Discussion: Abortion

[Kelly]

I'm still waiting on SuBe, but I think I've got him right where I want him. Once I get him down, though, I think I should be all set.l

Are we still talking about rape...????????:oldrazz:

[Paradyme]

I am adamantly pro-choice. HOWEVER, I do not support abortion. (With the exception of a few cases.) I believe that I shouldn't have the right to tell someone else that they cannot go through with the procedure.

You would have to ask someone that has been in this situation. I have not, and anything that I say is purely opinion. To a person who is pro-life and decides to get an abortion, they may still consider themselves pro-life.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what was just said here. You support the right for people to do what they want (i.e. freedom) but don't support the killing of babies, correct?

Then what would be wrong with getting rid of abortion all together? Is it because you are denying someone the right to murder an innocent child? I guess we should make murder in general an okay thing to do since it's your right, right?

I understand the circumstances of being raped or other unusual occurrences happening but whats wrong with giving the baby up for adoption?

I'm just trying to understand the thought process that people think it's okay to kill a child and pay no consequences.

[Marx]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what was just said here. You support the right for people to do what they want (i.e. freedom) but don't support the killing of babies, correct?

Then what would be wrong with getting rid of abortion all together? Is it because you are denying someone the right to murder an innocent child? I guess we should make murder in general an okay thing to do since it's your right, right?

I understand the circumstances of being raped or other unusual occurrences happening but whats wrong with giving the baby up for adoption?

I'm just trying to understand the thought process that people think it's okay to kill a child and pay no consequences.

And I'm trying to understand the thought process that people think it's ok to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own body.

What I have said, and maintain, is that while I am personally opposed to abortion, I do not believe that I should have the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own body. What's so hard to understand?

With respect to your 'I understand being raped but what's wrong with giving up the baby for adoption', are you seriously suggesting that a rape victim should be forced to live with a constant reminder of a horrible crime that was committed on them?

[Gilpesh]

I understand the circumstances of being raped or other unusual occurrences happening but whats wrong with giving the baby up for adoption?

Yeah... cause the kid is just an accident from consensual sex...
:facepalm

[Paradyme]

And I'm trying to understand the thought process that people think it's ok to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own body.

What I have said, and maintain, is that while I am personally opposed to abortion, I do not believe that I should have the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own body. What's so hard to understand?

With respect to your 'I understand being raped but what's wrong with giving up the baby for adoption', are you seriously suggesting that a rape victim should be forced to live with a constant reminder of a horrible crime that was committed on them?

And that's the kids fault why? I'm talking about the kid not the person who had the crime committed against them. In this terrible world bad things happen but we shouldn't permit a terrible thing such as murder.

Are there any more examples, other then a rape victim, that you guys think should be grounds for abortion?

Yeah... cause the kid is just an accident from consensual sex...
:facepalm

There are plenty of families out there unable to have children so I don't think putting kids up for adoption is a terrible thing even if it was consensual sex. I'm not really sure if that is where you were going with your somewhat sarcastic comment there.

[The Senator]

I understand the circumstances of being raped or other unusual occurrences happening but whats wrong with giving the baby up for adoption?
.

Yeah, because all a woman has to endure once she gets pregnant-- especially from a rapist-- is nine months of happiness and attention before the stork comes and she can just briskly toss the baby to another family. :whatever:

[Marx]

And that's the kids fault why? I'm talking about the kid not the person who had the crime committed against them. In this terrible world bad things happen but we shouldn't permit a terrible thing such as murder.

Ok. So you do believe that a rape victim should be made to follow through with the pregnancy.

I think this can all be summed up with one question - When do you believe life begins?


Are there any more examples, other then a rape victim, that you guys think should be grounds for abortion?

Yes, when the mother's health comes into question.

[Gilpesh]

I'm not really sure if that is where you were going with your somewhat sarcastic comment there.

To an infraction. That's where I went. :whatever:

But seriously, if you don't understand what the problem is with FORCING a woman to carry a child to term that has come from BEING RAPED... you need to go back to school and learn some more.

[Paradyme]

Ok. So you do believe that a rape victim should be made to follow through with the pregnancy.

I think this can all be summed up with one question - When do you believe life begins?


Yes, when the mother's health comes into question.

To your first question, I believe we are at an empass because I believe when the cells start to divide, so basically at conception. You'll have to excuse me because I'm not a medical professional so I don't know all the jargon. This is where some might argue that there isn't life until you detect a heartbeat but that's not how I feel.

And to your second statement. Abortion already brings the mothers health into question.

[Marx]

To your first question, I believe we are at an empass because I believe when the cells start to divide, so basically at conception. You'll have to excuse me because I'm not a medical professional so I don't know all the jargon. This is where some might argue that there isn't life until you detect a heartbeat but that's not how I feel.

I respect your opinion Paradyme, I was just wondering. Alot of opinions on this subject are based on 'when' exactly a person believes that life begins.


And to your second statement. Abortion already brings the mothers health into question.

I am referring to when a pregnancy jeopardizes the health of the mother. Not when if an abortion jeopardizes the health of the mother.

[Paradyme]

To an infraction. That's where I went. :whatever:

But seriously, if you don't understand what the problem is with FORCING a woman to carry a child to term that has come from BEING RAPED... you need to go back to school and learn some more.

Okay, let me break it down so you can understand my thought process here.

I have the ability or the free will whatever you want to call it to go out and rob a bank or to murder someone. When I commit either of those acts is there not a consequence?

So, you can go ahead and give the woman her right to do what she wants with her body but I think there should be some form of consequences for killing a child. I'm going to go off of what most of our justice system is based off of and say that there should be different degrees of consequences. Just like there are so many degrees of murder.

That's basically how I put it. If the woman was raped then it's her decision whether or not she wants to kill the baby or keep it and then happily (or whatever she is feeling) give it away to foster care. I know a girl who did this and she said it was hard for her to do that but she knew that the foster parents could provide more for her.

I understand where you all are coming from I get your points of view but this is how I see the picture. It's a tricky situation and I value life. This debate/discussion all comes down to the fundamentals on when you believe life is created but that's your opinion. When medical fact supersedes opinion that is when you can no longer use that as a basis for a law.

[Paradyme]

I respect your opinion Paradyme, I was just wondering. Alot of opinions on this subject are based on 'when' exactly you believe life begins.



I am referring to when a pregnancy jeopardizes the health of the mother. Not when if an abortion jeopardizes the health of the mother.


I respect your opinions as well. Hence why I'm here because I like to get a better understanding of the other side of the subject rather than blindly throw my beliefs around. I like to know how you all feel on the subject.

I knew what you were referring to but doesn't abortion in some cases already jeopardize the health of the mother? You know what I'm getting at?

[Addendum]

It doesn't matter anyway since abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country

[Marx]

Okay, let me break it down so you can understand my thought process here.

I have the ability or the free will whatever you want to call it to go out and rob a bank or to murder someone. When I commit either of those acts is there not a consequence?

So, you can go ahead and give the woman her right to do what she wants with her body but I think there should be some form of consequences for killing a child. I'm going to go off of what most of our justice system is based off of and say that there should be different degrees of consequences. Just like there are so many degrees of murder.

That's basically how I put it. If the woman was raped then it's her decision whether or not she wants to kill the baby or keep it and then happily (or whatever she is feeling) give it away to foster care. I know a girl who did this and she said it was hard for her to do that but she knew that the foster parents could provide more for her.

I understand where you all are coming from I get your points of view but this is how I see the picture. It's a tricky situation and I value life. This debate/discussion all comes down to the fundamentals on when you believe life is created but that's your opinion. When medical fact supersedes opinion that is when you can no longer use that as a basis for a law.

Let's not go there Para. Pro-choice does not mean that you value life any less than someone who is Pro-Life. If you choose to go there, this thread will dive into a debate on the death penalty and support or opposition to it.

[The Senator]

It doesn't matter anyway since abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country

And it will never become illegal because the Republican Party would lose one of its wedge issues to run on.

[Paradyme]

And it will never become illegal because the Republican Party would lose one of its wedge issues to run on.

Hence why nothing will ever change in this country. Politicians and parties want to keep their platforms and control so nothing that's actually good for this country passes.

Let's not go there Para. Pro-choice does not mean that you value life any less than someone who is Pro-Life. If you choose to go there, this thread will dive into a debate on the death penalty and support or opposition to it.

Sorry, I'm not trying to go there. I know you value life but you are trying to protect the rights at the same time. You are stuck in the middle, right? I'm just saying that I value a life to an extent where I'd rather see the child get a chance rather than being written off as nothing or some type of 'demon' baby.

