Anti-abortion push gains momentum

Nice comment bonos_rama, the Sharia law worries are a joke, but its the christian right, that people should be worried about. The Righteous Red Right, is seeping into everyday life like water through a cracked foundation, trying to flood the separation of church and state, with their ideology, and holier then thou rhetoric, trying to dictate all our lives with their views, and standards, and how we all should live. I don't have a problem with banning late term abortion, But in my opinion every woman should have total control of her own body, with out in put from the (RRR) Righteous Red Right influence on our legislature.

If the Republicans wants government out of their lives, then they can't tell a person what to do with any medical procedure.

Can't have it both ways. Sorry. A person should be able to make their own decisions about life and even end of life details.

When it comes to conservatives, they want government removed except when it comes to who people can love and whether or not a person can have a medical procedure.

Nice comment bonos_rama, the Sharia law worries are a joke, but its the christian right, that people should be worried about. The Righteous Red Right, is seeping into everyday life like water through a cracked foundation, trying to flood the separation of church and state, with their ideology, and holier then thou rhetoric, trying to dictate all our lives with their views, and standards, and how we all should live.

This wouldn't be such a problem if the religious wrong had not already gotten hold of our educational system and removed all the history behind why the Constitution is GODLESS and NEUTRAL on the religion issue. Our country's children and young adults never hear of the debates between the Founders regarding religion in government and how our government was "The Great Experiment" because it was the first to be founded on Enlightenment ideals and not reformation rhetoric. They never hear of how many states tried to get the name of jesus entered into the Constitution and have "christianity" as America's official religion before they would ratify it.
Keep religion out of our government and we won't have to have forums like this. We belong to a DEMOCRACY, not a THEOCRACY. Our laws are set forth by people who should have America's best interest in mind, not some anthropomorphic wet dream's best interest.

Henry, Women who could afford to travel to obtain medical care have always done so when necessary. It is women who cannot travel for medical care that will and are suffering under restrictions to medical care for "women's issues". Abortion is the LAST option. Restrictions on clinics providing family planning education and options are being reduced and restricted, funding for community clinics that provide a broad spectrum of services to working families are being cut. It's not just banning abortion that we must fight. We have to remember that denying access is the same thing as denying the right to care.

bonos_rama--

America wants Sharia law. Well, they won't get it, whether it comes via Muslims, Christians, or anti-abortionists. They'll have a nice fight on their hands.

What the hell???????

What the hell does Sharia Law have to do with an article talking about abortions or fighting abortions?????

SO Off Topic.

Kshark: I think bonos is equating the charge for banning abortions with Sharia law, since in Sharia law, women are considered property of their husbands, fathers, etc.

Kshark: I think bonos is equating the charge for banning abortions with Sharia law, since in Sharia law, women are considered property of their husbands, fathers, etc.

Or to the fact that both are attempts to establish religious laws.

It's not a "religious law". Many people believe that the rights of the CHILD should be considered. It is a difference of opinion on whose rights are more important, the unborn child or the adult mother. Pro-Life believes the unborn child has no one to speak for him/her, so we do. There is nothing religious about that. It is purely a difference of opinion.

Yes, and it would be GREAT if the rights of a CHILD were considered AFTER its birth as well, wouldn't it?? Pro-lifers are all on fire when it comes to abortion, but cold, dead ash once the child is born. Doesn't work that way in REAL life!

Thank you Deb. See pro-choicers (or "anti-lifers" for those who like to call pro-lifers "anti-choice") think the way they see things is the only way to see things. If you are against the taking of an innocent life, they start telling people you want to tell women what to do with their bodies. It especially amuses me when they say we are trying to take women's control of their bodies away from them - well, if they had control over their bodies they wouldn't have an unwanted pregnancy going on, now would they? ;-) (I will not even begin to engage in the "rape and incest" argument - we ALL know that those are a tiny percentage of those getting abortions.) They can not get the concept tha pro-lifers feel that there is a life inside that needs protecting. Another thing I find amusing is that some of these very people who are calling a fetus "a bunch of cells" are probably people who got very excited when they found out there was "a bunch of cells" in their (their wive's, girlfriends, etc.) body. Wonder why they would do that?

It's not a "religious law". Many people believe that the rights of the CHILD should be considered.

Non-religious people do not consider a lump of tissue to be a child.

You are wrong Grayson, VERY wrong! I don't deny that more than likely the majority of pro-lifers are "religious", but there are people who do not believe in God/religion who are against abortion.

I'd like to meet these people, and hear a single, science-based argument that claims that a mass of cells constitutes a person. Know why I'd be so interested? Because no such argument exists. It is a 100% indefensible position.

I have some fact for you grayson - once upon a time I had a mass of tissue in my uterus, and then it grew into my beautiful daughter who has given me a beautiful grandson, who by the way was once a mass of tissue. And then, ouila, it happened again, and that mass of tissue turned into another beautiful daughter who has given me two beautiful grandsons, who by the way were both masses of tissue. And here is the FACT grayson: If I had those masses of tissue removed, there are 5 living human beings who wouldn't be here. For me, that is just plain common sense, logic, and 2+2=4. See, religion doesn't even enter into it.

werinasadstate,

See, religion doesn't even enter into it.

It does! And will! Big time with this new Congress.

Sorry Mike, I was just speaking for myself.

I'd like to meet these people, and hear a single, science-based argument that claims that a mass of cells constitutes a person.

After they do that, they have to explain why they think the constitutional rights of that "person" should suddenly negate the constitutional rights of its mother, who is presumably also a person.

If I had those masses of tissue removed, there are 5 living human beings who wouldn't be here.

The belief that it therefore makes the tissues themselves a person is religious. It's claiming that a potential thing is the end results. It's a metaphysical claim that has no scientific basis. By that same rational, each time you ovulate your egg could turn into a human being under the right conditions.

No grayson, it is NOT religious. It is common sense.

And an egg can turn into a human being only through sex and being fertilized by a sperm. Only ONE condition, and a condition which women have absolute control over.

A fetus can only come to term under one condition: that its host lives. It can only be born under one condition: that its mother gives birth. You're making a 100% arbitrary line between fertilization and all of the other biological processes and, if you think about them very hard, you'll realize that, without religious precepts, their is absolutely no ethical, scientific, nor rational justification for your choosing that particular step, along a limitless chain of events, to count as the important one. It's no more important that any other step along the way. You think it is, but there is no reason to believe such a thing, without some religious beliefs, or simply incorrect ones.

OHHHHHH, I SEE!!! If my belief is different than yours, it is incorrect. WOW!!! I have been enlightened. So tell me grayson, when did you become the one person who gets to decide which beliefs are correct and incorrect?

I didn't say your belief was incorrect. I said that it was arbitrary and has no basis in reality. That's actually not the same thing as being incorrect. Your claim that life starts at fertilization isn't "incorrect," it just does not have any factual basis. It's like my telling you that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla. That can not be an incorrect statement. It is simply one without any factual basis.

The part that makes you wrong is where you assume that your arbitrary decision has any truth in it, other than the affirmation of your own belief system. It is not a factual statement. It is simply a baseless claim that you have made and, when you claim that it is a fact, you are appealing to religion, or other metaphysical properties, to pretend that your non-factual statement is somehow a reflection of the real world.

YOU used the word "incorrect", not me.

but there is no reason to believe such a thing, without some religious beliefs, or simply incorrect ones.

The part that makes you wrong is where you assume that your arbitrary decision has any truth in it, other than the affirmation of your own belief system. It is not a factual statement. It is simply a baseless claim that you have made and, when you claim that it is a fact, you are appealing to religion, or other metaphysical properties, to pretend that your non-factual statement is somehow a reflection of the real world.

The same EXACT thing can be said about you. That is what "you people" don't get. There is no more "fact" to your belief than there is to mine. It is incomprehensible to me how someone can not see that the "mass of tissue" is a living human being, but I accept those people exist, and I don't try to talk you out of it. I simply state my own belief, and sometimes, why I have that belief, and then I get attacked from all sides.

but there is no reason to believe such a thing, without some religious beliefs, or simply incorrect ones.

Yes. Either you justify your arbitrary claims by religious ones, or by other metaphysical claims that are incorrect. The arbitrary distinctions like "chocolate is better" can't be incorrect. The belief that "chocolate is better and that's true all the time" is the part that is metaphysical, and incorrect.

I simply state my own belief, and sometimes, why I have that belief, and then I get attacked from all sides.

Because by being anti-choice, you try to force your opinion on others, and the only thing I want from people like you is to leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Because by being anti-choice, you try to force your opinion on others, and the only thing I want from people like you is to leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Unless wereinasadstate is trying to turn her opinion into legislation here, I don't see that merely expressing her opinion is any more trying to force it on us than our expressing our pro-choice views is us trying to force them on her.

I think this goes back to your earlier comment about "religious laws" but it got slightly...derailed.

Except she was espousing not just a personal belief, but taking action against others being able to act upon their own beliefs, as she stated here:

f you are against the taking of an innocent life, they start telling people you want to tell women what to do with their bodies. It especially amuses me when they say we are trying to take women's control of their bodies away from them - well, if they had control over their bodies they wouldn't have an unwanted pregnancy going on, now would they? ;-) (I will not even begin to engage in the "rape and incest" argument - we ALL know that those are a tiny percentage of those getting abortions.) They can not get the concept tha pro-lifers feel that there is a life inside that needs protecting.

Shanno- thank you. I don't expect others to believe as I do, never have, never will. I state my opinion. If it ever did come up for legislation, I would absolutely vote against abortion. I would vote with my belief.

Where exactly did I take action against others Grayson?

I see a couple counter arguments there (and take note that they are not countering your belief, but countering your statements on my belief), but no "action" against anyone. Unless you call me being amused that women want to retain control of their bodies but an unwanted pregnancy is actually a loss of control of their body an "action against others".

