Pat's Thoughts Volume 7: Abortion

This is probably one of the few things I disagree with Kerry about. He supports abortion. I'm VERY against it and I feel that the only time it should even be considered is if a woman is raped. If she's raped, then it should be her choice.

I've even been questioning whether that's right or wrong too. Are you FOR or AGAINST it? -Pat

I am against it 100%, unless like Pat said a woman is raped, which is still a questionable decision to make.

Offtopic: How can you agree or disagree with Kerry on anything when he doesn't even have a firm stance on the issues? :p

---

Ontopic: Not even in rape is abortion justified. Killing an innocent life is the most abhorrent act that can be committed by one human being upon another imho. It is not the child's fault that he/she is created out of a deviant and despicable act; it is a life regardless of how conception occurs.

These feminists who go 'round screaming "It's a woman's choice" should consider the fact that every human being has unalienable rights (especially so in the United States, though they are defiled by abortion). Killing a sentient being is wrong in it's own right, but to kill ones own flesh and blood...how can you live with yourself? Many women who have had abortions have regretted doing so, perhaps the most publicized "turn around" would be in the Roe v. Wade case. By the time the case was over, she had given birth. But regardless, she is now a strong pro-life advocate.

Some may find my stance hypocritical that I support the death penalty, yet vehementally oppose abortion. The oft aimed-at-Republicans saying: "Before you're born, you are priceless. But once you're out of the womb, you can be put in the electric chair." The difference is this: the child inside a womans body is pure (save for original sin; cleansed through baptism) and wholly innocent. Free from any poison or ills that afflict society today. It's like choosing take a gun, and having a choice: to save Osama Bin Laden or kill an unborn child simply because the child is unwanted...

I think I've talked about this before, but if a pregnant women is killed by a drunk driver, it's double-homicide. Yet the intentional murder of an unborn child by a liscensed physician is legally and morally acceptable??? I think not. Perhaps the ends justify the means in the case of abortionist Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was killed in Amhearst (a suburb of Buffalo) a few years ago by James Kopp, who took a high powered rifle and shot him. Call me morbid, but I think what Kopp did is not entirely wrong. Killing that man stopped the suffering and death of unborn children.

I think that if my wife/girlfriend ever did have an abortion, my reaction would be even stronger then that of Michael Corleone in GF II. I cannot begin to fathom the immediate disgust I would hold in my heart. Of course again, the response: "Many men are not responsible for the child they create." While that may be true, neither are women who leave their child for three days (to go snort crack) alone in his room, and come back to find he has electrocuted himself by sticking a stapler into an outlet. This happened in Buffalo fairly recently. Another reason why I wholly support adoptions, especially considering that it could be the ultimate gift. If you live in poverty and know you cannot care for your child, why not give him or her the best chance they've got? Choose life. Not death.

It's not a choice. It's murder.

Abortion = murder

"It's my body, my choice."

They fail to remember that there is someone else's body in them. :rolleyes:

What if a woman claimed she was raped, but it couldn't be proven?

Which is it? 100% or 99.9% or ??

I am 100% in favor of abortion.

In fact, I think mothers should be permitted to kill their children even after they are born, and up to, say, age five.

Well Plawrence, you certainly made my jaw drop then. And you're not stood naked infront of me this time (that's one for the rumour mill).

I'm all for abortion.

Infact I'm all for euphenasia and voluntary suicides for people of all ages over 21 years old.

The voluntary suicides should have a trial run in prisons first. People given long term sentences should be allowed the right to die and it could help reduce prison overpopulation. Inmates would be given 6 months of counselling first before the death could be given.

Why bother with a trial run? In fact, why bother with voluntary suicides at all?

Let's just execute all of the two-time losers. Now that will reduce the prison population.

I too am against abortion. If I can wait to have sex, then anybody can! Keep it zipped up!

What if a teenage girl is raped by her father or brother?
I believe it is well justified then.

I'm personally not in favour of abortions, I would not have one myself, but who am I to tell other women what to do? I wouldn't condemn someone who had had an abortion as that's their choice and none of my business.

