Hopefully one day the other 45% will become pro life.

But, you'd still be short 5% Heather.

OOps, you got me Midnite.

The MSM (except for foxnews): shills for PP, Naral and the Democrat party.

Heather:

I was serisouly not trying to be a smart ass. Just pointing out that with the numbers that were posted, even if you got the other 45%, the Pro-Life stance would be at 95%, not 100%. And I dont believe that any stance on this topic will ever get 100% support from the public (even the pro-choice side which I am on). Maybe I am a pessimist though?

Oh, no problem Midnite. No problem at all.

Heather:

Do you think either side will get 100% support from the public. I am curious to your opinion on this. As I pointed out, I am some what of a pessimist, and I am curious if a pro-lifer thinks either (life or choice) will ever get the full 100% support of the public & politicians?

midnite, honestly I don't. It's just wishful thinking. We will always have those that want to keep abortion legal. midnite, you are pro choice, correct? May I ask your reasons why? I am not being a smart alic. I'm just curious.

Well, I don't think any cause could ever get 100% support. I mean there are people who think that murder is a-ok. I think we can get very close. I think that we can get to the point as a society where we look back and see abortion for the horror that it is.

Of course you may Heather, and I shall answer.

I am pro-choice, although I would never personally have an abortion unless 1) I was raped or 2) my life was in danger. Now with that said, I don't like abortion, I wish it was unnecessary and it wasn't as common as it is, however, my stance is that I don't have any say in what other women do with their bodies and that includes what is inside their body. Nor do I feel I have the right to judge a woman on her actions (regarding abortions), when the woman in question is doing what she believes is right for her. No one should have the right to talk someone out of a surgery, should that be abortion, plastic surgery etc. Nor do I believe that the Government should be able to tell anyone what to do with their own body. I think if abortions were outlawed, it would open the door to the Gov having control over our body, and making other procedures illegal. That is one step closer to being a communist country, in my opinion.

I do have a problem when women abuse abortions and use them as a form of birth control. I think that is horrid. I hope that one day the number of abortions will go down. But until, we as a society can find an 100% fool proof birth control, I dont think that will happen. We need to teach the youth of America about birth control and how to effectively use it. I think that the abstince only education is flawed and research has proven that it doesnt work (the average age of first time sex in America is 14.5). The Gov. is waisting money on this subject when it has been proven not to work (kind of like community policing. off subject I know, but it prves my point).

I understand that the fetus that is aborted is a potential life. I am not an inhumane woman like some would like to believe. I also understand that the biological purpose of sex is procreation, but alas, it is for recreation use as well.

Does any of this makes sense?

And Lauren:

I do not think abortions are murders. Now before you jump all over me, let me explain.

(My minor in college is Criminal Justice)

A murder is illegal in the United States. Abortion, at this present time, is not illegal. There are 3 things that must be present for it to be a murder. Abortions (in my opinion) do not have those three things. I do think abortions are killings. How ever, some killings are legal (i.e. self defense, war, etc).

midnight:

definition of murder:

to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously

abortion is murder, despite what the professors are telling you, my dear.

Midnite:

I wasn't saying that abortion was murder. I know that for a killing to be murder it must be illegal. I was just pointing out that some people do not believe murder of any human is morally wrong. There are people who don't believe the Government should legislate anything.

Because of this, it is unlikely we will ever have 100% support for the pro-life cause.

Jasper:

There are many defintions for words. I am not going on what my Professor tells me. I am going on what (4) Criminal Justice books have said (one of them was a Law book). Not to mention, I have done my own research on the murder subject. I am not naive and go soley on what person tells me. If that was the case, I would still believe in the stork bringing babies, Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc.

"I know that for a killing to be murder it must be illegal"

Lauren, I don't think this is the case.

Lauren:

My bad, I read your post wrong (studying Music Apperciation and Biology has my head spinning). I do think muders are moraly wrong. I do have a problem with that (although I do suport the death penalty).

I also have no probolem with the Government legislating things (I do when it comes to my own body). Age to vote, buy alcohol, cigs, etc. Laws are a good thing. Without them, it would be chaos.

It all depends what kind of law were talking about here...

Jasper: Legally speaking, I believe that the the charge of murder is contingent upon a crime being committed.

Coloquially, murder may indeed simply refer to killing. If that is the case, it would be appropriate to define abortion as murder as long as one was speaking coloquially and not legally.

Midnite-

Why do you think that the government should not be able to interfer in the some bodily decisions? You mention a slippery slope into communism. What is your basis from this idea?

The government already restricts what we can do with our body. Prostitution and drug use are illegal. Do you contend that these should also be legal in order to prevent the spread of communism?

I am talking about U.S. Law. And the Laws of Alabama (since I am in Ala, I had to research Ala laws). I cant remember the name of the book. I have it some where in my house.