Of course there are always exceptions to any case this is a gray issue. Nothing is ever easy. Rarely if even are there any issues that are just black or white. It's all gray.

[Gilpesh]

Okay, let me break it down so you can understand my thought process here.

No thanks. You think that "embryo > grown woman who was raped". :whatever:

[Paradyme]

No thanks. You think that "embryo > grown woman who was raped". :whatever:

Thanks for trying. Nice talking to ya.

[Hobgoblin]

This is an...unusual story.

Its a little disturbing, thus the spoiler tags.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351730,00.html

Yale Student Insists Abortion Art Project Is Real, Despite University's Claims of 'Creative Fiction'

Friday, April 18, 2008

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans



A Yale University student who touched off a campus firestorm with her shocking claims of repeatedly artificially inseminating herself and then inducing miscarriages as part of an art project stood by her story Friday, despite statements from the university that her version of events is "creative fiction."

In a guest column that ran in Friday's Yale Daily News — which first reported her claims in Thursday's edition — senior art major Aliza Shvarts maintained that she had conducted artificial inseminations and carried out what she characterized as self-induced miscarriage procedures, though she never actually knew whether she was pregnant.

"For the past year, I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages," Shvarts wrote in Friday's column. "Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization.

"On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding. ... Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there (sic) was ever a fertilized ovum or not.

"The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading."



She reiterated that the display, which she herself drew attention to with a press release circulated Wednesday, was meant to provoke discussion about the link between art and the human body.

"This piece — in its textual and sculptural forms — is meant to call into question the relationship between form and function as they converge on the body," she wrote.

Click here to read Aliza Shvarts' column in Friday's Yale Daily News.

Yale officials disputed Shvarts' story, and in a strongly-worded statement Thursday night said the student told several high-level university officials that she did not do the things she said she did in constructing the exhibit.

Shvarts told Yale College Dean Peter Salovey and two other senior officials investigating her claims that she neither impregnated herself nor experienced any self-induced miscarriages, the campus newspaper reported.

"The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body," Helaine S. Klasky, associate dean and vice president for public affairs at Yale, said in the statement sent to FOXNews.com.

"Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art."

Shvarts' campus phone has been disconnected, and she did not respond to e-mailed requests for an interview. While she did not explicitly mention Yale officials' version of events in her Friday column, Klasky told various media that Shvarts had indicated what she would do if the university contended her story was false.

"She said if Yale puts out a statement saying she did not do this, she would say Yale was doing that to protect its reputation," Klasky told The Associated Press.

The public affairs official also wrote an e-mail to the Yale Daily News late Thursday night saying that Shvarts "denial is part of her performance. We are disappointed that she would deliberately lie to the press in the name of art.”

Shvarts shot back at the school, claiming her project was “university sanctioned,” according to the paper.

“I’m not going to absolve them by saying it was some sort of hoax when it wasn’t,” she told the Daily News. “I started out with the university on board with what I was doing, and because of the media frenzy they’ve been trying to dissociate with me. Ultimately I want to get back to a point where they renew their support.”

Shvarts said her project had the backing of Yale's Davenport College Dean Craig Harwood, as well as at least two faculty members within the School of Art.

The Yale Daily News' top editor said Friday that the paper stands by all its coverage of the controversy.

"The Yale Daily News stands by its original as well as its subsequent reporting," wrote editor in chief Andrew Mangino in an e-mail to FOXNews.com.

He said there had always been uncertainty as to whether or not Shvarts had managed to get herself pregnant and induce actual miscarriages.

"From the beginning, there was ambiguity as to whether or not Aliza Shvarts had successfully impregnated herself — the original story points out that she did not take a pregnancy test and refused to provide some key details of her self-insemination," he said. "But the fact remains that she might have been pregnant on multiple occasions."

The art major told the paper that Yale misrepresented her explanation of her work to school officials, according to Mangino.

"Although an official Yale statement suggested, though did not outright state, that her project essentially amounted to a hoax, Ms. Shvarts told the News on Thursday that this very statement was misleading and an inaccurate representation of what she had told school officials earlier in the day," Mangino said.

"This story, on one level, therefore amounts to a he-said-she-said with ambiguous language being employed by all parties."

But the editor said the paper's coverage by a team of four reporters and five editors "indicates that Aliza's project is not a hoax."

Yale officials didn't respond to requests for a reaction to Shvarts' column, but did confirm their comments in Friday's Daily News article were accurate.

Before the university contended that Shvarts did not actually perform the acts, the story about the project sparked widespread disgust and outrage, with critics characterizing the young woman as sick, depraved, unethical and attention-seeking. Advocates on both sides of the abortion-rights debate condemned the exhibit.

In standing by her work, Shvarts on Friday provided further details, saying she is the only one who knows how many sperm donors — whom she calls "fabricators" — she used and which herbal drugs she took to induce the possible "miscarriages."

"To protect myself and others, only I know the number of fabricators who participated, the frequency and accuracy with which I inseminated and the specific abortifacient I used," the college senior wrote in her Daily News column. "Because of these measures of privacy, the piece exists only in its telling."

Yale issued its statement several hours after the campus paper first published the story on Thursday, suggesting that university officials had taken the young woman's claims seriously enough to launch a full-scale investigation and question her directly.

"Her art project includes visual representations," said Klasky. "[Schvarts] stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. ... Had these acts been real they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns."

Whether it's real or fake, the exhibit — which Shvarts has described as a large cube suspended from the ceiling and wrapped in layers of plastic that are smeared with blood samples from the purported miscarriages mixed with Vaseline — is slated to be unveiled next week.

Videos she claims show her experiencing induced miscarriages in her bathtub will be projected on the sides of the cube and the gallery walls.

"The most poignant aspect of this representation — the part most meaningful in terms of its political agenda (and, incidentally, the aspect that has not been discussed thus far) — is the impossibility of accurately identifying the resulting blood," Shvarts wrote.

The exhibit will be on public display from April 22 to May 1 at Yale's Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall. Shvarts is scheduled to be honored at a reception April 25.

The young woman gave Daily News reporters a tour of her studio and a sneak peak at the footage included in the upcoming exhibit that has stirred such controversy. The campus paper published a photo of Shvarts at work.

"Two News reporters demanded and received physical evidence as well as graphic (and, at times, bloody) photographs in order to confirm that the project indeed has a physical manifestation beyond the shock value of its public explanation," Mangino told FOXNews.com. "It does."

Before coming to Yale, Shvarts was a student at The Buckley School, a Los Angeles prep school for children in kindergarten through the 12th grade. She graduated as valedictorian, according to Buckley's Web site — which by Friday had removed archived references to Shvarts.

Buckley officials did not return calls seeking comment.

During her time at Yale, Shvarts penned an essay about getting her period for the first time in 1999, which was posted on a site called My Little Red Book with girls' writings about the experience.

She also apparently constructed an art installation addressing the same subject as part of a series she called "Disarticulation." Both her written and art pieces about menstruation are titled "The Ming Period."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.



Just wanted to bump this post, get peoples reactions.

[danoyse]

Just wanted to bump this post, get peoples reactions.

Ew. :wow:

Why are they even still planning to show her exhibit? Can you imagine the lunatics who are going to show up to protest this?

[Hobgoblin]

You would think there would be some concern about the public health, too. Menstrual blood and potential embryo remains arent things that should be left laying around.






:o

[Marx]

You would think there would be some concern about the public health, too. Menstrual blood and potential embryo remains arent things that should be left laying around.






:o

I agree.

[Addendum]

You would think there would be some concern about the public health, too. Menstrual blood and potential embryo remains arent things that should be left laying around.






:o

Give a hoot, don't pollute

[Marx]

SOURCES: OBAMA MAY USE EXECUTIVE ORDER TO REVERSE ABORTION POLICY
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/19/sources-obama-may-use-executive-order-reverse-abortion-policy/

President-elect Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order to reverse a controversial Bush administration abortion policy in his first week in office, three Democratic sources said Monday.

Obama's second full day as president falls on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.

Source said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the "Mexico City policy" reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.

The "Mexico City policy," commonly referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was devised by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City.

President Bill Clinton lifted the ban in January 1993 as one of his first acts as president, but President George W. bush reinstated it in his first executive order on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

At the time, critics — including Planned Parenthood — called the move a "legislative ambush."

Bush defended the action, saying then: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion."