But we're a bit more leniant in this part of the world. I know its a much more contraversial issue in the US.

I agree with Double J on this issue whole heartedly. It is MURDER no matter what the case.
It is more wrong in the US to kill an animal than it is to kill an unborn baby. I was brought up "if you gonna do the crime than you got to do the time"

I´m think all we have the choice to decided what is better for us, so i´m agree with womans who decided abortion is the best thing to do. because is their choice , i guess.

Ps: i´m not feminist (either a old fashion lady) , i don´t have a political tendency i guess, i´m was raised catholic and i live in a country who have a divorce law for a year , so i not a typical liberal person in background , but i´m belive in freedom to choose.

I belive in Abortion at any point in a pregnacy if at the point that the abortion is held that if the child is born prematurly that it is certain to die.

I think anti-abortionists are almost as bad as the terrorists we are trying to defeat.

Why are you trying to impose your beliefs on another person? It's really no different than trying to have the whole world convert to Islam. Or those holy rollers who want the entire country to revert back to the stone age and become super-christians.

if I don't want to, I don't have to.

Leave me the f--- alone.

Until the baby is able to survive witout extensive medical help, it's part of her body. While I don't agree with later birth abortions, in all reality, that woman should be able to do whatever she wants.

Lord knows we don't need anymore unwanted children in this world.

Highly against it... surprise surprise.

Look... Science today is showing more than ever before that tha unborn fetus is a living person. It also shows that it even suffers pain during the process. There isnt much doubt in the scientific world, and there shouldnt be much doubt in the real world that abortion is wrong.

And that doesnt even mention the moral reasons. If you believe in god at all then you wouldnt even touch the possibility of abortion. I know having a child for some women is difficult, but denying it the right to have a life is nothing short of murder. Worse comes to worse, you could always give it up for adoption.

Now I am not against contraceptives. I dont see a problem with the morning after pill. I think more work should be done to improve contraceptives so this issue can go away, because frankly, it sickens me.

Frankly, I was waiting for plaw to expand on his comments made prior . We have broached this subject before and as a fellow adoptee, I am surprised at his response and wonder if he made it in jest.

I was born to a 16 and 17 year old unmarried couple in San Francisco in 1965. Every day I thank my lucky stars that they "chose" adoption over the alternative. I think it could have been very easy to terminate the pregnancy then either by legal or illegal means.

Honestly, it is not a moral or political issue for me but an emotional one. Knowing I could have been an aborted "fetus" and never had the chance to exist - well, the thought makes me shudder. I also know the first time I heard my unborn baby's heartbeat or felt her kick for the first time, I could never intentionally bring harm to a baby - ANY baby.

But I also know that when a woman is young and pregnant and has nowhere to turn, they will use any means necessary to terminate the pregnancy. Time if of the essence and if not allowed legal means to abort, they will seek out more harmful,illegal and often times life threatening ways to rid themselves of the baby. I simply don't have the answer.

I know if I could perform magic, the first thing I would do is ensure that no girl in the world menstruated before the age of 21 (at least!). There is absolutely NO reason girls need to be fertile and able to bear children before then. Girls starting at 11 and we are telling them to abstain for YEARS, it is an uphill battle. There are enough things to worry about with sex without the thought of bringing unwanted or unplanned babies into this world.

Of course there are alot of OTHER things I would tackle if I could perform magic. I would be one tired gal!

I don't enjoy abortion or the subject but damn it, its a right to women.

It is then basicly a fight between two things... The Baby and The Mother and no matter what desicion made I think we can all agree that there is no defenate answer as to the right of abort. SOme one is bound to be screwed in the fight.

You could argue that they have the right to abort Mike. But god damn it, even if they did, does that make it right? I say this so often on the BB, but its a concept I truly believe in. Just because you have the right to do something, does not make it right.

Okay so the women might have the right to choose. What about the baby? What choice did the baby have? It didnt have a choice, to be born or to be murdered. Women make the choice to have sex and they know the risks. And if they dont, then they shouldnt be having sex anyways. shouldnt have been having sex anyways.