Grayson, you have no more proof that life does not begin at conception, than I do that it does. This is all a matter of what one chooses to believe. You can talk and talk and talk, and post and post and post, but that isn't going to turn your belief into fact. (Same goes for me.)

I would absolutely vote against abortion.

And that is why we have a problem with your beliefs.

Do what you want with your body and leave me alone.

Where exactly did I take action against others Grayson?

You just said that you would vote against it. Do you also support anti-choice candidates? Voting is an action.

you have no more proof that life does not begin at conception, than I do that it does.

You really didn't follow this conversation at all, did you? I suppose I'm unsurprised.

Where exactly did I take action against others Grayson?

By voting your beliefs instead of just living your beliefs.

Not over it @2.29

If only your body was involved, you would have a valid point. The child in the womb also has a body, but no voice to speak for themselves. That's what the pro-life side does it.

Not over it, first of all, you are not Grayson. Secondly, would you not vote to keep abortion legal? If so, then YOU are voting YOUR BELIEF. It is what we all do!

Grayson, I followed the conversation perfectly. You think your belief is fact and mine is not. That is putting it simply but that is what you are saying.

If only your body was involved, you would have a valid point.

It is only the woman's body involved, or that matters.

The child in the womb also has a body,

No, it doesn't. It is a mass of cells with potential, with the permission of the woman. So, like I said don't tell me or any woman what they have to do with their body.

Not over it, first of all, you are not Grayson.

I know and I shouldn't haven't interupted but it seems, from his response, he and I agree.

Secondly, would you not vote to keep abortion legal?

Yes.

If so, then YOU are voting YOUR BELIEF.

No. I vote for women to have the right to choose, either way. I don't care if you don't have an abortion and I also don't if another woman does. It's none of my business.

It is what we all do!

Not at all true. If I were to vote by my belief system I would vote to abolish all religions, instead I vote in support of the First Amendment, to continue to allow all religions to exist.

Grayson, I followed the conversation perfectly. You think your belief is fact and mine is not. That is putting it simply but that is what you are saying.

No, I think that your belief is arbitrary and the difference is that you try to force yours on other people, because you're a bad person.

Grayson and all Pro-Abortion rights advocates would force their beliefs on us, but that's OK, because they believe they are right. How nice for them. Whether a mass of cells is considered a human being or not is a matter of opinion and not fact. Even doctors are divided on this. So some of you have the OPINION that it is not a life yet and some us have an OPINION that it is a life. So what makes you right and us wrong? Lord Grayson has spoken? Is that all it takes? So I guess we should all go home now that Lord Grayson has spoken and told us what is right and what is wrong. Thank you so much for enlightening us Grayson!

Deb, how is anyone that is pro-choice forcing their beliefs on you? Are you being forced to terminate a pregnancy? However, anti-choice people do just that - they would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, which is appalling. In this era of "smaller government" it is atrocious that we do not want government interfering with business BUT want them to interfere in the reproductive rights of women. I would never force you to have an abortion just as I would never force you to carry to term - CAN you say the same?

Who forced the woman to have unprotected sex and not use birth control? Why does an innocent child have to pay with it's life for her stupidity and irresponsibility? You are willing to force an innocent child to give up it's life, but not to force a woman to at least carry it to term and give it away if she doesn't want to raise it. I really don't see what is so bad about my perspective. I care about the helpless person and you care about the irresponsible person.

Pro-choice people force their belief on us by continually telling us we have no right to our belief because it takes away a woman's choice to kill a child.

This isn't about forcing us to terminate a pregnancy. It is about forcing us to belief that the baby being terminated isn't a life and does not warrant a voice when his/her mother is going to senselessly kill it. This is not about the mother, this is about the innocent defenseless child who's life is being terminated. Now you may not think it is a life, but pro-lifers do. Trying to save it's life is no different than talking a man with a gun out of shooting someone. Should we not do that because the man with the gun doesn't think the person who he is going to shoot is a life worth saving??? What you pro choicers don't get is that pro-lifers believe that baby is a life just as much as you or I, and just because YOU don't believe it, does not mean the pro-lifer can not believe it, and it surely doesn't mean it isn't true. It is a simple matter of opinion, there is no fact to back up either BELIEF!!!!! It really is a simple concept, why can't you get it? It is not about forcing someone to carry a child to term for a pro-lifer, it is about saving a child's life.

You get about five "AMENS" from me Deb! Bravo!

So believe it, and don't have an abortion. When you try to force others not to, you stop holding a belief, and start becoming a tyrant attempting to force others to act according to your beliefs. You start committing evil acts.

I care about the helpless person and you care about the irresponsible person.

I care about the actual person, the woman, and you care about cells. The woman is a living, breathing person. The cells are only potentially something, maybe not.

It's not for me or you to decide what is best for the woman and putting the potential of cells in front of the reality of the woman is wrong.

Stay out of other women's lives and they will stay out of yours. That is all we ask.

Deb, without the woman would the cells have a life at all? And you know for a fact that EVERY woman that has an abortion acted irresponsibly? You know ALL women that have ever or will ever have an abortion? I care about women and you care about punishing women for enjoying sex by forcing them to carry a pregnancy to term. Punishing a woman for having sex by forcing her to give up 9 months of her life. That is what you are for so I guess you are the anti-life one since the only life you care about is a fetus.

Deb: You assume that all women who get pregnant and want abortions do so because they don't use birth control or because they're irresponsible. You couldn't be further from the actual truth on that. What if the condom breaks, or the pill doesn't work, or she's raped? Are those women to be FORCED to carry a FETUS (it's not a baby until it's born) which they don't want to term? Will they be FORCED to deliver that fetus? It's admirable that you believe life begins at conception. But if that's so, then how can ANY "pro-lifer" say it's a life ... but it's okay to abort in cases of rape, incest, or life of the host ... uh, mother? The problem is, you are trying to FORCE the rest of us to live by what amounts to a RELIGIOUS belief. I don't believe the same. And if you believe in smaller government (as many pro-lifers do), how can you or anyone else logically say that government should get out of our lives ... except when it's a woman who doesn't want to carry what amounts to a parasite (which is exactly what a fetus is until viable) to term?

Are YOU going to care for it for 18 years? No. As far as most "pro-lifers" are concerned, their "responsibility" and "care" ends the second that kid is born. You want to care about "helpless" people, then put your time and money into helping them once they're born. If we in this country spent a FRACTION of the money wasted on forcing women to have children they don't want on sex education and/or helping after birth, there would be little need for abortions. But rather than deal with that truism, you'd rather go back to the days of coathanger abortions, and abortions ONLY for the ultra rich who can and always have been able to afford it.

Unless you can show that pro-choice people are FORCING women to have abortions, then you cannot say that we are "forcing" our belief on you. However, you can't ... but it's obvious that the opposite is true -- you are trying to force the rest of us to adhere to your belief. And you do NOT have the right to do that.

George Carlin had it right where abortion is concerned. Do what you want with you and yours, and leave me and mine the hell alone.

Is no one interested in the pragmatic debate?

I mean, we can hoo and haa for pages about whether the mother's right or the fetus's right is superior. That's largely a question of (i) base philosophical principals and (ii) the delineation of the point where cells that are part of the mother become an individually distinguishable "human being" with rights.

We'll never agree on that. But, pragmatically, we absolutely don't need even one more child on this planet.

In 100 years time, if this site is still archived somewhere, people will be looking at this conversation and saying:

"What the hell were these idiots debating about. There's no debate. We have 20 billion people and not enough food or space. Every child who is born takes food and space from a grown adult currently in existence. Every child born means one existing human must die.

Who gives a #@#@ about philosophy and semantics. Having a child is a 'privilege', not a 'right'."

Except she was espousing not just a personal belief, but taking action against others being able to act upon their own beliefs, as she stated here.

I got to that later when she posted about wanting to vote to make abortion illegal.

Meh.

A lot of time the discussion about abortion gets so heated people aren't clear whether their arguments are against abortion or against the legality of abortion. I mistakenly thought she belonged in the former group.

You all keep talking about "forcing" a woman to do something she doesn't want to do. But if we go with your way, you are forcing a child to forfiet it's life. It's chance to grow up and experience life. If the condom breaks, or you forget your pill, hey that's the risk you take when having sex. So the human inside her looses it's life because someone doesn't want the inconvenience of being pregnant? You can play the "it's not a child till it's born" broken record all you want, but I am certain every last one of you will think it's a child the instant it is one you WANT to keep. Isn't it curious how your opinion changes with whether it's convenient to your life at the time or not. What a great way to choose whether a human lives or dies. It's a child if I actually wanted it, but if I didn't, it isn't a child till it's born. Makes lots of sense......

That's right, Deb. Because the woman is the one that is alive & breathing & thinking. See you even call it an "it" - why? because it is not a child when it is in the womb. And you can keep calling zygotes/embryos/fetus "baby" broken record all you want all you want but it doesn't make it so.

Deb, IF we go your way women lose the right to decide what to do with their lives. You seem to want children to be punishments for a woman having sex. If she doesn't want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have sex seems to be your answer. If that is how you want to live your life, fine BUT stop trying to inflict the rest of us with your narrow minded hysteria about ?murdered children".

That's right IF I do not want to be pregnant I need not consult something that has not even developed a brain. I certainly do not need to consult someone like you.

This is why the SC ruled on Roe v. Wade

The pro choice majority has the law on their side and will prevail.

Not if we keep voting for Conservatives. They carry many social (anti-social) agendas with them and will not hesitate to push these agendas down our throats.

Not unlike the health care bill right. I'm still trying to cough up that oversized bite of invasive government.

The anti choice side is there trying to force their religious view on all of us.

The party of small government wants to poke their ugly heads into everyones bedroom.

The pro choice majority has the law on their side and will prevail.

The anti-life side is there trying to force their NON religion view on all of us.

The party of large government wants to poke their ugly heads into everyone's values and beliefs.