[Hobgoblin]

I'm torn on that one. Health care is one thing but sending money overseas in a time of recession is something else.

[Motown Marvel]

i just came across this video. i think its a valid question in regards to illegal abortion:

iD97OVJ4PNw

[cyborg ninja 14]

My grandmother ran a pro-life clinic for a longest and tried to force-feed the pro-life stance down my throat during my life.

So, Kill the babies. Every last ****ing one of them:cmad:

Ok, in my opinion if someone has sex and gets preggers despite not wanting to get preggers I can't feel bad for them. You made the choice to make with the love so, sorry I can't provide sympathy?. But, go ahead and have the abortion if you want. I wont stop you. Now, if you get raped or something, or otherwise have sex against your will, I believe they have the right to choose.

I'm an equal opportunity Pro-life and choice. I like choices and I like life. There's a fine medium somewhere.

[Marx]

i just came across this video. i think its a valid question in regards to illegal abortion:

iD97OVJ4PNw

Thank you for posting this video Motown. I really appreciate the tone of the interviewer. He was very courteous and respectful and not beligerant and rude like others I've seen. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

My grandmother ran a pro-life clinic for a longest and tried to force-feed the pro-life stance down my throat during my life.

So, Kill the babies. Every last ****ing one of them:cmad:

Ok, in my opinion if someone has sex and gets preggers despite not wanting to get preggers I can't feel bad for them. You made the choice to make with the love so, sorry I can't provide sympathy?. But, go ahead and have the abortion if you want. I wont stop you. Now, if you get raped or something, or otherwise have sex against your will, I believe they have the right to choose.

I'm an equal opportunity Pro-life and choice. I like choices and I like life. There's a fine medium somewhere.

You cannot be both. If you support the choice, then you are Pro-Choice. (And no one who is Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice means that you believe in the mother's right.)

[cyborg ninja 14]

You cannot be both. If you support the choice, then you are Pro-Choice. (And no one who is Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice means that you believe in the mother's right.)

I would say I'm more pro-choice, but I don't have to agree with the choices. I can respect the desicion but not have to agree with it personally.

Listen, I was told for a long time that Pro-choice was a bad thing. K?

Don't hurt me:csad:

[Marx]

I would say I'm more pro-choice, but I don't have to agree with the choices. I can respect the desicion but not have to agree with it personally.

Listen, I was told for a long time that Pro-choice was a bad thing. K?

I didn't mean to come off as sounding negative in any way. All I was trying to say is that Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion. I only believe in abortion for select few cases (ie rape and mother's health.) Beyond that, I do not personally support it. But just because I feel the way that I do, does not mean that I should be allowed to say how another person can feel. You know? That's my stand. My take. I am Pro-Choice.

I gather from what you have said, you feel the same.

Don't hurt me:csad:

I always try to play nice. :cwink:

[Gilpesh]

So, Kill the babies. Every last ****ing one of them:cmad:

Here here. They cry too much and vomit/poop all the time.... this also applies to my college roommate, but he did kind of look like a baby... add him to the baby genocide.

[cyborg ninja 14]

I didn't mean to come off as sounding negative in any way. All I was trying to say is that Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion. I only believe in abortion for select few cases (ie rape and mother's health.) Beyond that, I do not personally support it. But just because I feel the way that I do, does not mean that I should be allowed to say how another person can feel. You know? That's my stand. My take. I am Pro-Choice.

I gather from what you have said, you feel the same.


I always try to play nice. :cwink:
You seem like a well informed poster in this section of the forums, I dig that :up:

Here here. They cry too much and vomit/poop all the time.... this also applies to my college roommate, but he did kind of look like a baby... add him to the baby genocide.

Get rid of them like how they did in 300:cwink:

[Marx]

You seem like a well informed poster in this section of the forums, I dig that :up:

Thanks Cyborg. :yay::bow:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

People should be free to choose. Is unAmerican to suggest otherwise. Simply is.

[Handsome Rob]

Infant Allegedly Born Alive in Botched Abortion Attempt, then Killed

http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

"I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique (ren-uh-LEEK') and the clinic owners.

The state Board of Medicine is to hear Renelique's case in Tampa on Friday and determine whether to strip his license. The state attorney's homicide division is investigating, though no charges have been filed. Terry Chavez, a spokeswoman with the Miami-Dade County State Attorney's Office, said this week that prosecutors were nearing a decision.

Renelique's attorney, Joseph Harrison, called the allegations at best "misguided and incomplete" in an e-mail to The Associated Press. He didn't provide details.

The case has riled the anti-abortion community, which contends the clinic's actions constitute murder.

"The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage," said Tom Brejcha, president of The Thomas More Society, a law firm that is also representing Williams. "People all over the country are just aghast."

Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations.

"It really disturbed me," said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. "I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics."

According to state records, Renelique received his medical training at the State University of Haiti. In 1991, he completed a four-year residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Interfaith Medical Center in New York.

New York records show that Renelique has made at least five medical malpractice payments in the past decade, the circumstances of which were not detailed in the filings.

Several attempts to reach Renelique were unsuccessful. Some of his office numbers were disconnected, no home number could be found and he did not return messages left with his attorney.

Williams struggled with the decision to have an abortion, Pennekamp said. She declined an interview request made through him.

She concluded she didn't have the resources or maturity to raise a child, he said, and went to the Miramar Women's Center on July 17, 2006. Sonograms indicated she was 23 weeks pregnant, according to the Department of Health. She met Renelique at a second clinic two days later.

Renelique gave Williams laminaria, a drug that dilates the cervix, and prescribed three other medications, according to the administrative complaint filed by the Health Department. She was told to go to yet another clinic, A Gyn Diagnostic Center in Hialeah, where the procedure would be performed the next day, on July 20, 2006.

Williams arrived in the morning and was given more medication.

The Department of Health account continues as follows: Just before noon she began to feel ill. The clinic contacted Renelique. Two hours later, he still hadn't shown up. Williams went into labor and delivered the baby.

"She came face to face with a human being," Pennekamp said. "And that changed everything."

The complaint says one of the clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez came in and cut the umbilical cord with scissors, then placed the baby in a plastic bag, and the bag in a trash can.

Williams' lawsuit offers a cruder account: She says Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby's umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

No working telephone number could be found for Gonzalez, and an attorney who has represented the clinic in the past did not return a message.

At 23 weeks, an otherwise healthy fetus would have a slim but legitimate chance of survival. Quadruplets born at 23 weeks last year at The Nebraska Medical Center survived.

An autopsy determined Williams' baby - she named her Shanice - had filled her lungs with air, meaning she had been born alive, according to the Department of Health. The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity.

The Department of Health believes Renelique committed malpractice by failing to ensure that licensed personnel would be present when Williams was there, among other missteps.

The department wants the Board of Medicine, a separate agency, to permanently revoke Renelique's license, among other penalties. His license is currently restricted, permitting him to only perform abortions when another licensed physician is present and can review his medical records.

Should prosecutors file murder charges, they'd have to prove the baby was born alive, said Robert Batey, a professor of criminal law at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport. The defense might contend that the child would have died anyway, but most courts would not allow that argument, he said.

"Hastening the death of an individual who is terminally ill is still considered causing the death of that individual," Batey said. "And I think a court would rule similarly in this type of case."

[Paradyme]

Infant Allegedly Born Alive in Botched Abortion Attempt, then Killed

http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html


I was just going to post this. This is absolutely horrible.

[Timstuff]

I am pro life, but I really don't have anything to say. I am speechless.

[StorminNorman]

People should be free to choose. Is unAmerican to suggest otherwise. Simply is.

Is it unAmerican to try to protect an unborn child? I am personally pro-choice, but to act like those that disagree with that stance are "unAmerican" is absolutely ludicrous.

[StorminNorman]

Infant Allegedly Born Alive in Botched Abortion Attempt, then Killed

http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

Everyone involved should be charged with murder.

[Marx]

Infant Allegedly Born Alive in Botched Abortion Attempt, then Killed

http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

Oh my god...that's horrible.

[Timstuff]

Everyone involved should be charged with murder.

Personally, I do not think the mother should be. She was on medication and weak from having just given birth, so even if she did want to stop them she was probably not physically able to. From the sounds of it, she's had more than her fair share of suffering already.

[Kelly]

People should be free to choose. Is unAmerican to suggest otherwise. Simply is.

No, its simply a different opinion than yours...



Is it unAmerican to try to protect an unborn child? I am personally pro-choice, but to act like those that disagree with that stance are "unAmerican" is absolutely ludicrous.