I've got to go to work now. I shall return in 30 minutes to continue this debate (b/c I get bored at work, and most of the time, there is nothing to do).

midnite, Thank you for your answer. There was a time that I once thought like you. The only difference is that I always knew that abortion was murder. I used to say to women; "I'd never have an abortion, but if you want one, it's your choice." I felt that it was a sensitive subject and I didn't want to upset anyone. I began to look at different pro life web sites, and I began to investigate abortion. What I found shocked the living hell outta me! What had I been saying? Honestly, I had been ignorant to the issue. I realized that abortion wasn't helping women. It was hurting them. I managed to uncover a lot of sleaze and smut in the abortion industry. I've got links if you're interested.

I'll be back later to continue. I have a doctor appointment.

No, Lauren. I understand why prostitution and drug use are illegal. Not only does it hurt the person in question, but it can hurt others as well. More crimes are commited by people on drugs, and STD's are spread through prostitution. Not to mention, prostitutes are at a greater danger of rape, crime, and murders.

Now I really must leave for work, but please reply, I shall return.

No, Lauren. I understand why prostitution and drug use are illegal. Not only does it hurt the person in question, but it can hurt others as well. More crimes are commited by people on drugs, and STD's are spread through prostitution. Not to mention, prostitutes are at a greater danger of rape, crimes commited against them (i.e. assault, robbery, etc.), and murders.

Now I really must leave for work, but please reply, I shall return.

oops, sorry for the double post.

Heather:

You sound just like me! I was also in the "I'd never have one, but we shouldn't tell other women what to do with their bodies" camp.

Then I began to realize what it was that I supported. I think the reason so many of us fall into this way of thinking is because we have not really known a time when abortion was illegal. We are the generation of "choice". It's encouraging that more and more of us are breaking away from the PP rhetoric.

Good luck at your Dr. Appt. Heather.

Midnite:

You say " Not only does it hurt the person in question, but it can hurt others as well. "

This is *exactly* why we oppose abortion! There is another person involved who is ALWAYS hurt.

"If that was the case, I would still believe in the stork bringing babies, Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc"

Santa is not real? *crying* boo-hoo

Part of the never-ending 'debate' that we're experiencing here is that for most pro-choicers here an abortion decision is a remote one. As such, it is mainly a virtual reality question.

To get a better indication of how you would practically vs theoretically respond to this issue ... perhaps we should get an idea from how you respond now to: 'resident aliens'.

OPEN - FOR OPINIONS

I am returned.

Lauren: you are correct, I have not experienced a time when abortion was illegal, but my father has. I've had lengthy discussions with him about when abortions were illegal. He has told me about "back alley abortions" and so forth (and yes, Jasper I researched this myself too).

Also, as I said earlier, I know that the fetus being aborted is a potential human. I've also stated I dont like abortions, I wish they happened less, and I would never personally have one. I understand the pro-life side (serisouly I do). But as I said, I do not have the right to tell another person what they can or can not do with their body.

Midnite

But as I said, I do not have the right to tell another person what they can or can not do with their body.

why?

"Also, as I said earlier, I know that the fetus being aborted is a potential human."

the unborn baby is human. what do think happens when the baby is born (it suddenly turns into a human?) This doesn't make sense. This is the big lie.

"I've also stated I dont like abortions"

why don't you like them midnite?

Heather -

To be fair, you know, by looking at only pro-life websites and sources, you are not getting the full story (yes, yes - just as a pro-choicer wouldn't get the full story by only looking at pro-choice sites and sources).

It doesn't really help to form a real opinion when you look at something that affirms your own and you just agree without bothering to challenge yourself. It's important to get neutral information and if that is difficult or impossible (as is the case with abortion, obviously), you should at leasst get both sides of the biased information.

I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt that you did your homework before blindly forming an opinion. I like to have faith in people. :)

Midnite:

I have two questions.

First, what exactly is it that you know about illegal abortions?

Secondly, I notice that you've repeatedly said you see unborn children as "potential people". What is your qualification for personhood?

MK: I cant tell you (for example, I dont mean any of this) you're fat, go on a diet, or you're ugly, go get plastic surgery, etc.

Jasper:

Scroll up and read, I've explained why I dont like and wish the numbres would go down.

Midnite: Perhap's I've missed it, but I couldn't find exactly why you don't like abortion. I see where you said that you don't like women abusing abortions, but not where you say why.

Could you explain it again or point me to where I could find it?

I'm not being obtuse, I just honestly can't find where you talk about your reasoning for disliking abortion.

I understand that the fetus that is aborted is a potential life. (this is why I dont really like it)

And not a problem Lauren.

midnite: you don't explain above why you don't like abortion itself. What is it about it that you don't like?