The pro-lifers have God on their side and as long as they do the things He asks of us, including doing everything they can (within His guidelines, which does not include hatred and violence) to protect helpless innocent lives, they will prevail in the only place prevailing matters! ;-)

See Kareem, like I said, the same thing can be said of "anti-lifers" that is said about "anti-choicers".

werinasadstate- The anti-life side is there trying to force their NON religion view on all of us.

By doing what exactly? Are they forcing you to have an abortion? Or are they fighting for you to have the sole right over your own body?

The party of large government wants to poke their ugly heads into everyone's values and beliefs.

How are they doing that exactly? Are they stopping you from going to church, praying before dinner or going to bed?

The pro-lifers have God on their side and as long as they do the things He asks of us, including doing everything they can to protect helpless innocent lives, they weill prevail in the only place prevailing matters! ;-)

HA! I'd say you're doing a piss poor job of it. There's still homeless and hungry children out there that are abused and unprotected. Get busy bud!

See Kareem, like I said, the same thing can be said of "anti-lifers" that is said about "anti-choicers".

That's really funny, but makes absolutely no sense. Your funny little word games are cute though.

Not talking to you bud, talking to Kareem.

Not talking to you bud, talking to Kareem.

It's an open forum here.

Not talking to you either shanno. If you want respond to someone who you did not direct a post to, that is up to you. If I don't want to, that's up to me. Live with it.

To be PERFECTLY CLEAR, I have no problem whatsoever with bud responding when I wasn't talking to her, but I just wanted her to know she wasn't going to get a response out of me because I was not addressing her or anything she said.

werinasadstate - Not talking to you bud, talking to Kareem.

Since this is a public forum I am talking to you and asking you to clarify your comments in your post# 3.4. However I do understand you wanting to avoid such questions, most likely you have no answers.

Lola, first of all lets pretend you were the least bit civil in your response. My comments were as clear as they are going to get, and just as clear as Kareem's (who I was responding to). If you don't understand them, no amount of my explaining is going to help with that. Now, since you claim to not have understood mine, why didn't you respond to Kareem the same way you did to me, because she said the same exact thing, only opposite. I believe it is because you had no desire to harrass her, which from what I've seen from you on the vine is what you like to do to those who DARE feel or believe differently from you.

If I don't want to, that's up to me.

Then you shouldn't, at all. "I'm not talking to you" just makes a person look very 12 and not really in the intellectual spirit of what an open forum discussion board is supposed to be about.

just makes a person look very 12 and not really in the intellectual spirit

That would perfectly match Lola's post then.

I don't mind anyone "DARING" as you say, to have different beliefs than myself, what I do mind is people passing off bu!! shyt as truth, like yourself. And I remember you werinasadstate, you're the poster that thinks women have late term abortions for convenience. Not true of course and you don't like it when you're called out on your BS, got it, but I'm sure it won't be the last. Se La Vie!

http://shannoscubie.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/11/5448991-washington-state-wants-to-let-pharmacies-deny-women-plan-b-?commentId=19331633#c19331633

Kareem in my Coffee,

The anti choice side is there trying to force their religious view on all of us.

True.

The party of small government wants to poke their ugly heads into everyones bedroom.

True.

The pro choice majority has the law on their side and will prevail.

True.

The anti-choicers and right wing needs to mind their own business, they don't like abortion, don't have one, no one is forcing an anti-choicer or right-winger to have an abortion. They don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, no one is forcing people to marry a person of their same gender. It's very simple.

And lola, I remember you as a bully who attacks people who have different beliefs. I'm glad you provided the link so that people can see you are full of it and that I said MOST OFTEN it is a matter of convenience, which in my opinion it is. (AND, I seem to remember posting a link showing that most late term abortions were done out of convenience.) Even if there is something wrong with the baby, IN MY OPINION, that is not a reason to have an abortion. It is CONVENIENCE for the mother (and possibly family). See, again, attacking someone for not having the same belief as you. I rest my case. If someone's opinion/belief isn't the same as yours - it's "BS". Thank you, you just proved my point!

Just clicked on the link you provided and it is GREAT! It clearly shows your attacking me for doing nothing more than stating a belief. And it clearly shows me backing up my statement with information. What it does not show is me attacking you in any way whatsoever!

It's a stalker. I don't take him/her seriously. I've been stalked before. I think it finds my views refreshing. Quite frankly, I don't blame it for thinking that!!!!

Ohhh..ok, now someone who shows that your assertions are hypocritical is a stalker. I am learning so much here on NV today!

I typed nothing hypocritical mr stalker.

Anti life....bwahahahahahahahahaha...lmao.....serious conversation with you?????..........doubtful

It's no funnier than "anti-choice" kareem. I already told you I don't think it is fitting, but if you can dish it out, expect to take it. As for hypocrisy, when you accuse someone of doing something and you are doing the same exact thing, that is hypocrisy. Every single thing you accused "anti-choicers" of doing, is also done by "anti-lifers". That is hypocrisy.

werinasadstate Just clicked on the link you provided and it is GREAT! It clearly shows your attacking me for doing nothing more than stating a belief. And it clearly shows me backing up my statement with information. What it does not show is me attacking you in any way whatsoever!

I realize that when another poster asks you a question or to provide back up to one of your statements you feel attacked when that is not what the poster was doing, you just feel cornered. I got it, but you're going to have to get some tougher skin werinasadstate, this is a forum that encourages debate. Not everyone is going to agree with you and they will ask questions and ask you to provide back up for some of your comments.

However, it looks like from your snarky remarks that you attack when someone beleives different than you. On the other link you were ask to provide proof that women have late term abortions for convience, you provided a link to an articale from ITALY, Italy is no the United States. I'm bothered not by your difference of belief, but bothered by your misinformation. I'm also bothered because from what I gather you feel that my daughters and myself should have to live according to your belief system. Is that what you want? If I get pregnant or one of my daughters become pregnant you think the government should force us to carry that unwanted pregnancy to term? Because you believe abortion is wrong, do I have that right?

Here was your response to what I posted on the other thread which you linked, is this how you ask questions? Really?

What a bunch of complete bu!! shyt!

If that is not an unwarranted attack, I don't know what is. And yes, I supplied a link a partial birth abortion in Italy, and I am against abortion in all countries - no one said we were talking US specific at the time. FURTHERMORE, I posted an ADDITIONAL link with US data which backed up my statement, but you didn't like that link because it was conservative (DUH! Tell me where you are going to find a liberal link that is anti-abortion!). And, ON TOP OF THAT, I don't really need to provide proof of an OPINION, which is what I stated it was to begin with.

Here's the thing lola, I don't have to back up my beliefs, they are what they are. And I haven't asked you to back up yours either, because, unlike you, I don't think everyone has to have the same opinions and beliefs I do.

I'm also bothered because from what I gather you feel that my daughters and myself should have to live according to your belief system.

But you are asking me to give up my belief system. You are asking me to stop fighting for an innocent life when no one else, not even his/her own mother will! Is that not the same thing as thinking I need to live according to your belief system? Do you also think that if I can stop someone from shooting another human being I shouldn't do it, because the shooter thinks it's ok to shoot the other person? It is no different to me lola. And that is my belief, and I have every right to that belief, and I have every right to state that belief, just as you do yours.

I absolutely do think that abortion should be illegal, and I believe that if it is, there will be a whole lot fewer unplanned pregnancies. If I have the opportunity that is what I will fight for, and what I will vote for. And when I say "fight" I don't mean via violence or hatred. Now on the other hand, you believe the opposite of me, and I suppose you will fight for that. And guess what lola, UNLIKE YOU, I will not attack you for that, I will not be uncivil to you for that, I will not tell you that you are wrong, or anything of that nature. I won't ask you to back up your belief or opinion, I won't ask you to explain yourself, because I know you are entitled to your own beliefs. I will look at you and say, "good for you for standing up for what you believe".

That is what separates me from you.

As an amendment, I just went back and looked at the thread again, and I actually supplied TWO additional links to the Italy link. Funny how you didn't mention either of those.

I absolutely do think that abortion should be illegal, and I believe that if it is, there will be a whole lot fewer unplanned pregnancies.

That's one of the things that gets frustrating for pro-choice people. Based on a belief - one which can also be proven to be incorrect - you are prepared to support legislation that will force every single woman and girl to submit to living their lives based on that belief.

But shanno - your views on this subject are based on your belief as well. Just as my belief that there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies can be proven to be incorrect, it could also be proven to be correct. It is an unknown. I am absolutely prepared to support legislation that will save innocent lives!

werinasadstate - That is what separates me from you.

You are absolutely correct, because I believe in facts and reality and that women should have the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves, you believe misinformation and dogma, and that the government should get involved in women's reproductive decisions by making abortion illegal, therefore making in unsafe and dangerous. HUGE difference!!!

As an amendment, I just went back and looked at the thread again, and I actually supplied TWO additional links to the Italy link. Funny how you didn't mention either of those.

Only because I was respecting the seeder's request for the two of us to get back on topic.

You have no facts, you have beliefs. I have beliefs. See, again, you call it "misinformation" because it is not the same as your beliefs. You have absolutely no proof that life does not begin with conceptions - you choose to BELIEVE it does not. I have absolutely no proof it does, but choose to believe that it does. It is really that simple. If abortion were to become illegal (which I highly doubt it will) and someone chooses an illegal abortion, she has to live with that choice. See, YET AGAIN, you have told me that my beliefs are wrong, simply because they are not the same as yours, yet I have not said that to you.

and that the government should get involved in women's reproductive decisions by making abortion illegal,

Actually, I BELIEVE that women should get involved in their own reproductive decisions and not get pregnant if they don't want children (I stopped at two and have managed not to have any more pregnancies, I'm not special - it is something any woman can do). I think the government should restrict the killing of helpless innocent children who's own mother wants to end their life. THAT IS WHAT I THINK. You can try and try to twist it into your own words, but again, that is just an attack on someone for not having the same belief as you. Notice, I didn't say to you "well you think it is ok for women to carelessly get pregnant and then kill the baby". You know why? Because I don't feel that way. I recognize that you feel about this differently than I do and you don't believe that an abortion is killing a baby.