Agreed....


I'm Pro-Choice myself.....but If I were the one choosing, I would choose to have the baby. I think a woman should have the choice, but if there is any way to have the child, that would be the choice I would hope for.

[The Incredible Hulk]

I am Pro-Choice. Although personally I don't agree with abortion any more, I don't believe that my personal stance shoulds impede someone else's choice so long as that choice is made within the viability constraints in place from the Roe and Casey cases.

It's funny how your viewpoints change as you get older. When I was 18 I got my then girlfriend pregnant and she wanted to abort it, and I had no issue with that. Now that I'm in my 30's and have kids of my own, I couldnt imagine aborting another pregnancy unless my wife's life was somehow threatened by it.

[Joker]

Here's my view: Mandatory abortions. For everyone. I think we should end the human race...you know, while we're still ahead. This is also why I support the death penalty.

[CaptainClown]

I am Pro-Choice. Although personally I don't agree with abortion any more, I don't believe that my personal stance shoulds impede someone else's choice so long as that choice is made within the viability constraints in place from the Roe and Casey cases.

It's funny how your viewpoints change as you get older. When I was 18 I got my then girlfriend pregnant and she wanted to abort it, and I had no issue with that. Now that I'm in my 30's and have kids of my own, I couldnt imagine aborting another pregnancy unless my wife's life was somehow threatened by it.
Ya, I am with you. I am Pro-choice, however if I had a choice I would rather have the child live.
Here's my view: Mandatory abortions. For everyone. I think we should end the human race...you know, while we're still ahead. This is also why I support the death penalty.
I think the government needs to make a list and anybody who likes Dragon Ball Evolution or Street Fighter: Legend of Chun Li gets added to the depopulation list. It will be the new survival of the fittest. :doom:

[Hypestyle]

hmm.. watching the Nadya Suleman interview on NBC with Ann Curry yesterday.. um, wow..

I predict Suleman may end up being the next 'selfish welfare queen' lightning rod used by the GOP pundits and candidates.. you could hear Rush Limbaugh already.. "this is what happens on Obama's watch! it's going to be an epidemic!"

at the same time-- if she had a parent who was running for office on the GOP ticket, she'd probably be embraced by conservative Christians, who would "applaud" her for keeping the babies not going to the Planned Parenthood clinic...

I wish her the best, certainly for the kids' sake, I hope that all of them are able to grow up stable with proper food/clothing/shelter/health-care/education and prosper..

in any case...she's pretty much set herself up to never have a husband..

[Addendum]

She's going to regret her choice once the kids get her credit cards

[Marx]

hmm.. watching the Nadya Suleman interview on NBC with Ann Curry yesterday.. I predict she may end up being the next 'selfish welfare queen' lightning rod used by the GOP pundits and candidates.. you could hear Rush Limbaugh already.. "this is what happens on Obama's watch! it's going to be an epidemic!"

at the same time-- if she had a parent who was running for office on the GOP ticket, she'd probably be embraced by conservative Christians, who would "applaud" her for keeping the babies not going to the Planned Parenthood clinic...

in any case...she's pretty much set herself up to never have a husband..

The same people who condemned Jamie Lynn Spears praised Bristol Palin. Funny how that works, isn't it?

[Marx]

She's going to regret her choice once the kids get her credit cards

I really wonder if this woman has any concept of what 14 children means.

[Hypestyle]

the inevitable has happened.. she (or someone) has set up a website.. (and they accept Paypal!)

http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/

[Marx]

BREAKING NEWS!

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

[Addendum]

BREAKING NEWS!

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7276/facepalmimpliedsr3.jpg

[The Senator]

BREAKING NEWS!

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

I know they all live in the middle of a frozen wasteland, but I would expect North Dakota's state legislature to know that the Supreme Court trumps anything they have to say on the matter.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

So...anyone who aborts they're child...will be arrested and sentenced to death for murder?

....

****.

[Marx]

So...anyone who aborts they're child...will be arrested and sentenced to death for murder?

....

****.

I wouldn't recommend going anywhere near North Dakota. (At least not until this is overturned.)

[bunk]

I wonder if Obama will include fertilized eggs in the census.

[The Senator]

I wouldn't recommend going anywhere near North Dakota. (At least not until this is overturned.)

Is there any real reason to be in North Dakota anyway? :huh:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Is Mariujuana legal there?

I know there's one state, where nobody goes...that it is. Is it North Dakota?

[Gilpesh]

Wow... that's pretty um... what's the word.... um.... hm...


Stupid.

[Franklin Richards]

Is there any real reason to be in North Dakota anyway? :huh:

Nope. Add Virginia to that list too.




You really do like to look down your nose at other people and where they live, don't you?


North Dakota is a beautiful state and I'd rather go there than Washington D.C. any day.




:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Marx]

Is there any real reason to be in North Dakota anyway? :huh:

That's a good point. :cwink:

[Franklin Richards]

Etu Marx?


:D


You think any place without a Starbuck's on every corner is a ****hole.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Marx]

Etu Marx?


:D


You think any place without a Starbuck's on every corner is a ****hole.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

I would love to go out west and see the landscape. I just wouldn't choose North Dakota. :cwink:

And for the record, Starbucks on every corner annoy me. (There are FOUR within walking distance of my work.)

[The Senator]

Yeah, that's exactly it-- every state without a Starbucks on every corner is worthless. Never mind that I haven't been inside a Starbucks since October.

There is nothing in North Dakota which makes me want to go there. I don't have the money to waste to see pretty trees and fields covered in eight feet of snow.

[Kelly]

Yeah, that's exactly it-- every state without a Starbucks on every corner is worthless. Never mind that I haven't been inside a Starbucks since October.

There is nothing in North Dakota which makes me want to go there. I don't have the money to waste to see pretty trees and fields covered in eight feet of snow.


Amen......

[souvlaki]

Is Mariujuana legal there?

I know there's one state, where nobody goes...that it is. Is it North Dakota?

I'm pretty sure it's not legal in any state. There was a proposition in Nevada last year, but it didn't pass. California legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, and I believe there are a few other states that did the same but that's about it.

[CaptainClown]

Yeah, that's exactly it-- every state without a Starbucks on every corner is worthless. Never mind that I haven't been inside a Starbucks since October.

There is nothing in North Dakota which makes me want to go there. I don't have the money to waste to see pretty trees and fields covered in eight feet of snow.
preach it!

[Hobgoblin]

South Dakota was nice last May. Well, the area around Rapid City anyway. The rest of the state...well, you know...

Yes, I know we were talking about North Dakota.:o Does it matter?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'm pretty sure it's not legal in any state. There was a proposition in Nevada last year, but it didn't pass. California legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, and I believe there are a few other states that did the same but that's about it.


Then there's no reason to be in North Dakota.

I dunno, but there was also this myth of some district, in some rural state where no one lives or visits that it's leagalized.

I have no idea if it's even half true. Just remember teachers or people in school always mentioning it.

It was like they're unicorn, really. The fable creature they shall never capture. Ever.

[Matt]

I personally support North Dakota's decision. While I am not convinced that abortion should be illegal, it should be up to the states to decide.

[Addendum]

Only the US Congress can over-turn a decision of the Supreme Court, not an individual state's legislature.

[The Senator]

I personally support North Dakota's decision. While I am not convinced that abortion should be illegal, it should be up to the states to decide.

I disagree. Matters of civil rights should be left to the courts to decide, not state legislatures.

[souvlaki]

I personally support North Dakota's decision. While I am not convinced that abortion should be illegal, it should be up to the states to decide.

Why are you not just a libertarian, Matt? No offense, but I really have absolutely no clue why you consider yourself a Democrat, centrist or not.

[The Senator]

The Catholic Crusade Against a Mythical Abortion Bill
Amy Sullivan, Time

The U.S. Catholic Church's crusade against the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) has all the hallmarks of a well-oiled lobbying campaign. A national postcard campaign is flooding the White House and congressional offices with messages opposing FOCA, and the Catholic bishops have made defeating the abortion rights legislation a top priority. In the most recent effort to stop the bill, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia sent a letter to every member of Congress imploring them to "please oppose FOCA."

There is only one hitch. Congress isn't about to pass the Freedom of Choice Act because no such bill has been introduced.

At a time when the United States is gripped by economic uncertainty and faces serious challenges in hot spots around the globe, some American Catholics are finding it both curious and troubling that their church has launched a major campaign against a piece of legislation that doesn't exist and wouldn't have much chance of becoming law even if it did. To many critics, it feels like the legislative equivalent of the the Dog That Didn't Bark.