Thanks for the clarification Midnite.

So what exactly makes the fetus a "potential life" and not a "life"?

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. If a mother didnt abort her fetus it would become a life.

does that make sense?

midnite: you don't explain above why you don't like abortion itself. What is it about it that you don't like?

Jasper:

I have answered that question once, and then clarified it with Lauren. Please look up and read.

"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?

Midnite,

Concerning illegal abortions, the number of deaths from illegal abortion had been steadily declining for years, mostly due to advances in antibiotic and fluid therapy. The year before RoevWade it was down to 36. The majority of illegal abortions were done in doctor's offices, not back alleys. The illegal abortion death rate of 10,000/year was the number used by NARAL, then the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. According to one of NARAL's founders, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, NARAL leaders, including Betty Friedan, were well aware the 10,000 number was totally false.
NARAL had the help of a very compliant and sympathetic media to spread this falsehood and promote the legalization of abortion. NARAL leaders also deliberately singled out the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as a common enemy against which abortion supporters could rally. The hierarchy made a much easier target, its not that Catholics opposed abortion any more than any other religion. Ask any hate group, if you want to rally people around a cause, give them a scapegoat.
Back then the term "choice" had not come into favor yet. You were pro or anti abortion.

Jasper,

It doesnt matter b/c ID&X has been banned (except for cases where the mother's life is at risk). I find your question quite silly and irrelevant. I dont see a mother carry a fetus to term and then two days before her due date "decide hey I waited long enough, get this fetus out of me".

midnite,

lets just say it was legal, would you support this womans right to choose (remember, it's still not a life according to you). Please answer-

thanks

Midnite, we just want to know what you find wrong about it. You say that its because the fetus is potential life...but I don't think that's true, mainly because if you were, you would also be against condoms and birth control. I'm trying to see where you're coming from, but you're not making it easy when you go back and forth saying it makes you sad, but you don't really know why.

There is no point in answering Jasper, it is a silly question and the scenario you've given is illegal. Not to mention, that *most* abortions happen late in the first trimester or ealry in the second trimester.

So No I will not answer b/c there is no reason too.

midnite: I will know refer to you as:

Barbara "I'm not answering these questions" Boxer

http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL1199/boxsan.html

And no, I dont have a problem with birth control pills or condoms, that is silly Bethany. I am not going back and forth either. People are twisting my words to fit their agenda. I've stated quite clearly the way I feel about the topic at hand. Not to mention, no matter what I answer it is wrong to y'all.

And no, I dont have a problem with birth control pills or condoms, that is silly Bethany

The reason I brought it up is because a sperm is a potential life. The ovum is potential life.

A fetus is a developing human being. Not a potential life, because from the moment of conception, nothing is added to the unborn child to make it so....

A sperm must be combined with an ovum before it can become a human life, a unique individual with separate DNA and everything it needs to develop further, save oxygen and nutrition.

If you are sad about abortion, you must have a reason why. (I would not be sad about abortion if I thought it only destroyed potential life). If you are sad because it destroys what you consider to be potential life, then you must also feel sad about sperms which do not make it into the ovum, simply because they are potential life....the fetus (from the moment of conception) is actual life (according to science), and does not need anything in order to make them an "actual" human, because they already are such.

If you still think they are potential life, you need to give me a reason why they are potential and not actual life. What is added to them in order to change them from potential to actual? And again, why does it make you sad if they are only potential?

Viability does not change the structure of the unborn child, it only allows the ability of the baby to change locations from womb, to outside the womb.

If you move from your home to another state, does that make you structurally different? I see no biological reason that the baby has changed from potential to actual life from before viability to after viability. If you do, please let me know what it is.

Anyway, please answer the questions...I'm asking in sincerity, there's no reason to get angry.

"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"

This argument always intrigues me. First of all, it is only a change of address where that baby is living and thriving. It is as much alive in the womb as it is outside the womb.

Second of all, When a baby is born, He/She is still living off of the mothers' nutrients (breast milk) or in the modern age is given formula. A baby is totally incapable of surviving on it's own without the help of someone feeding it to meet it's dietary needs. A born baby is totally dependent on the mother or caregiver. So........

Midnite,

MK: I cant tell you (for example, I dont mean any of this) you're fat, go on a diet, or you're ugly, go get plastic surgery, etc.

Actually, because of freedom of speech you can.
And you might even be correct. What you can't do is make it a law that I have to go on a diet or get plastic surgery.

But you can make it a law to wear seat belts. And you can make it a law that you can't drive while under the influence of alcohol. And you can make it a law that you have to wear shoes in a place that serves food. And you can make it a law that you can't litter.

So if we have laws that tell a person what they can and can't do with their bodies and possessions, why do you draw the line at having to carry a child that you had part in creating?