That is what sets me apart from you! ;-) It is called T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E

And, I meant you did not mention that I supplied the two additional links at the same time you mentioned the Italy links.

werinasadstate - I think the government should restrict the killing of helpless innocent children who's own mother wants to end their life.

Fact, the government does it's best to stop women from killing their helpless innocent children. Google Andrea Yates, Darlie Routier, and Susan Smith, they killed their innocent children and are now in prison.

That is what sets me apart from you! ;-) It is called T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E

I see no T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E in your posts, just anger.

I see no T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E in your posts, just anger.

That does not surprise me one little bit!

FACT: your statement proves your intolerance. See, I stated that you are allowed your beliefs and I know you truly believe them. YOU, on the other hand, make a statement in an attempt to attack my beliefs.

Again, that is what separates me, from you.

That is what sets me apart from you! ;-) It is called T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E

Trying to change the law to deny women the choice to act within your belief system or not doesn't seem particularly tolerant to me.

At the least, it seems a lot less tolerant than the attitude summed up in "Don't like abortion, don't get one."

By the way, I'm curious about your dislike of the term "anti-choice."

It's no funnier than "anti-choice" kareem.

What follows isn't just directed at "sadstate", but all who try to claim a "pro-life" label is valid and get grumpy about "anti-choice":

The use of "pro-life" is less accurate than "pro-choice." The latter indicates preserving the option, and leaves a whole lot of room for someone to discuss the effects and consequences of the choices available.

"Pro-life" is usually a BS claim, given it so often comes from people who don't give a @!$%# about the lives that are currently walking around on the planet as indicated by the fact that the majority of the folks who try to use that term are also pro-war ( which, in case you didn't know, kills a lot more civilians than soldiers most of the time-where's your concern about those "innocents"? ), pro-death-penalty ( which often kills the wrong person, even if you think the guilty deserve it, so what about those "innocents"? ), oppose the concept of universal health care ( because it's not worth their money to pitch in on preserving human lives except their own ), and a whole lot of social programs that have to doi with helping make sure the kids who are born under difficult circumstances don't starve or die from exposure from being homeless ( once again, because of the money issue ).

"Pro-life" being used to refer to the single issue of abortion when these other issues are ignored is misuse of the English language, and I refuse to indulge anyone's attempts to do that. If you're also anti-war, anti-death-penalty, and support measures that attempt to make life better for all, then I'll use the term to describe you. Otherwise, accept the fact that "anti-choice", which is much more accurate in expressing the fact that your concern for the lives of poor, innocent children ends after the cord is snipped and the politicians you support over this one issue are willing to cut school lunch funding to those children just a few years later with no objection from you.

werinasadstate, how do my beliefs affect you? And if your beliefs are legislated how do they affect me? See this goes along with my original question to you, does my belief that abortion should always be safe and legal effect you? Are you forced to have an abortion?

Do you not understand the difference in beliefs and how yours would affect other women?

This also separates us, my beliefs are my beliefs, just mine, they don't affect you, your beliefs would. Get it?

Also take note that I never said you don't have a right to your own beliefs, however when your beliefs effect others that do not believe as you, that's a problem. I am not asking you to believe as I do, I'm asking you to allow me to live by my beliefs. I do not T-O-L-E-R-A-T-E those trying to take away my rights and my daughters rights to make our own reproductive decisions. And if the tables were turned I doubt you would be T-O-L-E-R-A-N-T of someones beliefs that women can only have one child and any pregnancies after the first must abort. Am I right? You wouldn't like that would you?

So to you it counts if somebody donates to organizations like

Save the Children

Salvation Army

Catholic Charities

YWCA

Womens Health Org.

Big Brothers and Big Sisters

Childrens Defense Fund

NACAC Nat. AM. council on Adopted children

If these qualify then call me a pro-lifer to the tune of $3500.00/yr.

That takes care of the aspects regarding kids, igoforo, but where are you on issues of preemptive wars, healthcare, and the death penalty?

Don't get me wrong. It's admirable that you donate to childrens' and some womens' causes, but your list still leaves room for you to be in favor of un necessary war or the death penalty, or against a guarantee of healthcare for all, which would mean you support actions and policies that work to shorten lives or actively kill people, and therefore fall short of what I could call "pro-life" without feeling like I'm disregarding the meaning of the word "life." I hold a special contempt for those who sould call themselves "pro-life" while praising the extremists who commit terrorist acts against clinics and doctors.

It also doesn't do a thing to support sadstate's suggestion that "anti-life" is as accurate a description for for "pro-choice" folks as "anti-choice" is for "pro-lifers."

I'm done with the abortion debate lola, and everyone else. I have clearly stated my position, it will never change, if you don't like it, that is your problem only, not mine. You have clearly stated your position, to which I have stated "good for you". AGAIN, that is what sets me apart from you.

As for your comments and statements yosho:

By the way, I'm curious about your dislike of the term "anti-choice."

I dislike the term because it is not true nor accurate. If you wanted to change it to "anti- abortion choice", it would be completely accurate. Pro-lifers are no more anti-choice than pro-choicers are anti-life. BOTH are inaccurate, but if someone insists on using the inaccurate term for pro-lifers, then I will do likewise for pro-choicers. I really don't think you are unaware that there are far more choices than abortion, and pro-lifers are certainly not opposed to those choices, therefore they simply can not be "anti-choice". THAT is why the term "anti-choice" is inaccurate. It is plain and simple common sense. Pro-lifers are not anti-choice, they are only anti-one of the many choices. Just as pro-choicers are not anti- all lives, they are only anti-the life a woman may choose to kill.

I hold a special contempt for those who sould call themselves "pro-life" while praising the extremists who commit terrorist acts against clinics and doctors.

I don't think I have seen a single person praise the extremists who commit violent acts and spew hatred against clinics, doctors and patients. I haven't read every single post either. If you had read all of my posts, you will see that I SPECIFICALLY stated that it was wrong. Those people can still call themselves pro-life, but they certainly can not accurately call themselves good people, and of course it really should go without saying, (but on Newsvine you have to say everything that should go without saying), those who kill over abortion, most certainly are not pro-life.

Now see yosho, if I were like you, and the vast majority of pro-choicers, I would make a statement that says something like this: "I have a special contempt for those women who have had children and felt any joy the moment they found out they were pregnant, then can turn around and say it is ok for other women to kill the children inside of them." But see, I don't, because I am tolerant, and I know others have a different belief than I do and I know that they are entitled to that belief, and they are entitled to fight for that belief, just as I am entitled to fight for mine. And I even hold a little bit of admiration for anyone who fights for what they believe, because conviction is a great character trait. However, all of that admiration disappears when that person does not allow me my belief, and they attack me for it and tell me I am wrong and not entitled to have or fight for it. That particular trait shows the person has no character whatsoever! ;-)

Again it is not a religious view but a difference of opinion in when life starts.

If we are "anti-choice" then you are "anti-life".

Just because there are a few extremist people who blow up clinics and kill people doesn't make all of us like them. You guys do that all the time. You find ONE guy who is a wacko and say "see, they are ALL like that". That is so disengenuous. There is a very large percentage of the US population that is against abortion and very few that blow up clinics. Give me a break.

Deb, that is so bogus. Do you believe a woman has the right to choose? No? Then you are anti-choice. Are fetuses the only forms of life? No? Then we are not anti-life since women are considered life forms and we support their right to choose.

Anti ONE choice nica. There are far more choices than abortion. Anti-choice is not accurate, anti-abortion as a choice is accurate. Really, it could be argued that anti-life is accurate, because you don't think the baby being aborted is a life. Both are a stretch, so let's just keep it accurate.

Nope when you take away a choice that makes you anti-choice because YOU are telling that choice is not available to them. Anti-life is not accurate because I care about the living BREATHING human, you care about the potential life - yes I believe that before viability it is a stretch to consider the fetus a life - why? because without a the woman it cannot survive. Youc are ONLY about the life of the fetus therefore YOU are anti-life. You believe that women that indulge in sex should be punished by being FORCED to carry a pregnancy to term (that will show her won't it?). Totally anti-life for women because YOU believe a group of cells is a human being.

There are far more choices than abortion.

Not that don't involve telling women what they can do with their body. You are saying to women that they have to be an incubator for something they don't want.

You can have 10 babies, 1 baby, zero babies, you can have sex, don't have sex, whatever. I do not care what you do with your body but leave MY body out of your decisions.

Like I said quite a few times on this thread:

I recognize that your beliefs are real to you, that you can not recognize that about me shows your lack of character and proves your close mindedness. It is what separates me from you. You have also thrown hypocrisy into the picture when you accuse pro-lifers of doing the very thing you do: FORCE YOUR BELIEF ON OTHERS.

I'm done with this debate. You can not debate with close minded people. I don't have to answer for anyone's actions other than my own. As long as I know I am fighting for what is right (according to my belief), I can sleep well at night, and I know I can stand before the one person that matters and not have to answer for the senseless killing of innocent children. What you, or anyone else thinks, does not matter one bit. I am doing right by fighting for what I believe. I guess we will all find out in the end what was "right".

Peace, and Merry Christmas! :-)

Right. So where do I even suggest forcing my belief on you? What because I simply pointed out the fact that you want to make choices for people you do not even know. That you know more about them then they know about themselves and you are better to judge what is best for them & their families? Whatever. Innocent children being killed - totally emotional phrase - means nothing because those fetuses that are terminated before viability could not live without the woman. So how can that be an innocent child? But again whatever - you like to play the victim and use emotional phrases to prove a point - blame others that belief you can live your life the way you want is FORCING you to do anything while sitting there & typing how you want to fight to make abortion illegal THUS forcing YOUR belief that a non-viable fetus is a human being - AGAIN whatever & maybe after your third time of saying you are leaving you will this time & spare us your martyrdom.

werinasadstate - I'm done with the abortion debate lola, and everyone else. I have clearly stated my position, it will never change, if you don't like it, that is your problem only, not mine. You have clearly stated your position, to which I have stated "good for you". AGAIN, that is what sets me apart from you.