The campaign against FOCA, which would essentially codify the Roe v. Wade decision by saying the government can't place limits on abortions performed before viability, began shortly after Barack Obama's election in November, at the annual general meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). In a unanimous decision, the bishops voted "to mobilize the resources of the USCCB, dioceses and the entire Catholic community" to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act.

A chain e-mail of unknown origin soon began making its way into Catholic inboxes, warning of an imminent threat to the anti-abortion cause. "For those of you who do not know," it read, "the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is set to be signed if Congress passes it on January 21-22 of 2009. The FOCA is the next sick chapter in the book of abortion." The e-mail urged Catholics to say a novena — a devotion of dedicated prayer for nine successive days — beginning on January 11 and ending on Inauguration Day. (See pictures of Pope Benedict XVI's trip to America.)

When January 22 came and went without a Freedom of Choice Act becoming law, the USCCB's Committee on Pro-Life Activities announced a nationwide postcard campaign to blanket congressional offices and the White House with appeals to stop FOCA. Anti-FOCA groups on Facebook soon had more than 150,000 members and added thousands more each day. Priests started preaching against the legislation and churches began circulating petitions to oppose its passage.

In the midst of all this activity, the fact that there was no Freedom of Choice Act before the 111th Congress went largely unnoticed and unmentioned.

A Freedom of Choice Act was first introduced in the 108th and 110th Congresses (from '03 to '05 and '07 to '09, respectively), by Rep. Jerold Nadler, a New York Democrat. It was developed at a time when the future of Roe was in doubt because it was unclear if George W. Bush would have the opportunity to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court. But FOCA had a hard time gaining traction — even under Democratic control of Congress, the bill was not only never voted on but never made it out of committee. And now abortion rights advocates are breathing easier with Obama in the White House — so much so that when a coalition of 63 organizations sent the Administration its top 15 priorities for reproductive rights and health, FOCA did not even make the list. (See pictures of Barack Obama's Inauguration.)

Congressional Democrats have also been less than enthusiastic about the proposal. A spokesman for Nadler says that while he expects the legislation will be reintroduced, "it won't be anytime soon." Even if FOCA is reintroduced in the current Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has indicated she has no intention of bringing it up for a vote. And even if she did, there are not enough votes in Congress to pass the bill.

In some respects, President Obama only has himself to blame for the current controversy. As a presidential candidate, the then-Senator himself pointed a spotlight on the legislation he co-sponsored when he told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007 that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do."

But FOCA has also provided ammunition for those on the right who want to paint Obama as "the most pro-abortion president ever." It's been less than a month since he took office, but so far the President has given social conservatives little evidence to back up that charge. He did repeal the Mexico City policy banning federal funds to foreign family planning organizations that provide abortion referrals or services — but so did Bill Clinton. At the same time, Obama has directed his Presidential Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to make the issue of abortion reduction one of its top priorities.

Still, FOCA is proving to be the perfect political issue for anti-abortion advocates — and for congressional Republicans, who have taken up the cry as well. Unless and until FOCA is voted on by Congress, they can invoke it as a looming threat. And the longer it remains a dormant issue, the more credit they can take for their own "proactive" efforts to "defeat FOCA," as a letter from House Republicans to Cardinal Rigali on Tuesday put it.

James Salt, director of organizing for the progressive organization Catholics United, thinks the USCCB has been prodded into focusing on FOCA by misinformation from right-wing groups. "These right-wing organizations are deliberatively misleading people in order to stoke the culture war," says Salt. "They're using this as a fundraising tool, as a way to gin up their relevancy. And unfortunately some of these groups have the ear of certain bishops."

After worried parishioners started contacting Catholics United about the postcard campaign, the group sent out an alert to its supporters telling them that "FOCA is not going anywhere" and urging them to contact their local bishops. "In this time of increasing job layoffs, poverty, and food insecurity across America, we should instead be calling on Catholics to commit increased resources to helping children and families survive the collapsing economy," read the message.

Some of the USCCB's own policy staffers are reportedly frustrated by the attention given to FOCA. And a few Catholic officials have even taken the rare step of speaking out to correct misinformation about the issue.

While the USCCB's literature about FOCA has been generally accurate, the chain e-mail has disseminated a number of false claims, including warnings that the proposal would force Catholic hospitals to shut down and lead to at least 100,000 more abortions each year. Some versions of the e-mail even claimed that FOCA could "result in a future amendment that would force women by law to have abortions in certain situations — and even regulate how many children women are allowed to have."

In response, Catholic News Service — the official news agency affiliated with the USCCB — ran an article that began, "Internet rumors to the contrary, no Catholic hospital in the United States is in danger of closing because of the Freedom of Choice Act." Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, told the news agency that the legislation "has never contained anything that would force Catholic hospitals or Catholic personnel to do abortions or to participate in them." She added, "I don't believe that FOCA will pass."

Naturally.

[Marx]

EXCOMMUNICATED DOCTOR HAILED FOR ABORTION ON CHILD RAPE VICTIM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/11/brazil.rape.abortion/index.html?section=cnn_latest

A doctor excommunicated by the Catholic Church for performing an abortion on a 9-year-old rape victim received a standing ovation during a national convention on women's health, according to a local media report.

The response came during the opening ceremony of an event hosted by Brazilian Minister of Health Jose Gomes Temporao.

The newspaper O Povo reported that Temporao called on the audience to acknowledge the "brilliant" work done by a medical team in the abortion, performed in Brazil's northeastern city of Recife.

The girl was pregnant with twins after being raped, allegedly by her stepfather, police were quoted in media reports as saying. The abuse had gone on since the girl was 6, authorities said.

The abortion was performed March 4 during the fourth month of pregnancy, according to media reports Archbishop Don Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Recife excommunicated the doctor, the child's mother and the medical team involved in the procedure.

However, the stepfather was not excommunicated, with Sobrinho telling Globo TV that, "A graver act than (rape) is abortion, to eliminate an innocent life."

The child was not excommunicated, Sobrinho said, because Catholic Church law says minors are exempt from excommunication.

"The church is benevolent when it comes to minors," he told Globo TV. "As for the adults, especially those who approved it, performed this abortion, the excommunication is applicable."

"God's law is above human laws," Sobrinho said.

The case has outraged the Brazilian public and fueled a controversy reaching the highest levels of church and state in a nation whose law bans abortion except in cases of rape.

Temporao recently said doctors must put law before religion.

"The question posed is very simple. There is a Brazilian law which states that a pregnancy can be interrupted in case of rape," Temporao said.

"It is legitimate for the church to have its dogmas, but these dogmas must not be imposed on society as a whole," he added.

[CaptainClown]

bah, if I performed an abortion and was excommunicated I could care less. Hell I have already been condemned to hell so being excommunicated wouldn't hurt me much further. I really wish the doctor responded with "so?" just to take out all the power of the Catholic church. good for him I say

[Marx]

bah, if I performed an abortion and was excommunicated I could care less. Hell I have already been condemned to hell so being excommunicated wouldn't hurt me much further. I really wish the doctor responded with "so?" just to take out all the power of the Catholic church. good for him I say

It honestly blows my mind for anyone to be so extreme in their views as to believe a rape victim should be forced to go through with the pregnancy.

[CaptainClown]

It honestly blows my mind for anyone to be so extreme in their views as to believe a rape victim should be forced to go through with the pregnancy.
well especially since it has been going on for 3 years, then to slap him on the wrist and consider the abortion worse?! I find it a lil mind boggling. children born to a mother 9 years older then them, children in a country where they will probably live in poverty and could possible continue spreading the love her step father gave to her. I dunno.

Sometimes two wrongs make a right imo, and what is right isn't necessarily what is good for the whole. At least that is how I see the world.

[Marx]

well especially since it has been going on for 3 years, then to slap him on the wrist and consider the abortion worse?! I find it a lil mind boggling. children born to a mother 9 years older then them, children in a country where they will probably live in poverty and could possible continue spreading the love her step father gave to her. I dunno.

Sometimes two wrongs make a right imo, and what is right isn't necessarily what is good for the whole. At least that is how I see the world.

There are some messed up ideologies in this world, that's for sure!

[Marx]

PLANNED PARENTHOOD TO HONOR HILLARY CLINTON
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/25/planned-parenthood-to-honor-hillary-clinton/

Planned Parenthood Federation of America will hold a gala honoring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday in Houston, Texas.