I am against it. Hell, I have a 2 year old. The thought crossed my mind at first, but naturally decided againt it because this was my child inside. I think adoption is a wonderful choice. They're so any couples out thre who can't have children and want a child.

Like Willy Cicci, I'll expand on my answer.

My response was, of course, in jest, and made to point out the ridiculousness of the extreme argument, whether for or against abortion.

Surely, the point of view that a 16 year old rape victim, for example, or even a 16 year old who becomes pregnant from consensual sex should be made to carry a child to term is indefensible.

Yeah, I know all about how the girl should suffer the consequences for her actions if the pregnancy resulted from consensual sex, but since the law doesn't regard a teenager as being wholly responsible for his or her actions I don't see why an unwanted pregnancy should be any different.

And what do we do with the unwed mother and her newborn? Let them go on welfare, I guess, so we can all pay for it.

To me, once a fetus is capable of living outside the womb, it has become a person. Prior to that, it is simply a fetus growing inside of a woman's body, not yet a person, and part of that woman's body. And that gives her the right to choose abortion or birth.

As far as the death penalty goes, murder is murder, whether sanctioned by the state or not. I understand the anti-abortion argument, and understand the pro-death penalty one as well, but anyone in favor of both on the grounds that abortion is murder is just plain hypocritical IMO.

And while I'm on the subject of hypocrites, how about all the Catholics who are anti-abortion, yet practice birth control? If you want to really go to the extreme, one could argue that preventing an egg from being fertilized is a denial of life in a manner of speaking.

And finally, I know I've said this before:

"Beware of the religious right"

It's very easy to say it's a womans right to choose when the other party is unable to speak. :rolleyes:

Calling Pro-Lifers terrorists now...somehow I don't think that people who advocate life over death can be called terrorists.

The dependancy of a child is irrelevant. If that was so, then death by parents could legally be held until the age when a child is no longer financially dependant. Even an infant out of the womb is soley dependant on the parents.

I don't think we are forcing our ideaology upon anyone; in fact, I think quite the opposite. Everyday we have to accomodate someone...no more "under God," it's a womans choice, politically correct bullshit. We should try the morally correct thing for a change. The number of "super-christians" as you call them is far outnumbered by the liberal media and the loose sociological image created by hollywood, and the acceptance of this as the "norm".

The baby may be a part of her body in the sense that yes, the two are connected. But in that same idea, it is also a part of the mans body. Genes came from two distinct people. Because the female carries (and supplies the baby with nutrients), the child is soley dependant on the woman to survive. But that give ANYONE the right to kill that life. It is a being that exists within another; simply because it cannot speak for or defend itself is a rather preposterous rationalization for destroying it.

A woman's "right"? Puh-leeze. The only "right" she and her lover had was the right to use birth control to begin with... or, if they reeaaally don't want to chance pregnancy: abstinence. It still floors me how in this day and age -- with all the different methods of birth control available -- folks still have "unwanted" pregnancies. And rape? Incest? You're talking about maybe .02% out of the massive slaughter
of babies that's going on. And even IF the pregnancy came via one of those horrors, IT'S STILL NOT THE BABY'S FAULT. Yet, regardless of the means, people still want to sacrifice innocents all to the god of convienence. A "woman's right"...sheeesh! The BABY (NOT tissue, fetus, etc.) inside her, while he didn't ask to be conceived, has "rights" as well, and the most basic right is the right to life. And don't give me that crap about "since it's legal, it must be okay." Throwing people to the lions for their religious beliefs was okay in Rome at one time, too.
As far as those who insist on referring to the unborn child as a "thing" rather than a baby, I suppose this helps alleviate some of the inherent guilt over it. But my question to those folks is, What are the chances that this "fetus/tissue," if left unchecked and unaborted, will grow into an actual person ?? Probably pretty good. Thus, if the unborn child is going to grow into a man or woman, then he/she is still a person inside the womb. And if a person, then, quite simply, abortion is murder. You can label it whatever you'd like to help you sleep at night, but whatever you believe it is personally doesn't change what it truly is.
And, btw, I'm not "anti-abortion"...I'm pro-life. "Anti-abortion" is just another handy label folks use to: (1) Again, alleviate guilt for the pro-abortionists ("pro-choice" is an oxymoron); and (2) paint the pro-lifers in a negative, "rebellious" light. But, hey, that's cool...I love being a rebel!