I understand, I'm used to you cutting and running when you're incapable of answering questions. Like how my beliefs affect you? Cause we all know that my beliefs affect you in no way shape or form. Oh well, no worries.

SNARK alert!

I recognize that your beliefs are real to you

Yes, my belief is you can do, with your body, whatever you want. You know, I'm minding my own business. Your welcome. :)

Give an inch and the chrislamists will take a mile, just like the Taliban did.

That's not why people voted republican; they did it as a misguided reaction to Obama's record against the Party of No.

Bubba, I'm sorry - but I feel you've been duped. The Repubs will never pass a law banning any form of abortion. If they do, they risk losing voters like you.

Given, I'm not arguing for late term abortion. I'm not excusing it. However - the one thing both parties have shown us is they'll campaign on promises with no intention of upholding the platforms that got them elected.

I, personally, think the anti-abortion movement is something the GoP has so craftily created to secure votes, and as long as it works for that there's no motivation for them to do anything about it.

It's a shame we must fight to ban this cruel procedure of late term abortion.

Late term abortion is already illegal in Iowa except in cases where the mother's life is at risk.

Further only 1% of abortions in the country, even in states where it is legal, are performed in the third trimester. Women don't want late term abortions - it's a much more complicated and riskier procedure. When women have late term abortions it's almost always because of health issues.

Knuckledragger

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/12/how-a-lateterm-abortion-saved-my-life

As Andrew previously stated, late-term abortion is already ILLEGAL, except in the cases of fetal abnormality, or for the health of mother-to-be......

Once they are born they can live in a box or die with no health care, but only until they are old enough to go to war and kill people, die or get maimed there instead. yep.. pro life.

Republicans banned partial-birth abortion

Not true, partial birth, late term, D&I procedure are all basically the same thing, it's the removing of a fetus later in pregnancy. This procedure is against the law when ending the gestation of a viable fetus later in a pregnancy, unless the fetus is dying/dead and/or the mother's life is in danger. So basically, yes those of you who want to outlaw later term abortions for "any" reason including the death of the mother are wrong. Women do not wake up in their 7th month and decide to end their pregnancy, that's just ridiculous, these pregnancies were wanted and no doubt the nurseries have already been decorated waiting for the bundle of joy but something went terribly wrong.

It's a shame we must fight to ban this cruel procedure of late term abortion.

That is a simple yet profound misunderstanding of this medical procedure. What is cruel are the reasons this is necessary...the loss of life of the woman, the lack of viability of the fetus...and/or both. This is a medical procedure done to save the life of one person or because there is no possibility of the fetus living to term, or will die after birth. This is not a political football to be tossed around by religious zealots...this is a life and death decision being made by the individuals involved. Do some basic research and stop relying on others to think for you.

"The Repubs will never pass a law banning any form of abortion."

"Republicans banned partial-birth abortion."

Knuckle is right. Mr Bush signed a bill banning partial birth abortion. On the other hand, Mr and Mrs Obama were against the bill. Mr Obama even voted AGAINST medical care for the victims of botched abortions. There is huge difference between the two parties on this issue. Ms Pelosi was clear on that when she whipped supposed pro-life Stupak into submission. Democrats won't stand up against abortion, and in rare cases, when they do, they are shot down by members of their party.

The problem is that people think of late-term abortions as "cruel" instead of as an act of mercy or simply as a reality of human reproduction- complications do happen. This isn't something that women go out to do for kicks, and it's not something they do without consideration. This may run afoul of the Republican principles that a) all is well until people make conscious mistakes and that b) the 'right choice' is always 'common sense', but it is nonetheless how reality works.

Painting abortion-rights supporters and those who elect to have an abortion as cruel evildoers may be a successful rhetorical strategy, but it is intellectually (and in all other ways) dishonest. In almost all cases, these procedures are performed because the mother's life is in jeopardy, or the viability of the child is in serious doubt. The decision should be between a woman, her partner, and her doctor- the State need not involve itself.

You may be interested in reading some of the personal stories at http://aheartbreakingchoice.com

" these procedures are performed because the mother's life is in jeopardy,"

ALL of them?

How many are performed, Bubba? Very, very few.

Why are you so interested in sharia law?

Mr Obama even voted AGAINST medical care for the victims of botched abortions

Worth remembering that there was already a law on the books to cover this- from 1975 (http://bit.ly/hIvpO2) Look for section 510/6, (2)(a)- it's absolutely clear what this covers. While conservative law-givers may enjoy pushing out redundant mandates as a way to rally their culture war supporters, do we all have to go along with it?

ALL of them?

All of them in Iowa, since that's already the law on the books.

Knuckle Dragger 1 - Lola, Bush banned PBA:

He banned them UNLESS it's to save a woman's life and/or the fetus is dead or dying, which is the reason women have them anyway. So you're wrong, this procedure is still being performed. My girlfriend who's extremely anti-choice had one a few mouths ago here in Texas, she was in her fifth month. Bush's "act" of "Banning" later term abortions was an act to appease anti-choicers who don't know what they're talking about and it's quite obvious with statements like yours. Later term abortions are still legal there's just tighter restrictions.

It's amazing how uninformed anti-choice advocates are.

Rob, linking a Tiller memorial isn't swaying us knuckle draggers

Did you bother to read any of the stories? I can't hope to sway you by shouting you down or insulting you, so I'm trying to show you what's really going on in the mind of the evil others who disagree with you. The Trisomy 18 link has several stories that illustrate the real issues people face- not politicized caricatures. If you can't appreciate the pain that those expectant parents went through, then of course you can't appreciate a memorial to Dr Tiller. Besides, the one-line memorial wasn't my point and I'm sure you realize that.

"He banned them UNLESS it's to save a woman's life and/or the fetus is dead or dying, which is the reason women have them anyway."

Lola, you saying that no woman ever had a partial birth abortion for any other reson than to save the life of the mother or expel a dead fetus? Not one partial abortion was for birth control? Doctors make money off these procedures and if they are legal they will recommend them. You better do some research.

Why don't you give us an example Bubba? You know, with all the research you do. Something from an unbiased site that happened here in the U.S. not something "alleged" either. Show us where a woman woke up in her 26+ weeks of pregnancy and decided to get a abortion just because she didn't want to be pregnant anymore.

Bubba, can you document any of your accusations. SouthernRob documented his statements. You are aware that before his murder Dr Tiller was one of the few doctors in the US that performed PBA's and women from across the country went to his clinic. If this was such a profitable procedure why aren't more doctors doing it? If you've done all of the research why not post your findings and document them?

Well - I am as liberal as can be. Some might see me as radical. I agree with abortion being a woman's choice.

But unless something happens to the baby, or the mother's health is in danger, why would one need a later-term abortion? There has to be, by that time, a really serious reason for wanting the procedure.

Lola, you're not holding your breath while waiting for Bubba's research are you......cause it's doubtful that you'll get any results and really doubtful that it would contain much truth......

No kj031056-1 I'm not, but maybe he's doing some research and learning something?

Nah, I doubt it.

Chandler W. - There has to be, by that time, a really serious reason for wanting the procedure.

That's when they're told;

"In 2002 I found out I was carrying triplets. My husband did not want me to have them. The day of my appointment I was scared and not sure this was the right decision. They took me back and did an ultrasound. I asked if they all had heartbeats and the nurse said yes. I asked if I would have the chance to talk to the doctor and right away she went and got Dr Tiller. He came in and looked at my babies on the screen. Then he looked at me and said “God gave you these babies, it’s not my job to take them away.” He asked if I agreed and I immediately said yes. He told the nurse to take me to the counter and have them give me my money. You know that day was a turning point for me. I ended up having a great pregnancy and three healthy baby girls. I can never thank Dr. Tiller enough for sending me away that day."

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/patients-remember-dr-tiller/

He's listening to Beck and Limbaugh....he'll be back to you soon.....

Andrew-1162039 - I said "banning any form of abortion" - abortions are still legal, just with tighter regulations.

Knuckle Dragger 1 - I'm truly sorry you feel that when someone points out that you're misinformed you take it as an insult. I didn't realize you were so sensitive.

"Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term, the term was coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to make the procedure sound more gruesome to rally anti-choicers. However the D&X procedure is only used when there's a fetus that has develop hydrocephalus and is no longer alive. Others are done by a three day procedure and the fetus is no longer alive and is delivered vaginally without the need to collapse the skull. When the skull is collapsed the it's to protect against the rupturing of a woman's uterine passage or the requirement of a cesarean section that poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies.

Did you read all of your wikipedia link? (you do realize wikipedia is not a credible link?) There are provisions, late term abortions are still performed LEGALLY. Here's more information on the D&X procedure:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

Here's a clinic in Colorado that still performs legal late term abortions;

http://www.drhern.com/

Cheer up.....abortions are happening all over the country right now!!!!

Was that an insult? Unlike you I won't cry, I've got tougher skin.

Cheer up.....abortions are happening all over the country right now!!

As are births. The point of your snark is ...?

Thanks for setting the record straight for Bubba and Knuckledragger......

Your comments are right on!

They obviously get their distorted/just plain wrong facts from biased sources.

Lola, you still insisting that all partial birth abortions performed prior to the ban were to save the life of the mother or expel a dead fetus? Not one was performed for birth control? You aren't that naive are you? Wasn't Dr Tiller a millionaire?

" Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authorities told Congress: "Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both." Also, Jay Sekulow of the Center for Law and Justice said the "so-called health exception" is a false argument aimed at undermining a "law designed to end (a) horrific procedure."

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/partial-birth-abortion-statistics-faq.htm

Bubba-939441, are you putting words in my mouth? Twisting other peoples words is not your strongest suit. I'm still waiting for your examples though.

Wasn't Dr Tiller a millionaire?