The health care provider announced it will host the awards and dinner ceremony in the Lone Star State to pay tribute to those who have made significant contributions to the advancement of women's reproductive health and rights and promotion of family planning and prevention efforts.

Clinton is set to receive PPFA's highest honor, the Margaret Sanger award, for her advocacy of "women's health and rights throughout her public service career."

"Ugly Betty" actress America Ferrera will co-host the event along with PPFA President Cecile Richards.

[Bonovox]

Since this is the place to discuss abortion, I guess I can make my views known. I take a very moderate position on abortion. I am personally pro-life, and would never advise a woman to have an abortion if I was ever asked, but I also recognize that women have the right to make decisions for themselves and should be allowed to decide whether or not to carry out a pregnancy. You won't see me out on the picket line protesting abortion clinics and damning women who decide to get an abortion, but you also won't see me proud of any law which makes it easier for women to get an abortion either. This is one of a few areas that are really gray for me.

[WompuM]

Well it's the one area where both sides are absolutely correct. There is no way to tell which is more valuable or important, the life of a child or the freedom of an adult. I am all about freedom, liberty, and choice but I just have a helluva time wrapping my head around this one. Do I think there should be abortions available to every woman? No probably not. Do I think it is understandable in some cases? Yes absolutlely. I also recognize the dangers of outlawing abortions outright and forcing the practice into the black market. I don't know what to think.

[Paradyme]

Well it's the one area where both sides are absolutely correct. There is no way to tell which is more valuable or important, the life of a child or the freedom of an adult. I am all about freedom, liberty, and choice but I just have a helluva time wrapping my head around this one. Do I think there should be abortions available to every woman? No probably not. Do I think it is understandable in some cases? Yes absolutlely. I also recognize the dangers of outlawing abortions outright and forcing the practice into the black market. I don't know what to think.

Its a Catch 22.

[Spider - Man]

I am pro-life but it is certainly a cloudy issue with me in the case of rape. Here are a couple of things I was hoping someone could possibly justify for me.

1. Why is it ok for a doctor to perform an abortion on a woman because it is her body and her right to choose but it is not ok for a doctor to assist in the suicide of someone who is terminally ill?

2. Why is not murder for a woman to terminate her pregnancy but when a pregnant woman is murdered and the fetus dies, the killer gets charged with double-homicide? I don't have the info on this, just remember seeing it on tv. I didn't bother trying to Google it, I know I saw it. I just want a rationale for this seeming contradiction in the law.

[Hotwire]

I am pro-life but it is certainly a cloudy issue with me in the case of rape. Here are a couple of things I was hoping someone could possibly justify for me.

1. Why is it ok for a doctor to perform an abortion on a woman because it is her body and her right to choose but it is not ok for a doctor to assist in the suicide of someone who is terminally ill?

2. Why is not murder for a woman to terminate her pregnancy but when a pregnant woman is murdered and the fetus dies, the killer gets charged with double-homicide? I don't have the info on this, just remember seeing it on tv. I didn't bother trying to Google it, I know I saw it. I just want a rationale for this seeming contradiction in the law.
Those are very good questions, that I have no answers for.

[WompuM]

Plus, it doesn't help when both sides refuse to see the other's positive points.

Pro-Choice people seem to avoid the rights of an unborn and accepting that a loss of life occurs.
Pro-Life people reject the positive externalities abortion has on society, such as the drastic drop in crime in the 90's.

[Addendum]

The unborn has the potential of being a person. It cannot survive on it's own outside the womb, and even if the woman carries it to term, there's always a chance that it dies.

Besides, the vast majority of abortions take place during the period of pregnancy when miscarriages occur (i.e. the first twenty weeks).

[Marx]

I am pro-life but it is certainly a cloudy issue with me in the case of rape. Here are a couple of things I was hoping someone could possibly justify for me.

1. Why is it ok for a doctor to perform an abortion on a woman because it is her body and her right to choose but it is not ok for a doctor to assist in the suicide of someone who is terminally ill?

I believe that a patient should have that right.


2. Why is not murder for a woman to terminate her pregnancy but when a pregnant woman is murdered and the fetus dies, the killer gets charged with double-homicide? I don't have the info on this, just remember seeing it on tv. I didn't bother trying to Google it, I know I saw it. I just want a rationale for this seeming contradiction in the law.

The only difference that I see between the two is that the killer is taking the decision out of the woman's hands. When the mother chooses to abort the pregnancy, it is her choice. (Being a victim of violent crime is not her choice.)

[Spider - Man]

The unborn has the potential of being a person. It cannot survive on it's own outside the womb, and even if the woman carries it to term, there's always a chance that it dies.

Besides, the vast majority of abortions take place during the period of pregnancy when miscarriages occur (i.e. the first twenty weeks).

So how about a person who through some situation has to be on life support? Do they now only 'have the potential' of being a person as they cannot survive without the equipment? Even if they stay on the equipment, there's always a chance that they die. Are you trying to say that life doesn't start until the fetus has gone full term and been born?

I work in health care and know someone who worked in an abortion clinic. She told me she left because she couldn't stomach the sight of the fetus being tossed aside to lie there kicking their legs and gasping for breath until they stopped moving altogether. They may not be able to survive long outside the womb but there is no denying that life is there. If more women were able to see this sort of thing beforehand, it would probably make more of them think twice. If more people period were able to see the true ugliness of what happens, I don't even think this would be an issue anymore.

[Spider - Man]

I believe that a patient should have that right.



The only difference that I see between the two is that the killer is taking the decision out of the woman's hands. When the mother chooses to abort the pregnancy, it is her choice. (Being a victim of violent crime is not her choice.)

As I said in my earlier post, where rape is concerned, I don't have an answer. As to you saying you believe the patient should have the right, can you explain why in one case the law says the patient has the right to decide because it's their body (abortion) and in the other the law says they don't (suicide)?

And in the second case, we assume life is present in the fetus since the killer is charged with double-homicide, but if the mother chooses to end the life of the fetus, no murder has been commited?

The one big thing I am curious to know from everyone who supports the right of the mother to choose because it's her body is what right does the fetus have? In an abortion the mother isn't JUST making a choice about what happens to her body, UNLIKE suicide. I'm just looking for some sort of logical justification.

[Addendum]

I said what I said. Deal with that instead of some mythical "trying to say".

There's a difference between a person on life support and a fetus in a woman's womb, who is considering an abortion. The person on life support was born. The woman was born.

In every nation on this planet, they have established rules of citizenship and certain rights and privileges for it's citizens. There will be some differences in those, but one of the things that are common throughout all of them is that none of them apply citizenship to those who have not been born.

[Marx]

As I said in my earlier post, where rape is concerned, I don't have an answer. As to you saying you believe the patient should have the right, can you explain why in one case the law says the patient has the right to decide because it's their body (abortion) and in the other the law says they don't (suicide)?

I'm not going to debate the sensibility of such laws (with regard to assisted suicide,) all I can do is debate my belief system. It is my personal belief that a patient should have the right to end their own life, should they choose to do so.

And in the second case, we assume life is present in the fetus since the killer is charged with double-homicide, but if the mother chooses to end the life of the fetus, no murder has been commited?

As I said, the mother did not choose to become the victim of a violent crime.

And I already know that you're going to say that 'the fetus didn't choose to become the victim of an abortion.'


The one big thing I am curious to know from everyone who supports the right of the mother to choose because it's her body is what right does the fetus have? In an abortion the mother isn't JUST making a choice about what happens to her body, UNLIKE suicide. I'm just looking for some sort of logical justification.

Logicial justification depends on your point of view. The bottom line of your question is when do you believe that a human being becomes a human being. Do you believe that it takes place at fertilization? Or do you believe that it takes place at physical birth?

[Marx]

I said what I said. Deal with that instead of some mythical "trying to say".

There's a difference between a person on life support and a fetus in a woman's womb, who is considering an abortion. The person on life support was born. The woman was born.

In every nation on this planet, they have established rules of citizenship and certain rights and privileges for it's citizens. There will be some differences in those, but one of the things that are common throughout all of them is that none of them apply citizenship to those who have not been born.

Exactly.

[Spider - Man]

I said what I said. Deal with that instead of some mythical "trying to say".

There's a difference between a person on life support and a fetus in a woman's womb, who is considering an abortion. The person on life support was born. The woman was born.

In every nation on this planet, they have established rules of citizenship and certain rights and privileges for it's citizens. There will be some differences in those, but one of the things that are common throughout all of them is that none of them apply citizenship to those who have not been born.