Calling Pro-Lifers terrorists now...somehow I don't think that people who advocate life over death can be called terrorists. [/b][/quote]Nice comeback.

It is a true concept but the problem is is that in this topic there is no right or wrong...

Which is it? 100% or 99.9% or ?? [/b][/quote]Well, I am 100%. I actually thought about what should happen if she should get raped. I still think that you should not be able to get an abortion. So, 100%.

I think most women go crazy trying to decide what to do. It's a painful experience to actually decide to have an abortion. So if she has come to the conclusion to abort, hopefully only a few weeks after conception, then I think she should.

After all, we are focusing a little too much on something that is little more than a cell from inside your cheek, rather than a 16-17 year old girl who still has high school and college to deal with...

Let's not forget about them guys.

Like you said, abortion can be a very traumatic experience for a woman who has to make the choice, and chooses the wrong path. And studies show that many of these women do not emotionaly recover. Not to mention physically, in fact, there are many cases where women have died from abortion. And the risks of birth defects and miscarriages for future children that she maybe does want to have, are increased tremendousely as well.

I was 15 when I had my son.



Everyday I thank God for him for coming into my life.

Even though I have him I still am going to get my Pre-Med and go to medical school. Before I had him I wasn't even going to finish high school. I have more of a future now with my son than I dd before I got pregnant.

God bless ya Patches. Im happy that everything has worked out for you and your son.

The only time I am for abortion would be (and I think I have heard this happen for animals, but I"m not sure for humans) is if the baby has something wrong with it and because of it the mother is going to die along with the baby.
I think its funny how people say "Its a woman's choice" Well, if you believe in the right to choose so much, dont you think that you are taking the choice away from the baby? Abortion is becoming so easy today, that may be why so many teenagers are having sex, because they know they can just easily abort it. I just dont see how people can end a life so easily just because they are too lazy and too stupid to think of the consequences of their actions. And if a girl was to get raped, I think the best thing to do would to be put it up for adoption, even though it is an unwanted pregnancy.

I didn't know fetuses had a choice. And the next time a child chooses to play in the middle of the highway - don't take the choice away from him!

GOD BLESS YOU PATCHES
for having the strength and the courage to have that precious baby at 15 years old.

I didn't know fetuses had a choice. And the next time a child wants to play in the middle of the highway - don't take the choice away from him! [/quote]Lets just say it could choose, what do you think it would say?

Actually, their is a right and wrong in this topic. Aborting a child is wrong, and I really don't understand how any human being could support the murder of an innocent person. I really feel no sympathy for girls that get pregnant and then feel free to murder a baby to make themselves feel better. Just because you made a bad decision does not mean you can kill the child to avoid the consequences. Either give birth and raise the child yourself, or put it up for adoption. Why is that so hard?

I am for abortion. Banning abortion for everyone just because some think its wrong, is wrong itself. If you think its wrong, then dont have the abortion, thats your choice. But if youre preganant with a kid you dont want, why should you be forced to give birth.Sure, theres adoption, but the mother ultimatly has to go through carring it to term.Now I'm not saying three days before its born, abort it, but until it comes out, it is not a human being yet!

This is a very complicated issue for many reasons. First of all, the issue of rape has been brought up. If abortion is made illegal, then women who were impregnated threw rape shouldn't be treated as special; yet at the same time they shouldn't have to carry a baby for 9 months and take care of it for 18 years if it wasn't their fault. So that would be a hole in the system that would take a long time to deal with.

I think abortion is a horrible thing to do to an unborn child, yet I am pro-choice. In my mind, technically an unborn child isn't murdered as it was never legally alive. Yet, as it was mentioned, if a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with killing them both. This is another important issue.

Morally, it is definitely wrong, but legally I think women should have a choice.