I'm not sure if Dr. Tiller was a millionaire or not, however I am aware that many physicians are millionaires, I've worked for a few in Dallas. One expense these physicians didn't have was 24 hour security for their office to prevent vandalism and bombings. They also didn't need personal security for themselves, their medical staff, and their family. Nor did the physicians I've worked for have to drive bullet proof automobiles. Dr. Tiller could have become a cardiologist and become a millionaire easily without all these death threats, but he was honorable and choose to help women. So whether Dr. Tiller was a millionaire or not makes no difference since many other physicians in many other lines for practise are millionaires too.

Are you against physicians being paid for services rendered?

Bubba-939441, your anti-choice religious link is NOT unbiased. Try again please

Lola, you still insisting that all partial birth abortions performed prior to the ban were to save the life of the mother or expel a dead fetus? Not one was performed for birth control?

If it was a legal procedure at the time, what difference does it make? How do you know they weren't all done to save the life of the mother?

Much of the opposition that Koop later faced in being confirmed as President Reagan's choice as Surgeon General came from his widely known views about right to life

Today Koop is well known for four facets of his work:

• Abortion: Though Koop was philosophically opposed to abortion on personal and religious grounds, he declined to state that abortion procedures performed by qualified medical professionals posed a substantial health risk to the women whose pregnancies were being terminated, despite political pressure to endorse such a position.

Well according to Wikipedia Koop is very biased. I also know him to be completely wrong when he states that abortion is never medically necessary to protect the mother's health.........and that abortion poses a substantial health risk (conflicting stories here comparing your source and mine).....actually it is less of a risk then allowing the pregnancy to continue. I am surprised to read these comments coming from a physician. I guess it goes to show how a person's personal opinions can shade the true facts.

Your source is obviously an anti-choice religious site. It describes a procedure that just doesn't happen........it sounds very distasteful...something the anti-choicers love to promote to further their fight to control women. Try to read and site an factual unbiased source.

I'm starting to suspect Knuckle Dragger 1 is a re-reg, post # 4.2 was his very first post on Newsvine and most likely he signed up today after being banned yesterday under the screen name of VerdictsCall, who was NobleSeven and was Charlemagne92 before that.

What a waste of time.

Bubba,

FYI abortion providers earn a fraction of what other physicians/surgeons make. On top of that the abortion provider has to arm his/her office with top of the line security systems and bullet proof glass, get restraining orders, live in fear for their life and their families...........why?!@? Because of fanatical terrorists who kill in the name of PRO-LIFE!!!!!!! What sick irony!!! Open your eyes and see the truth. This anti-choice crap has nothing to do with the sanctity of life it is fanaticism at its sickest point! Don't be part of that crowd.

Vooda I don't want to kill or terrorize anybody. Legal demonstrators are terrorized on my side.

Bubba-939441 - Legal demonstrators are terrorized on my side.

Where? Have anti-choice organizations been bombed? Have anti-choicers been killed by pro-choicers? And don't give me the killing of James Pouillon as an example, he was killed by Harlen Drake while Drake was on a killing spree. Drake killed Pouillon because he didn't like the signs Pouillon displayed outside of a school filled with children. Drake had no opinions on abortion either way, he was neither pro-choice or anti-choice.

Bubbs, your take on pro-choice supporters wanting to preserve late-term abortions reminds me of how the pro-gun people are literally up in arms when the threat of banning assault weapons arises. GWB allowed that law to expire, quietly, to pander to his gun-supporting base. How many instances have we had since then where someone with an assault weapon was responsible for multiple deaths?

I suppose that doesn't matter to you guys, though.

bonos_rama--

Give an inch and the chrislamists will take a mile, just like the Taliban did.

Do you NOT know how to stay on topic at all. You do this ALL the bloody time.

This article is NOT even talking about Islam or referring to Islam at all. YET you attack Christians and then equate them to radical Islam. YET if a real article about Islam is posted you ignore it and just attack Christians.

You make no sense at all.

"Have anti-choicers been killed by pro-choicers?"

I didn't say killed, I said terrorized. You don't think pro-life demonstrators are terrorized?

Knuckle Dragger 1- Lola, no tears here. Just pointing out that you were wrong. I posted the data to back up my claims. It is you who are misinformed.

Pft....How can I be wrong if later term abortions are still legal and being performed? And I would hardly call what you posted from wikipedia back up data. LOL!

And no-I was not those people.

We shall see.

I'll make you a deal: You keep liking abortion and I'll keep disliking it.

Not speaking for Lola. I don't know Lola and I would presume my opinion is the same as this persons.

However - your quote is a common misinterpretation of people that don't want abortion laws on the books at a Federal level. If you're "pro-choice" then you're "pro-abortion". That's not the case at all. Or - with your quote - if you're anti-the federal government making a law against it, you like abortion. That assertion is based on false logic.

This coming from a group of people that vote - at almost religious level - on a smaller government. A government that should operate within the bounds of the Constitution, etc.

Speaking for myself - I'm a conservative, I typically vote Republican. And personally - I would do anything I could to dissuade a person from having an abortion. However - I know that I won't know every person's situation, and feel that since I'm a male I will never have to be directly subject to that decision.

I also had to re-evaluate my beliefs when my wife was pregnant with our first child. Early into her pregnancy, we discovered that I'm a carrier for a pretty horrific genetic abnormality. 99% of all cases result in a miscarriage. Of the 1% that are born, most live less than a few hours. I don't know of an individual that's lived beyond a few months. The defects are atrocious. You can imagine the toll on the family both emotionally and financially. When we discovered this, we had to really evaluate our personal beliefs - and we decided early on that if our child was afflicted with this disorder, we'd abort. (fortunately for us, 2 healthy awesome kids later, and we didn't have to make the hard decision)

Now - this would have been a very early decision, the whole "late term" situation would NOT have applied to us. But the situation made me appreciate there is another side to the story. And any action carried out by the Federal Government is either going to wholesale cover every scenario, or be completely ineffective since all you have to do is find someone willing to shoehorn exceptions.

I would rather use education, outreach, and my involvement in the community to work against it and leave the deficit spending, warring, and bailing out corporate America to the Feds.

Finally, I have to say, as a conservative, I am avidly against the Federal government extending it's reach; even in situations where the government overextending it's reach aligns with my personal moral structure. Because of that, I have a difficult time really embracing a group of people that want to cherry-pick how the government acts, based on their on beliefs. If you're willing to let the gov't mandate who can and cannot have abortions, maybe you should let the government mandate whether you have health insurance then.

FWIW - I misspoke. There are cases of children living beyond 1 year, tho not many: http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInfo/HealthLibrary/genetics/trisomy.html

TennisMom said: GWB allowed that law to expire, quietly, to pander to his gun-supporting base. How many instances have we had since then where someone with an assault weapon was responsible for multiple deaths?

IDK, how many? How many deaths were from law abiding citizens who own assault weapons? How many deaths were from criminals who would own one even if they were banned? I would say it's probably 100% criminals and 0% law abiding citizens. Why should citizens give up guns if the only ones killing people are the criminals? If you ban guns, only criminals will have them. Criminals don't buy guns from a gun store, they buy them off the street. Duh. Gun control doesn't save lives.

And I'm trying to figure out how gun control has anything to do with abortion. Just another GOP policy you don't like I suppose.

Why should citizens give up guns if the only ones killing people are the criminals? If you ban guns, only criminals will have them.

Good point Deb. Voted up.

This article is NOT even talking about Islam or referring to Islam at all. YET you attack Christians and then equate them to radical Islam.

Nice try, Kshark. He's comparing Christian radicals to radical Islam, the ones who employ similar tactics. He even used a different word that "Christian" to set the distinction. Some of us see common factors like both groups using bombs, shootings, and mailed anthrax threats on their opponents or trying to get the law of the land to reflect their religious beliefs and endanger the rights of those who don't share those beliefs as just cause for the comparison.

"factors like both groups using bombs, shootings, and mailed anthrax threats on their opponents"

Are you kidding? Radical Islam would behead and abortion Doctor. That hasn't happened in this country.

Bubba-93944 - Radical Islam would behead and abortion Doctor.

Thank God that doesn't happen here, however shooting them in their church does happen here by a radical christian.

Legal demonstrators are terrorized on my side.

Have you found any legal demonstrators on "your side" that are terrorized yet? Unless you call this terrorizing "your side"?

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/148607/what_happened_when_i_yelled_back_at_the_%22christians%22_calling_my_wife_a_murderer?page=entire

Hardly

bonos_rama--

Give an inch and the chrislamists will take a mile, just like the Taliban did.

---------------

Kshark

Do you NOT know how to stay on topic at all. You do this ALL the bloody time.

This article is NOT even talking about Islam or referring to Islam at all. YET you attack Christians and then equate them to radical Islam. YET if a real article about Islam is posted you ignore it and just attack Christians.

Yep! She definitely has a one track mind and will find every opportunity to make some kind of Christian-bash comment on any article possible even if it's entirely off topic, LOL. I actually find it amusing now because it's just so darned predictable and I try to see if she'll find a way to tie it in with the actual topic...which she rarely does. I know many readers I've spoken to just kinda skip over her comments when they see her name because it's always the same old same old.

Deb, #4.3:

Why should citizens give up guns if the only ones killing people are the criminals?

Deb, where did I say citizens should give up guns? My comment was about the rabid response on the part of the gun crowd when it comes to assault weapons. You know, toys like AK-47s. Do you shoot rabbits with those? If so, do eat them through a straw afterward?

Are you kidding? Radical Islam would behead and abortion Doctor. That hasn't happened in this country.

You forgot to add the "yet."

Even if it never happens, you're saying that the fact that the difference in one method of killing people means the comparison to the other common factors don't count, and so the clinic bombers and other violent extremists aren't terrorists?

Un-frakking-believable.

"you're saying that the fact that the difference in one method of killing people means the comparison to the other common factors don't count, and so the clinic bombers and other violent extremists aren't terrorists?"