Hmm, I could debate the meaning of 'born' with you and the fact that an abortion is as much of a birth as a c-section or how my son had to be taken 2 months early because my wife had preeclamsia (maybe you'd say he wasn't born), weighed 4 lbs, and is now a healthy 15 year old but wouldn't be here right now if she'd decided to abort him instead of allowing him to be 'born'. But it's pointless. As you said, "you said what you said" which means you're unwilling or incapable of elaborating. That's fine. Bottom line is someone graciously allowed you the right to your birth so that you can now try and deprive others of theirs.

I went to school with a girl who had 6 abortions tduring the course of our junior and senior years. I suppose you find that perfectly acceptable. Very sad.

[Marx]

Hmm, I could debate the meaning of 'born' with you and the fact that an abortion is as much of a birth as a c-section or how my son had to be taken 2 months early because my wife had preeclamsia (maybe you'd say he wasn't born), weighed 4 lbs, and is now a healthy 15 year old but wouldn't be here right now if she'd decided to abort him instead of allowing him to be 'born'. But it's pointless. As you said, "you said what you said" which means you're unwilling or incapable of elaborating. That's fine. Bottom line is someone graciously allowed you the right to your birth so that you can now try and deprive others of theirs.

I went to school with a girl who had 6 abortions tduring the course of our junior and senior years. I suppose you find that perfectly acceptable. Very sad.

:dry:

I don't like your tone. The bottom line is that people who are pro-choice (like myself) do not believe that we should have the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their body. And while I am personally opposed to abortion, except in extreme cases, I do not believe that I should have a say in what someone else does.

I sincerely hope that you are not basing your views on abortion by the actions of one irresponsible schoolmate who used it as a means of birth control. If you are, that's what is sad.

[Spider - Man]

:dry:

I don't like your tone.

If the statement I made was in ANY way untrue, you feel free to point out exactly which part. Addendum was given the right to be born but according to him would gladly deny others theirs based on the whims of the mother. You as well for that matter.


The bottom line is that people who are pro-choice (like myself) do not believe that we should have the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their body. And while I am personally opposed to abortion, except in extreme cases, I do not believe that I should have a say in what someone else does.


Again you have failed to explain how you feel about the rights of the unborn baby. As I pointed out earlier, my son was born 2 months early. HOWEVER if my wife had so chosen to abort him at the time, she would have had the right to do so under the law and my rights as a father and my son's rights as a human being would have meant nothing and and you would have thought that was pefectly fine because it was her body. AGAIN what about the rights of children who aren't as fortunate as my son and get terminated?


I sincerely hope that you are not basing your views on abortion by the actions of one irresponsible schoolmate who used it as a means of birth control. If you are, that's what is sad.

If after everything I have written, you think I base my entire view about abortion on what I spent the least amount of words talking about as an afterthought in the last of several posts, I have to wonder how you could even come to wonder that. If you, however, think that my irresponsible schoolmate was an isolated case, that's sadder still.

You and Addendum said a person has to be born to have rights but if that's the case, how again did the man who shot the pregnant woman get charged with double-homicide? The fetus was never born, it had no rights including to life according to the two of you.

I will bow out now unless you reply with something that I can rebut without having to repeat myself again, which is pointless. I have not presumed to change your minds. I merely asked for an explanation to the contradictions in the laws and to rationales about a couple of other things and got caught up in discussion which raised more questions on my part, none of which I feel have been adequately answered with anything more elaborate than "I said what I said. Deal with it." I do understand you feel a person has the right to do what they want with their body, but without qualifications, that means that you are ok with any woman who repeatedly gets irresponsibly pregnant because she knows she can just get an abortion. To me there's a difference between recognizing a woman's rights based on a rape or a pregnancy that would endanger the woman and simply spitting on the rights of an unborn baby because the woman doesn't want to get stretch marks. According to you, there is none.

[Addendum]

I'm not going to prevent a woman from deciding to receive a legal medical procedure. It's her decision, not mine.

As for the "I said what I said" comment, when you quote someone's comment there's no need to ask "are you saying blah blah blah", since the comment is right there. You took the time to read it, click the button that says "quote", so you should know what I said in that comment instead of asking me about something I didn't mention.

[Marx]

If the statement I made was in ANY way untrue, you feel free to point out exactly which part. Addendum was given the right to be born but according to him would gladly deny others theirs based on the whims of the mother. You as well for that matter.

There are a small percentage of women who use abortion as a means of birth control. You act as though the women who chose to terminate a pregnancy do it without consideration or care at all. That is just simply not true. I have known a couple of women who have, unfortunately, had to do this. One was raped, the other wasn't. They have not mentally been the same since. It was one of the hardest things that they have ever done. And they live with that decision everyday. So don't sit there and try to convince me that these mothers happily go skipping into an abortion procedure...because that's ridiculous.

As for me, ALLOW ME TO REPEAT, I am personally against abortion - except in a few cases - and it is my belief that I should not have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.


Again you have failed to explain how you feel about the rights of the unborn baby. As I pointed out earlier, my son was born 2 months early. HOWEVER if my wife had so chosen to abort him at the time, she would have had the right to do so under the law and my rights as a father and my son's rights as a human being would have meant nothing and and you would have thought that was pefectly fine because it was her body. AGAIN what about the rights of children who aren't as fortunate as my son and get terminated?

I am opposed to late-term abortion in every case except when the life of the mother is at risk. The large majority of abortions are performed within the first few months.


If after everything I have written, you think I base my entire view about abortion on what I spent the least amount of words talking about as an afterthought in the last of several posts, I have to wonder how you could even come to wonder that. If you, however, think that my irresponsible schoolmate was an isolated case, that's sadder still.

Actually, I'm not dumb enough to believe that your irresponsible schoolmate is an isolated case. And I quite frankly do not appreciate you trying to paint me as such.

You and Addendum said a person has to be born to have rights but if that's the case, how again did the man who shot the pregnant woman get charged with double-homicide? The fetus was never born, it had no rights including to life according to the two of you.

In my eyes, there is a very clear difference between choosing to abort your child and being the victim of a violent crime.

I will bow out now unless you reply with something that I can rebut without having to repeat myself again, which is pointless. I have not presumed to change your minds. I merely asked for an explanation to the contradictions in the laws and to rationales about a couple of other things and got caught up in discussion which raised more questions on my part, none of which I feel have been adequately answered with anything more elaborate than "I said what I said. Deal with it."

Yes, you asked for an explanation and rationales, and didn't like the answers that you were provided. That's not my problem.

I do understand you feel a person has the right to do what they want with their body, but without qualifications, that means that you are ok with any woman who repeatedly gets irresponsibly pregnant because she knows she can just get an abortion. To me there's a difference between recognizing a woman's rights based on a rape or a pregnancy that would endanger the woman and simply spitting on the rights of an unborn baby because the woman doesn't want to get stretch marks. According to you, there is none.

You seem to believe that you know quite alot about me and Addendum. You really do not know anything. I cannot stand for someone to put words in my mouth, and you have done it several times in your response.

To me, there is no excuse to use abortion as a means of birth control. Feel free to read back through this thread. My beliefs are well docurmented.

If you want to discuss this issue reasonably, and stop trying to put words in my mouth by trying to tell me what I do and do not agree with, I welcome the discussion.

[danoyse]

I suppose you find that perfectly acceptable. Very sad.

You need to stop making assumptions about other people on this forum just because they happen to disagree with you. If you want them to respect your opinion, please show some respect for theirs.

[Spider - Man]

There are a small percentage of women who use abortion as a means of birth control. You act as though the women who chose to terminate a pregnancy do it without consideration or care at all. That is just simply not true. I have known a couple of women who have, unfortunately, had to do this. One was raped, the other wasn't. They have not mentally been the same since. It was one of the hardest things that they have ever done. And they live with that decision everyday. So don't sit there and try to convince me that these mothers happily go skipping into an abortion procedure...because that's ridiculous.

You negatively assume I base my feelings on abortion on one irresponsible classmate and then turn around and base your belief that only a small percentage of women use abortion as birth control because you knew 2 women who had abortions? The truth is you cannot know what percentage of women use abortion for birth control without talking to every woman who has had an abortion.



I am opposed to late-term abortion in every case except when the life of the mother is at risk. The large majority of abortions are performed within the first few months.

Well then I've learned something new about you. This is something I was previously unaware of.


Actually, I'm not dumb enough to believe that your irresponsible schoolmate is an isolated case. And I quite frankly do not appreciate you trying to paint me as such.