Thug

We are debating whether murder is right or wrong?!? :rolleyes:

---

Typical rationalization. You can rationalize it all you want. As human beings, and as knowledged individuals, we ALL know that that cell divides and grows constantly to become a full grown human being. You rationalize significance with size. Pure ignorance.

---

As I said before, it's easy for a person to win an argument (or choose, in this case) with a sentient being that is unable to communicate.

And by comparing it to something like that is, again, ignorance. A child playing with in the highway is caused by a lack of responsibility by the parents and, quite frankly, the innocence of a child...how does a child know any better?

That being said, I certainly understand biology enough to know that any animal has a distinct instinct to stay alive. Aren't you glad you weren't aborted? But hell, if you were, hmm...let's think...wouldn't you be pretty pissed???


---

46 chromosomes. Yep, it's a human. Again, regardless of it's size and current cellular complexity, it is genetically a human being.

"Forced" to give birth? A.) Try thinking about the consequences before fucking (this doesn't count for the blameless rape victims, obviously). B.) There are other options besides abortion for rape victims and unintentional parents; adoption being the greatest of those for a parent who does not wish to be a parent at this point. It saves a life.

---

Thug, the law should be changed. We have rationalized murder by saying "it isn't a child" but then what about pre-mature babies? Are they "inhuman" or "unhuman" because they are not carried the full 9-months to term? What about miscarriages? Do the parents not greive over the loss of the child?

Or are they happy because, well, it never was a child to begin with? :rolleyes:

---

On another note, I try not to leave this as a unilateral decision by the mother, because quite frankly it is not her decision alone. It takes two to tango, two to get through, and two to make a baby. The father is just as responsible and quite frankly as equal in the decision making with regards to his child.

What if a woman claimed she was raped, but it couldn't be proven? [/b][/quote]With all of the science today, I don't think it'd be a problem. -Pat

Speaking from experience on that one, it's not the loss of the child that causes the grief. In my case it was so early on that it couldn't properly be called a child.

The grief and sadness was over the disappointment. I know this is a bad example, but it's like the sadness you felt as a child when you expected to get something that you didn't get.

The grief and sadness was over having to go through the difficulty and uncertainty of trying to get pregnant again.

And no, the parents suffering through the pain of a miscarriage are not "happy because it never was a child to begin with" Nothing to be happy about, which of course an intelligent guy like you understands. Never anything wrong with being facetious to make a point. Hell, I do it quite often myself.

But, I can absolutely guarantee that the parents are less unhappy than if a baby had been caried to term and then died at age three months froms SIDS or something.

Listen, I'm not in favor of abortion. If I were young, and got a girl pregnant, I would encourage her to have the baby and raise it, and I would make every effort I could to be a father, even if I had no interest whatsoever in continuing a relationship with the mother. But that's me. And it's easy to say 35-40 years after the possibility of being confronted with that decision.

I hope it never happens to any of you young guys, but I wonder what you would do if your girlfriend got pregnant and decided not only to have the baby, but to raise it, and wanted 20% or so fo your gross income in child support for the next 21 years.

It's always easy to take the moral high ground and preach what others should do, but you may find yourself singing a different tune once confronted with the situation yourself.

Anyway, I'm not Pro-Abortion. I'm Pro-Choice. There's a big difference.

My point was simply that a loss of a child, regardless of how far along it was, is still a significant thing. There are obviously people like yourself who are both mentally and financially able to understand the concept that children are a blessing. The problem is that when we trivialize life; or we rationalize it by saying that "it is the equivalent of a cheek cell," we demean life itself.

---

Plawrence, I understand your point completely. It is clearly obvious that I stand on my little soapbox here and I will preach my opinion till the cows come home.

I know in my mind and my heart that I cannot afford (financially or mentally) a child at this point. Consequently, while I might not be the most oversexed person you meet on the street (or more appropriately, the college campus), I certainly won't be carrying along all the extra responsibility that being a parent demands.

That being said, I would do whatever it takes to support my child. Look at Patches for a perfect example. It is obvious she loves her child very much and sacrifices to raise him the best way she can.

