conscience will be clear

You can stop putting words in my mouth. I don't hate anyone who has had an abortion.

Posted by: Bethany at April 15, 2008 2:44 PM
********************
Thats certainly how it looks.

You belittle demean and denigrate what SHE goes through because TO YOU its "all worth it".

How is saying "It's worth it" degrading what they go through?

***********************
Youre saying you are in a position to decide if it IS 'worth it' regardless of whether they agree or not - anything they suffer doesnt mean a thing to you. You pretend their suffering is inconsequential because YOU have decided THEIR pain is 'worth it' if THEY have a child.

Youre saying you are in a position to decide if it IS 'worth it' regardless of whether they agree or not - anything they suffer doesnt mean a thing to you. You pretend their suffering is inconsequential because YOU have decided THEIR pain is 'worth it' if THEY have a child.

So? You have decided you are in the position to tell me that I am an idiot because I disagree with you. You have decided that you are in a position to decide whether I should have an opinion about abortion. So what if I have decided that I disagree with you on abortion issues? Am I not allowed to have an opinion, but you are?

Thats certainly how it looks.

Would I expect any less from someone who thinks that everyone "looks" like an idiot, unless they agree with them? I don't think you, or SOMG, or Edyt are "idiots", just because we disagree.

Start showing me how you have true concern for others and not just ranting speeches about how idiotic we are, then I might have more respect for your opinion of whether I have "hate" or not.

Bethany, I think TR is trying to get you to show compassion for what the women go through, and not just focus on the baby. A lot of the reason we are so staunchly pro-choice is because women's issues get put on the backburner when it comes to politics, and no one really thinks about how things like illegal abortion affects women.

When you completely disregard the life of the woman enduring the pregnancy, it makes it seem like you don't care about her at all... like she's not even a part of the equation. And the thing is, women play THE MOST important role in producing a child, so they should be the UTMOST PRIORITY when it comes to issues of pregnancy and childbearing.

Many pro-choicers feel pro-lifers are blind to the concerns of the mother, which is why we keep fighting so hard to get pro-lifers to acknowledge her and what she's going through. When you continuously disregard the mother, it makes you sound like they aren't important human beings. In fact, it really dehumanizes them.

Edyt:

And the thing is, women play THE MOST important role in producing a child, so they should be the UTMOST PRIORITY when it comes to issues of pregnancy and childbearing.

I know we disagree on this, but I have to respond...Actually, God plays the most important role, not the Mom. What He wants trumps us all. God doesn't care about politics. He cares about all human life equally. I will pray that some day you see the light. Even though you don't believe in HIM any more, He still believes in you whether you agree or not. We are supposed to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. - The Golden Rule -

If the tables were turned and a fetus had a chance to take his mother's life so he could live, do you think he would?

If the tables were turned and a fetus had a chance to take his mother's life so he could live, do you think he would?

Posted by: Janet at April 15, 2008 11:26 PM
......................................................................

The fetus would be committing suicide now wouldn't it. No woman, no fetus.

A fetus? Probably take it's mothers life for it's own.

Sally, Say just for fun, the fetus could live on it's own, to make the playing field even. You'd think he was pretty selfish if he wanted to kill his mother, right?

Jess, Same selfish decision his mother makes when she aborts.

Bethany, I think TR is trying to get you to show compassion for what the women go through, and not just focus on the baby. A lot of the reason we are so staunchly pro-choice is because women's issues get put on the backburner when it comes to politics, and no one really thinks about how things like illegal abortion affects women.
When you completely disregard the life of the woman enduring the pregnancy, it makes it seem like you don't care about her at all... like she's not even a part of the equation. And the thing is, women play THE MOST important role in producing a child, so they should be the UTMOST PRIORITY when it comes to issues of pregnancy and childbearing.
Many pro-choicers feel pro-lifers are blind to the concerns of the mother, which is why we keep fighting so hard to get pro-lifers to acknowledge her and what she's going through. When you continuously disregard the mother, it makes you sound like they aren't important human beings. In fact, it really dehumanizes them.

You're blinding yourself to reality if you really believe that pro-lifers have no compassion for women. There are today twice as many pregnancy centers than there are abortion clinics. Women who are pregnant or have small children are given free food, shelter, referred to free medical care, clothing, baby food, baby clothes, maternity clothes, high chairs, strollers, anything that a woman needs, these people try their best to meet, many times out of their own pockets.

I do not see the pro-abortion people doing this. I see them supporting giving the woman the abortion, because she feels forced to, due to financial situations or losing her job, then just throwing her back into the situation she was in before, without ever really thinking about ACTUALLY helping her problems.

To think that you would think TexasREd, the most foul mouthed woman in Texas, who thinks everyone except herself is an imbecile, would be able to give me lessons in compassion...it is quite astounding.

Amazing how you gave me this whole big speech about how I shouldn't call you a pro-abortion supporter, and yet, I don't see you directing your attention towards the multiple posts that Texas REd has made insulting everyone on the face of this earth for being a demented or delusional imbecile antichoicer. And then you want me to LEARN compassion from her. Amazing.

"You had dreams? Have a high chair instead."

Edyt: "You had dreams? Have a high chair instead."

Bethany gives a wonderful explanation of the dedication of women who want to make a difference, and you turn around and mock those women who work/volunteer at Pregnancy centers?

Inconceivable. The radical-feminist-brain-washing has worked perfectly on you. Your feminist friends must be so proud. Please think of someone like Bethany before you go in for that abortion someday. She will still there to help you if you need it.