No, I'm saying that if abortion were legal in these countries that the death of doctors would be be much more widespread than in this country. Let's see, we've had one abortion doctor murdered since Roe, right?

Bubba-939441 - Let's see, we've had one abortion doctor murdered since Roe, right?

WRONG;

Murders

"In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.^[5][6]

• March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject ofwanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
• July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.
• December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks inBrookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack inNorfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
• January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic inBirmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.
• October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.
• May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as he served as an usher at his church in Wichita, Kansas.^[7]"

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/access_abortion.html

"Medical professionals who provide abortion services do so at a tremendous risk to their safety. Since 1993, three doctors who provided abortions have been murdered, and five others have been shot at by anti-abortion zealots in the U.S. and Canada. A clinic escort and three clinic employees have been murdered, and several other clinic staff have been shot. Violence against providers also includes bombings, arson, vandalism, burglary, illegal blockades, threats, and harassment.

Frivolous malpractice lawsuits against abortion providers are also generated by anti-abortion extremists who want to keep providers from offering abortion services. These lawsuits are rarely justified, but they are used unfairly to discredit the reputations of providers and frighten patients."

Then there's this graph;

http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_stats.pdf

OK, in the 37 yrs since Roe we've had 8 abortion providers killed and 50 million unborn children. How many of those 50 million abortions were to save the life of the mother?

I'm always curious about why these murderers of doctors murder the doctors and not the women. If they really wanted to make a statement they would go after the woman who aborts. After all, she is the one who decided to abort not the doctor. Are they cowards? Or is there some kind of murderers code of conduct that they go by?

" Are they cowards?"

Of course they are. Anyone who murders an unarmed person is a coward unless they act in self-defense. The murderers of abortion providers have more rights than the unborn child. At least they had the right to life.

Mike-2260639

They could always kidnap these women and force them to give birth.

Bubba-939441 - How many of those 50 million abortions were to save the life of the mother?

Probably not very many, why? Evidently 8 murdered people is not enough for you, huh?

The murderers of abortion providers have more rights than the unborn child

You're absolutely correct Bubba, zygotes/embryos/fetuses do not have rights, only born people like these doctors, medical staff, and patients do. I'm glad you finally realize it.

You're absolutely correct Bubba, zygotes/embryos/fetuses do not have rights, only born people like these doctors, medical staff, and patients do.

That's exactly what I thought.

"only born people like these doctors, medical staff, and patients do. I'm glad you finally realize it."

You didn't mention the rights of the murderers of the doctors. They have the same rights as the doctors. Shouldn't the unborn children have the right to life just as the murderers of the doctors do? Point is, the murderers have more rights than the innocent unborn children. Wanna see some pictures of the unborn children whom we are denying the right to life? They have 5 fingers and toes just like the doctors who abort them. I thought we all had the right to life endowed by our Creator.

How many of those 50 million abortions were to save the life of the mother?

Any ectopic pregnancy has to be aborted to save the life of the mother. Ectopic pregnancies occur every 1 in 80 to 1 in 250 pregnancies, and the range is socioeconomically dependent. You can apply these statistics to the number of pregnancies per year to answer the above question.

OK, in the 37 yrs since Roe we've had 8 abortion providers killed and 50 million unborn children. How many of those 50 million abortions were to save the life of the mother?

Evidence to back that number?

"Evidence to back that number?"

Center for Disease Control Statistics
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

Bubba-939441 - You didn't mention the rights of the murderers of the doctors. They have the same rights as the doctors.

They don't have the right to kill born people.

Shouldn't the unborn children have the right to life just as the murderers of the doctors do?

Only if the women that the zygote/embryo/fetus is inside of can make that decision, no one else.

the murderers have more rights than the innocent unborn children.

Yep, you got it right because the murderers are born and have rights, the unborn fetuses do not.

Wanna see some pictures of the unborn children whom we are denying the right to life? They have 5 fingers and toes just like the doctors who abort them.

I've seen many photos of aborted embryo and fetuses with 10 finger and 10 toes, some at a Crisis Pregnancy Center here in Texas, it didn't accomplish anything, I still believe in a woman's right to choose.

I thought we all had the right to life endowed by our Creator.

You thought wrong Bubba, we have the right to life once we are born. But don't tell that to the dying children that are denied transplants and certain medical procedures because their parents don't have insurance, that can be our secret.

"Evidence to back that number?"

Center for Disease Control Statistics
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

The reason for abortion is none of any ones business but the women requesting the abortion.

"we have the right to life once we are born."

Do the unborn children that were victims of botched abortions have a right to life? They were thrown in the laundrey room and left to die. Your president voted against a provision to provide them medical help.

Bubba-939441Do the unborn children that were victims of botched abortions have a right to life? They were thrown in the laundrey room and left to die. Your president voted against a provision to provide them medical help.

Bubba, I've already along with many other viners, debunked this claim of yours 100 x over. If you haven't read and research our responses those other 100 x why on earth would I think you'd read it now? I'm not playing your ridiculous redundant childish game anymore.

Bubba, got anything from a site that isn't nrlc.org or national right to life.....they just might be a bit biased in their estimates....

"Bubba, got anything from a site that isn't nrlc.org or national right to life.....they just might be a bit biased in their estimates...."

kj, the numbers are from Center for Disease Control statistics. I know, 50 million abortions since Roe is indeed a staggering number. It comes out to about 1.2 million abortions per yr in America. I could hardly believe those numbers myself. No American whether liberal or conservative should be proud of these numbers. Here are some more interesting numbers and a graph illustrating that there is a direct relationship between federal dollars received and the number of abortions provided by Planned Parenthood. Look at the graph. Do you doubt these numbers, or just don't want to hear the facts?

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/16/nat-6936/

50 million abortions since Roe is indeed a staggering number.

Do you believe abortions all started with Roe and would end with it?

Nice off topic

We're not discussing the Taliban on this thread Brain-497171.

I hope you told bonos-rama the same thing, henry, since she made a similar comment before Brian's. Might even be nice to have off topic hit and run bashing deleted to let people know it's not tolerated but that's up to you, of course.

Government is supposed to be small and unobtrusive except where it is permitted to crawl into your bedroom window, and right up our asses. Then, it's A-OK for conservatives to pry at every single aspect of our personal lives.

All this "Big Government" rhetoric is self-serving bull@!$%#. Government is "Big" except where it is doing what social conservatives want. Then, it's righteous.

except where it is permitted to crawl into your bedroom window, and right up our asses.

Larry Craig, need I say more?

maximillio: well said!

Max

That's a two way street though. You dempcrats want them involved where republican don't. Example: health care. I'm using this as an example and won't go any fartther because it's kinda off subject.

max, you birth babies out your ass?

That's a two way street though. You dempcrats want them involved where republican don't. Example: health care. I'm using this as an example and won't go any fartther because it's kinda off subject.

Secular humanist agendas (Health care) are why we vote dems in. Keeping theocrats out are at the heart of my philosophy - you are correct your example was not even close to the subject of the thread.

Texasguy01

Call the police immediately if you know of any innocent babies being killed.

May the culture that glorifies the murder of innocent babies be cast forever from America

What culture glorifies the murder of innocent babies?

Who is glorifying abortion? As has been pointed out throughout this thread, the only reason late term abortions are performed in Iowa in the third trimester is because of health reasons. When somebody elses health is on the line I entirely support their right to make the decision for themselves rather than have it dictated to them by a bunch of half-wit right wing Christian legislators.

Good! May the culture that glorifies the murder of innocent babies be cast forever from America. I fully support these efforts.

Seems the only people doing the "glorifying" are the ones obsessing over fetuses while they allow the numbers of homeless children to multiply.

Sure Auteur 1536, The war machine needs more meat for the grinder right!

Excellent post, D Iowan. Friend Request sent.

Unfortunately in many states the emergency rooms won't/don't give out the ebc. Here in Wisconsin this group (pro-life Wisconsin) doesn't believe in abortion of any kind for any reason.

Rape and incest are both criminal acts, and in our system of justice we punish the criminal. We do not punish the victim, nor do we punish the criminal's children. See entire article below.

http://www.prolifewisconsin.org/MONUPD_files/December1310monupd.html

Are you talking about Catholic hospitals? I can't imagine a non-religious based company owned hospital refusing to give that medication.

These would all be moot points if people just took responsibility for their actions. Of course, in cases where a child was wanted but the health of mother/child is in jeopardy, caring doctors don't let concerns about malpractice deter them from their oath. I would think that a doctor who let a woman die because he was worried about a malpractice suit would have a lot bigger law suit on his hands -- like second degree murder.

Sometimes having an abortion is taking RESPONSIBILITY for your actions.....

I never said it wasn't.

On a personal level, I just don't understand why abortion is still used as a means of birth control

Unplanned pregnancies happen for many reasons........most of the time from failed BC....quit being so judgemental. Some of these women needing procedures are in monogamous marriages with a husband that has had a vasectomy for years, some forgot a pill, some were taking the pill and antibiotics, some from a broken condom, some a diaphragm that slipped, some from Norplant failures.......the list goes on and on.......life isn't perfect. Pregnancies that result from these types of failures are usually terminated before 14 weeks. Late term abortions are performed on planned and/or desired pregnancies that have encountered a problem with the fetus or the health of the pregnant woman.

Stating the truth is not being judgmental and I never said that their weren't instances of failed birth control. However, the majority of abortions are not performed for that reason. Abortion is dangerous and should not be used as a continual means of birth control, yet some women do it over and over again.

If I may comment on some of your "qualifiers" -- forgetting to take a pill, and/or having sex while on medication and failing to realize the implications are not signs of being responsible.

If I ran the world, every pharmacy counter in the nation would have a big fishbowl filled with condoms free for the taking. Birth control pills would be covered by all insurance companies with a minimum co-pay. Low income women would get them for free from Planned Parenthood and similar services.

I am not anti-abortion. I am pro choice -- I just wish people would make better choices prior to needing an abortion.