---

The concept of abortion is a morally abhorrent one, and hopefully, will become illegal. There are people out there who would give their right arm to be able to have kids, but are unable to (for whatever biological reasons). Why would anyone choose death if it is painfully obvious that there are people out there who are willing to make the committment to become loving and supportive parents to a child that isn't even biologically theirs?!?

There is less "closeness" between the life that was lost and the parents in this case. A life lost just the same. I can certainly understand the humanness behind feeling "less" emotional (if possible, as you've stated) but regardless, it still hurts.

What if a woman claimed she was raped, but it couldn't be proven? [/b][/quote]With all of the science today, I don't think it'd be a problem. -Pat [/b][/quote]How would "science today" decide this example:

Suppose that in the Kobe Bryant trial, the woman has gotten pregnant. Could she get an abortion now under the law as you want it? What if she turned out to have made a false accusation? What if it turns out Kobe is guilty and the trial takes a year? What about a hung jury?

All they'd have to do was get a DNA sample from Kobe and the girl. You still living in th 60's? Welcome to 2004, where shit can be done about this. :rolleyes: -Pat

Are you following that story?

DNA does not answer the question of whether the sex was consensual or not. Kobe already admits to having sex with her. But he says it was consensual, she says it was rape. Hence did he rape her or not? That's what the trial is about. So if she were pregnant, could she get an abortion before the trial ended?

The idea of having a child thru rape, or one of incest, or one that is not 100 per cent perfect with some horrible health defect, fortunately has not been in my life, yet I am not without understanding in these cases. And I'll admit it's true, no one knows for sure what they would do in certain situations.

However, all that being said, I am still pro life and also against the death penalty. I just could not justify in my heart and soul being responsible for anyone's death, even in the cases I mentioned above. And yes a fetus is life.

Also, is it supposedly only Catholics that are pro life??? Not a sarcastic question, but it seems because the Catholic Church is, that it's easy to think only those of Catholic faith are pro life. I am Catholic I would hold the same position no matter what religion I was. As a matter of fact, I really don't take religion into account when forming an opinion on this subject.

The reasons I metioned above are the more serious reasons I know of why women get abortions. However, you don't even need a reason now. You simply have to not want the baby. With contraception so readily available, there should be absolutely no reason for it.

PLaw, good question on the contraceptions as well. Being raised Catholic, I am well aware of the Church's stand on them. I see nothing wrong with it since you are NOT killing fetus/baby, rather preventing life from beginning. Don't know if that makes me a bad Catholic, however, that difference of opinion is not enough to make me change my faith. Well, I don't want to turn this into responses that bash the Catholic faith. That's the last thing I want to do.

Bottom line, if I "had" to vote, I'd have to go with the pro-life.

TIS

Are you following that story?

DNA does not answer the question of whether the sex was consensual or not. Kobe already admits to having sex with her. But he says it was consensual, she says it was rape. Hence did he rape her or not? That's what the trial is about. So if she were pregnant, could she get an abortion before the trial ended? [/b][/quote]Then I'd only let consider an abortion if it was without a doubt, rape. -Pat


BTW--I'm really hoping Kobe fries.

Are you following that story?

DNA does not answer the question of whether the sex was consensual or not. Kobe already admits to having sex with her. But he says it was consensual, she says it was rape. Hence did he rape her or not? That's what the trial is about. So if she were pregnant, could she get an abortion before the trial ended? [/b][/quote]Then I'd only let consider an abortion if it was without a doubt, rape. -Pat

[/b][/quote]The baby would be born by now, as the incident occured a year ago and the trial hasn't even started yet!

What if the baby is 6 months old when Kobe is to be found guilty? Obviously, your position could be very impractical.

How about you take the child after it is born then? If you feel so strongly about it, take the child, and be responsible for it, and then raise it until it is 18 and old enough to be on its own.

I don't think people should pay so dearly for one mistake in their lives. Lord knows everyone here has made mistakes...

How about you take the child after it is born then? If you feel so strongly about it, take the child, and be responsible for it, and then raise it until it is 18 and old enough to be on its own.