But as I said, I do not have the right to tell another person what they can or can not do with their body.

Again, I ask you why? Not which circumstances can you not tell another person what they can and cannot do with their body, but why?

Midnite,

It doesnt matter b/c ID&X has been banned (except for cases where the mother's life is at risk). I find your question quite silly and irrelevant. I dont see a mother carry a fetus to term and then two days before her due date "decide hey I waited long enough, get this fetus out of me".

Actually it matters very much. The fact that one method of abortion in no way affects the number of abortions being done in the final weeks of pregnancy. They will just have to dismember the child first.

Have you just skipped over all the posts on Dr. Tiller...He does abortions up to the date of birth. The moment of "viability" is entirely up to him.

Abortion is allowed through all nine months of pregnancy.

So I think that Jasper question is not only valid but pertinent.

Nobody here has refused to answer a question asked sincerely in all the months that I have been on here. Odd that the first should be you. I think it's because the irrational hoops you have to jump through to rationalize your stance are confusing you...stop, breathe, think and answer the question.

Do you think that a mother should be allowed to abort her child the day before it is due?

Actually I recall reading somewhere that the majority of registered republicans are pro-choice. The active ones, the organizers and delegates, are right-to-lifers. And there are a few very wealthy right-to-lifers who contribute a significant portion of the GOP's budget (for instance Richard Mellon Scaife.)

Does anyone know any recent polls within the GOP--what portion of registered Republicans are pro-choice? I bet it's more than you think, just as with American Catholics who use birth-control and are pro-choice.

There's only one potential republican candidate who REALLY cares about the unborn, the way Reagan did: Robert K. Dornan.

Someone who really despises abortion, adultery, and immorality.

A true Catholic.

Robert K. Dornan, formerly Congressman from California.

Pro-choice Republicans who don't care very much about the issue one way or the other, I mean.

SoMG:

the Republican party is owned and operated by capitalists -- not social conservatives. We pro-life folk have been their useful idiots, as a rule. It's unfortunate, but true.

Nothing against capitalism. Just some of its instantiations (and on that note, this Evangelical sides with the last Pope ;-)

By the way, it's a slander to say Tiller will do abortions up to the date of birth. He doesn't, unless the fetus is abnormal and unable to survive (eg anencephaly). He makes a good-faith effort to determine whether the fetus could live outside the uterus and if it can, he won't do the abortion.

I challenge you to catch him doing an abortion of a viable fetus.

I mean, a fetus that could survive outside the uterus at the time of the abortion.

Somg, No. He [Tiller] doesn't.

Smaug,

You never did explain what the game is with this:

There's only one potential republican candidate who REALLY cares about the unborn, the way Reagan did: Robert K. Dornan.

Someone who really despises abortion, adultery, and immorality.

A true Catholic.

Robert K. Dornan, formerly Congressman from California.
Posted by: B1BobforPrez! at May 14, 2007 09:57 PM

I can't understand why you need to hide behind false names...but then again I haven't understood anything that's been said on this post...

So, give. I'm ready to fall for your trap...what's up with the pro life candidate?

Smog, Tiller doesn't care if a baby is in perfest health or not. He'll still abort it.

meant perfect

Smoggy, from the NYT, May 10: "In a New York Times/CBS News poll in March, 41 percent of Republicans thought abortions should be prohibited, compared with 23 percent of Americans in general; in addition, 53 percent of Republicans said they wanted a Republican presidential nominee who would make abortions more difficult to get."

Heather, SOMG invited you to prove it. You didn't. Case closed.

Jill, I'm curious, if only 23% of Americans in general thought that abortions should be prohibited, wouldn't the statistics posted above be incorrect?

Less, why's that?

Less, I don't have to prove a thing to Smog.

Smog, Less: On Tiller

Medical records from Tiller's clinic showed him doing late term abortions on healthy fetuses for the health reason of "temporary depression". Shortly after the AG was replaced with someone with personal ties with Tiller. As such we are still waiting for justice. We DO know that Tiller surrendered his records(redacted)and that the information within was sufficiant to charge him with multiple crimes.

Midnite-Sorry I ran off yesterday, my husband and I started a Red Dwarf Marathon!

Less, what did he ask me to prove? I asked him to prove that childbirth causes damage to a woman's cervix. This was his claim, but he couldn't back it up. Frankly, he still owes me some proof.

Lauren, gotta ask. What's a Red Dwarf Marathon?!

Red Dwarf is a sci-fi TV series. :)

Ahhhh. Thx.

The *best* sci-fi tv series! It's a really low budget BBC show from the late 80's/early 90's. We own season's 1-4 on DVD, but it appears that you can watch every single episode of the 8 season series on You Tube. Needless to say, we were pretty excited.

I love Monk marathons myself...I could watch him for weeks at a time...