If I may comment on some of your "qualifiers" -- forgetting to take a pill, and/or having sex while on medication and failing to realize the implications are not signs of being responsible

Well I hope we can all be more perfect like you I guess.......People forget, people make mistakes.......get real!

The most common reason I saw for an abortion was failed birth control. Abortion is not fun.......it is not cheap........no one would just be cavalier regarding getting serial abortions unless they were mentally incompetent and in that case an abortion would probably be the best answer for them anyway.

Yes, people make mistakes and those mistakes lead to having a procedure that endangers their life. That's not being responsible.

Your indignation does not change the reality that people don't take personal responsibility for their actions. Whether you want to believe it or not, women DO use abortion as a means of birth control.

Statistics as of May 2010:

Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.

In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.

Each year, two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion; half have had at least one previous abortion.

At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45 and, at current rates, about one-third will have had an abortion.

On a personal level, I just don't understand why abortion is still used as a means of birth control. There are so many other viable options (pill/condoms/iud/creams/morning after drugs) that do not endanger the life of the woman. Of course, for these means to be effective, people need to start taking responsibility for their actions.

Apparently you don't understand that conventional birth control is not 100% effective. You also don't understand that the birth control pill can endanger the life of a woman. Not all birth control pills are safe.

Even in the case of rape, one of the first things that happens in the emergency room is receiving a dose of the morning after pill -- even if the woman is on birth control.

That doesn't happen with all cases of rape.

I hate having to qualify that statement by saying that a woman actually needs to go to the hospital for this to happen, but the reality is that too many women are embarrassed to report the crime.

Why do you think that is Sherlock?

Did you read the statistics posted above your comment? Did I say that a woman had to use the pill? Did you even bother to read my other comments?

Save your sarcasm for someone who cares. I've been advocating for women's rights -- especially as applies to rape -- for four years. I don't know of one instance of rape where a women was not offered the morning after pill at the hospital. If she doesn't know her rapist personally, she is also given medication for aids and other sexually transmitted diseases.

As for your Sherlock question: the answer to that is far too involved to tackle here. Suffice it to say that I've been fighting and will continue to fight until "victim" is a word to fear in the heart of every rapist.

Vooda and Auteur, Donna is making a valid point. Since there seems to be a high rate of abortion in this country, one has to wonder if it is being used as a form of birth control. That is a valid question, imho. Many people, especially those of the younger variety, have the 'It won't happen to me' mentality. That can result in a very big 'Oops' at the end of the day.

It is unfortunate but humans are not infallible. There are always those who are like the horse being led to water but won't drink.

Since there seems to be a high rate of abortion in this country, one has to wonder if it is being used as a form of birth control.

Do you know why the abortion rates are so high in America? You get three guesses.

Did you even bother to read my other comments?

Yeah, especially where you implied women who got abortions were being irresponsible.

Save your sarcasm for someone who cares.

So you don't care about the women's right to choose?

I've been advocating for women's rights -- especially as applies to rape -- for four years.

Yeah. Give them the morning after pill and everything will be honky-dory again, according to you.

I don't know of one instance of rape where a women was not offered the morning after pill at the hospital.

You must not be as aware as you claim to be.

If she doesn't know her rapist personally, she is also given medication for aids and other sexually transmitted diseases.

What makes you think she can't get an STD from being raped by someone she knew personally?

As for your Sherlock question: the answer to that is far too involved to tackle here.

In other words, you don't want to answer the question because you don't know the answer.

Suffice it to say that I've been fighting and will continue to fight until "victim" is a word to fear in the heart of every rapist.

The term "survivor" is more appropriate and polite.

I've been advocating for women's rights

If this is true, I find your statements extremely harsh. Having worked in the abortion field, I find statistics very easily manipulated to back up ones opinions. In the real world I stand behind my comments. Once again I will reiterate unplanned pregnancies happen for many reasons and it is not for you or anyone else to judge whether the person is being irresponsible.

Henry, Friend Request sent!

So do you know why the abortion rates are so high in America, Tennis?

Auteur 1536 - So do you know why the abortion rates are so high in America, Tennis?

*hand waving high in the air saying "oh, oh, oh" in my best Horshack impression from Welcome back Kotter"*

Because we do not teach our young how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, lack of birth control education and access, then there's the expense. Also the religious right promotes abortion.

http://www.religiousleftlaw.com/2010/04/how-the-religious-right-promotes-abortion.html

Thank you Miss Lola, you may take your seat. Since you provided a link, you get extra credit today for your answer!

LOL!!! Thanks Miss K!

I'm really showing my age there huh?

Sharia law is written in much the same imperative style and cadence you provide in your manifesto, Marcel.

Marcel Villa - must be left to suffer for that person's indescretion.

So you believe pregnancy, birth, and a child should be a woman's punishment for having sex?

A person who has shown promiscuity with regards to sex must have her tubes tied down once given the second abortion so that the person can not avail nor be able to create fetuses again. Pills will not do in such cases.

Wow, forced sterilization? I'm amazed at your mindset.

How about if we start by forcing schools to teach medically correct sex education and birth control. How about making birth control more available, affordable, and/or free? Why not let people who want a vasectomy or tubal ligation have better access and make the procedures more affordable or free? This would drastically lower abortion rates.

Marcel:

Abortion should only be carried out when it is a clear cut case of rape or incest. It should also be done when the life of the mother is threatened by giving birth. Extreme poverty should also be given consideration unless the birther has a definite persona who will adopt the baby once born. It is criminal to have a kid just to satisfy society needs for moral turpitude and then let the kid die of hunger and sickness due to poverty.

I'd say that abortion should be carried out after a woman makes the decision. It is no one else's business what her reasons are.

As for having an unwanted child who will suffer severe consequences to satisfy someone else's moral standards, we are in agreement.

Tennis Mom2,

I believe that my comments are misunderstood. Abortion are decisions made by the person and that person do not have to answer to anyone with regards to that person's decision.

What my comments are based on reason's when abortion is funded by the government. When that person can pay for the abortion by himself/herself, I do not think any body has the right to question that decision. After all it is her body. I however draw the line when that person claims he/she has the right but then expects others to foot the bill.

Other's referred to educating the people. Unfortunately, that does not work. In most cases it is dumped as ineffective and works only for those who has very strong will to succeed. Not too many has that capability. In a lot of cases, curiosity overwhelms ignorance thus it ends up as increasing instead of decreasing the population. Ten years ago, the United States barely has over 200 Million now it has over 280 Million and still growing at a very fast rate. A lot of children is born without a father, lots of teenage girls getting pregnant and could not point to a definite person as a father. Not even the pills work because it was later revealed that using pills damaged the uterus walls causing the person the loss of the chance to ever become pregnant.

I personally knows (my wife choose this method) tying the tube works and will not harm the uterus. All it needs is to go back to the operating table and have it untied and the couple could go on their way like as if the tying up did not exist. further it does not affect the health of the person whatsoever.

Their families may have considered them martyrs, johnny angel, in the same way the families of Muslim suicide bombers do. There is a definite similarity.

therobin,

you got that right, especially when these people are the ones who continually claim to be the ones who hate too much government. wonder when the conservative christians will start insisting that sex be performed only in the missionary position?

Or for procreational purposes only.....and then as a 54 year old woman, I won't be allowed to have sex anymore because I'm only doing it because I'm a sinful whore and I like that nasty stuff.......

I'm only doing it because I'm a sinful whore and I like that nasty stuff.......

I've been wasting my life on all those porn sites-newsvine is the the place to be!! Lol

As has been stated numerous times above.....it is already ILLEGAL except in the cases of fetal abnormality and health of mother-to-be.......

Then why is the Senator pushing for banning late-term abortions as the article states?

I guess you'd have to ask this Iowa State Senator himself.......

From Andrew 4.5 Late term abortion is already illegal in Iowa except in cases where the mother's life is at risk.

I see. It makes little sense for the Senator to push for something that already exists. What's the point of the seeded article then?

I smell a dodging of the question.

My sentiments exactly. I think these self-righteous sanctimonious types want to control women, wombs and all. What's funny is that these nuts who claim they want less government or government out of their lives are the same ones who wish to impose government on others' lives. As Arsenio Hall used to say: "Things that make you say hmmmmm........"

Amen Harbinger-2218646, Amen, the man was a hero!

He certainly took alot of abuse to do what his patients, in many unfortunate cases needed......

IMO, the more anti-abortion you are, the more pro-birth control you should be, and push for increased funding of Planned Parenthood....

krankee,

we are gonna need these extra kids to provide more labor for all the jobs that we will get from the growing economy promised by the republicans. these tax cuts will usher in an era of full employment not seen in the history of this nation. (sarc)

GOP hates abortion and impoverished infants. Worried about you till you clear the womb, then you are on your own.

You mean like this story?

http://langewinckler.newsvine.com/_news/2010/12/09/5618259-indiana-dooms-baby-due-to-budget-cuts

Just because it is part of the GOP's platform....anti abortion.......does not mean that we all follow to the letter their stance.........I don't! There are a lot of Democrats who are anti abortion.

I'm very anti-abortion and think it is horrible. The pro-choice in me however is far more dominant. It tells me that we live in a free country and it is not for me to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. If you are born with a womb and a vagina, you get to decide what to do with it as a free person.

Several of you post like you have vaginas, how many of you actually wear one? Everybody else shutup and listen.

Depends, which side are you?

It's amazing. When it comes to opposing obama's Health care reform, the Reps claim that Government is taking too big a bite into people's lives, but now they want to dictate whether or not people can give birth even if their lives are in danger. How bigger a bite into people's lives isn't this? However, if their 15-year-old daughter would get pregnant, a secret abortion paid for by Government fund would take place in the middle of the night before dawn finds out. Alas!
Republicans, Republicans, Republicans!!! (sigh) How many times did I call your name?

Which side?

Are you pro-choice or anti-choice?

Then I'll try to be gentle.