I don't think people should pay so dearly for one mistake in their lives. Lord knows everyone here has made mistakes... [/quote]Yes, you are suggesting someone else take the child...isn't that adoption?!?

---

You don't think someone should pay so dearly for a mistake? I agree. I don't think a baby should be MURDERED because the "parents" made a bad choice. :rolleyes:

Yeah - and I am all for adoption. If the mother wants to carry for 9 months and go through the pain and risk of delivering that child and still wants to give it up, I am for it. And a wise decision.

Any person who is thinking of aborting a fetus should definitely be told the benefits of carrying the child and giving it up for adoption - even though many times that is more of a painful process than abortion.

While the child does have a chance to live, the mother must go through the pain and regret of giving the child away. And that child will no doubt want to learn more about their biological parents when they learn they were adopted.

That's much more traumatic, IMO.

Sorry, but I miss your last point up there.

I'm an adoptee, so I'm interested.

What exactly are you saying is more traumatic than what other thing.

I think it may be more traumatic to a woman to actually carry and give birth to a child and give it up for adoption than to abort early on in the pregancy stage. It's a double edged sword, but one side is sharper than the other.

Look, I am for abortion. I'm not saying that everyone should be using it as a form of birth control. But it is there for a reason it exists. IMO, society doesn't need any more children who won't be properly cared for and will contribute to the crime that happens in most urban areas. And that is where my pro-abortion stance comes from, urban areas overwrought with teenagers having children while mired in poverty, eventually growing into a life of crime. I think if schools were more supportive of giving out condoms, this would help. Abortion is at the end of a preventative process that all urban areas should use.

Being adopted, I am sure that you are thankful that your mother didn't opt for an abortion, Lord knows I would be too. Anyone would.

But no one is going to convince me of a reason to totally get rid of abortion. If someone opts to do it, it's their choice.

Much, much more.

I know a couple of women who've had abortions in the early stage of pregnancy, and while they didn't take it lightly, they were far from traumatized by it.

On the other hand, I know a woman who got pregnant accidently and agreed to carry the baby until term, when some people she knew :rolleyes: were planning to adopt.

It's been ugly all the way around.

You're right in what you say about urban areas, and that abortion is (very unfortunately) the final step in the contraception process, but for me the bottom line is that in the early stages of pregnancy we are not dealing with a "person" yet, and, as such, it still should be a matter of choice for the mother.

And, again, I must pose the question: What are the odds that the unborn child -- even if he/she was conceived only 2 minutes ago -- will, if left unchecked and unaborted, be born? Naturally, there are miscarriages, complications, etc. But, as a rule, the odds are pretty good that the child will exit the womb alive and well. And yet, until he/she is visibly out of the womb, he/she is not a real person??? Come on! That's like saying a summer storm isn't a "real" summer storm until a tornado pops out of the cloud! Listen folks, if there's a heartbeat, there's a person. Location or time of conception has nothing to do with whether or not the unborn child is a real "person" or not.

Using a negative example (but the same medium of this kind of argument), if one is diagnosed with say, brain cancer, is the doctor going to say, "Well, it's not really cancer until it grows to the size of a golfball and it's been 5 months past the diagnosis, so we can't operate until it's a real cancer" ?? What are the odds that this malignant brain tumor -- if left unchecked --will ravage this patient's body and kill him? Or
is it not a real cancer until it visibly deforms the patient's head? It's still cancer even if it just popped up 2 minutes ago! Likewise, an unborn child is still a real person even if he/she were conceived 2 minutes ago.

And, no disrespect to those who claim to be "pro-choice," but I fail to see how one can claim that and yet turn around and say they're against abortion. It would seem to me that logic dictates if one is for a "woman's choice," and the woman decides to kill her baby, then he is -- by simple logic and conclusion -- pro-abortion. It's absolutely impossible for anyone to claim neutrality on this matter. You're either for life, or (either directly or indirectly) against it. Seems pretty black & white to me.

I'm not "pro-alchoholism", but I'm pro-choice on the subject. I believe if people want to drink themselves silly, that's up to them. Their choice. That doesn't make me pro-alchoholism, does it?

Alright, just the thought of abortion is simply absurd and just wrong. It is so horrible. What if your mother had an abortion? Would you be here right now arguing about it. I understand that since the baby/fetus has not exactly taken a breath that he is not exactly "alive" but it is still almost the exact same thing as murder. It is just so wrong.

I'm Pro-Life. The other side is not Pro-Choice, but Anti-Life.

What about a person who is Anti-Abortion, but favors the death penalty, a position that many conservatives have on the two questions.

Does that make them "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Death"?

I believe that married couples should have children and raise families.
I believe everyone is entitled to the best available health care so that they may live as long as possible.
I do not favor the dealth penalty.

I am not "Anti-Life"

People always say that you wouldn't be here if your mother had an abortion. And while that's very true, I fail to see the immediate tragedy in it.

It's not like I would have known the life I had lived until now, and then been taken from it because my mother had an abortion...

I would have never known anything, this life wouldn't have been started.

You can't be sad over something you never had.

And BTW - I am for the death penatly, and I feel more strongly about that than I do abortion.

I understand your position, Lawrence. While I don't agree with it, I do respect your right to have it and express it, and I do appreciate the civil response (especially over such a passionate issue). Kudos, man!

More painful? For who? The innocent life that is extinguished, I'd say.

I think a bit of "pain and regret over giving the child away" is most likely much more easier on the soul than it is to know that you murdered your own child.

Pre-meditated murder would be a good reason.

The difference, in my mind, is this. On one hand, a completely innocent life is extinguished. On the other, a convicted criminal who has been decided, on the jury of his peers, to warrent enough of a threat to the general public to be executed. Complete innocence versus convicted guilt.

Not true. You might not have "known" anything, but considering both the egg and sperm cells are alive, and form another living and dividing cell, there isn't a point after conception where life isn't present.

Anti-Life?? I find it almost humorous that so many PRO-LIFE turn a blind eye to the 10000 or so innocent civilian lives lost (necessary and unfortunate in times of war, ha) in Iraq, or the current genocides in the world by dictators that would make Saddam blush. Nuke 'em or Ignore all those precious LIVES.

Adoption? How simple if you are a cute little Anglo baby with all the potential to grow up to be smart, beautiful or handsome like LDV and PL. Babies of color, born with AIDS, fetal alcohol syndrome, genetic or acquired disabilities wait in droves for adoption. There aren't enough families willing to adopt a "special needs" child. Let the State take care of them..but now wait! Cut welfare because it is for lazy people! Forget their lives and just make sure the programs that help the most vulnerable are cut as part of the "budget" crisis or during "cut the fat tax cuts."

If you want abortion to be eliminated, eliminate the reasons women feel abortion is the best choice - remove domestic violence, poverty, social, financial and career penalties for being a mother, make sure all children have enough to eat, a safe place to sleep, and all parents can have affordable and safe day care. Make domestic adoption less perilous, time consuming and gut wrenching. Provide all children with proper knowledge of sex, sexuality, STD's, birth control, etc. Enforce child support collection. Are you pro-lifers doing any of this? Funny, I'm considered "anti-life" but probably do more to try to help LIVES (through volunteer work) that some "pro-lifers".

1.) Again, where have we pro-lifers (in this thread at least) turned a blind eye? I thought I made very clear the idea of purity and innocence regarding a child. Not that killing in war is right; but you are bringing a totally separate issue here to rationize and trivialize the abhorrent procedure that is abortion.

2.) That's funny...most couples I know that have adopted (not that I know many myself, mostly through my parents or other "adult" friends) have children of foreign descent. It is (from what I understand) difficult to obtain American babies at this point. Perhaps someone who knows more about the process at this moment can clarify...

3.) I don't think any of us "pro-lifers" are condemning anything you mentioned if it would be improved. Those are all noble tasks. But there comes a point where people who are NOT in that situation and have all those benefits and STILL commit murder.

---

As long as we are removing "penalties" for being a mother, let's get rid of the marriage tax.