And yet you gladly assumed I was basing my entire belief about abortion on a "by the way" comment I made. What were you trying to paint me as? I made the comment as a way of pointing out that if a woman so chooses she can wantonly abuse (as I see it) the right the law gives her and as you say, use abortion as a means of birth control. I have no idea what would have led you to make the assumption you made about me. :huh:




Yes, you asked for an explanation and rationales, and didn't like the answers that you were provided. That's not my problem.

Because you never gave any explanation or rationale. You merely stated your stance on the issue which is fine. As of now the justication for the obvious discrepencies in the law I stated above have not been answered.



You seem to believe that you know quite alot about me and Addendum. You really do not know anything. I cannot stand for someone to put words in my mouth, and you have done it several times in your response.

And yet you accuse me of calling you dumb when I never did.


To me, there is no excuse to use abortion as a means of birth control. Feel free to read back through this thread. My beliefs are well docurmented.

If you want to discuss this issue reasonably, and stop trying to put words in my mouth by trying to tell me what I do and do not agree with, I welcome the discussion.

Please show me where I told you what you did or did not agree with. At most, I was only trying to get a little clarification in some cases, not 'put words in your mouth' or 'tell you what you thought'. When I did this with Addendum, he merely replied with "I said what I said". If you guys truly thought I was doing anything other than get a little clearer on what you believe, I apologize. If you can show me an instance where I directly 'put words in your mouth' as you claim, please point it out.

[Carcharodon]

As I said in my earlier post, where rape is concerned, I don't have an answer. As to you saying you believe the patient should have the right, can you explain why in one case the law says the patient has the right to decide because it's their body (abortion) and in the other the law says they don't (suicide)?Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, as it should be. :up:

Oh, and to answer your question: it's because law makers are retarded.

[Carcharodon]

Well then I've learned something new about you. This is something I was previously unaware of.It's rather funny that the scenarios you tend to graphically describe are those of partial-birth abortions, which are almost universally condemned even by pro-choicers.

[Marx]

FDA TO ALLOW MORNING-AFTER PILL OVER THE COUNTER TO 17 YEAR OLDS
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/22/plan.b.age/index.html

The "morning-after pill" will be available without a prescription to women 17 and older, the Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday. The minimum age has been 18.

On March 23, a federal court ordered that Plan B, an emergency contraception pill, be made available over the counter to those 17 and up, the agency said in a statement on its Web site. The agency will not appeal that order, the statement said.

In the order, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman also asked the agency to consider whether the pill should be available to women of all ages without a prescription, saying that such a determination is best left to the expertise of the FDA rather than a federal district judge.

And he rebuked the FDA for apparently departing from its own procedures with respect to making decisions on the pill's over-the-counter status, noting the "unusual involvement of the White House in the Plan B decision-making process."

The plaintiffs in the case presented "unrebutted evidence of the FDA's lack of good faith" toward the application to switch Plan B from prescription to non-prescription use, the judge wrote.

"This lack of good faith is evidenced by, among other things, (1) repeated and unreasonable delays, pressure emanating from the White House, and the obvious connection between the confirmation process of two FDA commissioners and the timing of the FDA's decisions; and (2) significant departures from the FDA's normal procedures and policies ... as compared to the review of other switch applications in the past 10 years," Korman wrote.

[Carcharodon]

FDA TO ALLOW MORNING-AFTER PILL OVER THE COUNTER TO 17 YEAR OLDS
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/22/plan.b.age/index.htmlGood. :up:

I'm not sure how many people realize the effects of this pill, and what it actually does. Even under the view that life begins at conception, this should be perfectly acceptable. It's conceptually the same as using a condom or regular hormonal birth control.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Dunno if anyone mentioned it...but I watched how Palin was criticized over some comments that nobody seemed to really notice.

Supposedly, she mentioned at her pro-life speech a while ago that she had a passing thought of aborting her child after learning he was going to be mentally challenged. That she could have it done and the doctor could keep it mum and nobody would know.

Which is crazy...because apparently, she's allowed to have that thought...but she wants to take it away from all women??

[Carcharodon]

Dunno if anyone mentioned it...but I watched how Palin was criticized over some comments that nobody seemed to really notice.

Supposedly, she mentioned at her pro-life speech a while ago that she had a passing thought of aborting her child after learning he was going to be mentally challenged. That she could have it done and the doctor could keep it mum and nobody would know.

Which is crazy...because apparently, she's allowed to have that thought...but she wants to take it away from all women??If she had actually HAD an abortion, then this hypocrisy would be worthy of criticism. As it stands, it seems a bit desperate.

PLEASE just let her fade away...

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I don't think it's desperate.

She chose.

She had a choice.

If she had her way...nobody else would have a choice.

That's what it's about. Choice.

[Carcharodon]

I don't think it's desperate.

She chose.

She had a choice.

If she had her way...nobody else would have a choice.

That's what it's about. Choice.Yet she had no control over whether or not she had a choice. The choice was there whether she liked it or not.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

So no choice is better?

She'd be better off with being forced to keep the child?

I thought part of the pro life movement is that the concept of even aborting a child never enters they're minds...since they're so pure and righteous.

You keep the choice there so that others have the freedom to choose. Just because she chose to keep the child doesn't mean everyone after her needs to be forced to do the same.

It makes no sense. She gets to think about it...but she doesn't think anyone else ought to?

[Paradyme]

Thinking and doing are two different things, right? I'm sure everyone has had thoughts of robbing a bank and wondered how it would pan out but that doesn't mean we would do it. Is that a problem? Everyone has thoughts thats not of their regular character.

Unless, I'm missing what you are trying to say here, I don't see how making Abortion illegal would stop you from having thoughts on the matter or are you meaning it that if it was illegal the person more then likely wouldn't have those thoughts at all because it wouldn't be an option?

I'm still confused on how some can say 'forced' to keep the child which in most cases is the cause of their own free will, i.e. not rape. When it's a persons life we are talking about. Maybe someone can clear this up for me because I'm having trouble understanding this type of thinking or where you are coming from. I'd, at the least, like to understand.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

She thought about it as an option, as a choice for the situation.

Thinking about robbing a bank or selling drugs because your poor...is still making a choice. If you decide to do so, then...clearly...that person made THAT choice.

I'm not saying it's illegal to think.

But making it illegal to have abortions...is wrong.

The human life aspect is still a debate. When does human life begin, and all that.

And yes...I think taking the option off the table is essentially the government telling women, "you better have the baby".

Condoms and the day after pill being taboo doesn't seem to help either.

The only stance for pro-lifers I've seen has been celibacy.

Which, will probably work wonders if the government forces people to do that too.

[Addendum]

Paradyme, it's not that hard to understand. The pro-life movement doesn't want women to choose to have an abortion or not. They want to decide for them. The pro-choice movement simply wants a woman to be able to choose to have an abortion or not. They believe that a woman should decide for herself.

With Palin, she chose not to have an abortion. However, she doesn't want women to be able to have that choice.

[Carcharodon]

With Palin, she chose not to have an abortion. However, she doesn't want women to be able to have that choice.I'm missing the hypocrisy here, for a very specific reason I mentioned before:

Yet she had no control over whether or not she had a choice. The choice was there whether she liked it or not.

It wasn't her fault that the choice existed. She had NO control over that. Maybe she didn't want to have a choice, but she did for reasons FAR beyond her own control.

Do you understand how that really doesn't equate to hypocrisy?

[Carcharodon]

So no choice is better?Where did I ever even IMPLY that?

I thought part of the pro life movement is that the concept of even aborting a child never enters they're minds...since they're so pure and righteous.Where do you get this crap? Or is this blind supposition? I'm voting on the latter.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Because Pro-lifers, as a whole movement...gets on their moral high horse and make it seem like some evil act comparable to shooting a man in the face in cold blooded murder.

I've always gotten an elitism in the many pro-lifer arguments.

Even moreso when I've seen the same argument condem things like condoms, pills, and even actual sex education (instead of just telling kids that sex is bad, don't do it).

I think a good sex education would actually help kids not even find themselves in a situation where abortion is an option. If there were more focus on preganancy prevention, rather than celibacy...I do think it'd be much more effective.

[Carcharodon]

Because Pro-lifers, as a whole movement...gets on their moral high horse and make it seem like some evil act comparable to shooting a man in the face in cold blooded murder.It's incredibly unrealistic to expect Palin to not even have the thought flash across her mind for an instant given the situation she was in.

Again, you're basing the crux of your entire argument on an idea about pro-lifers that is unrealistic and incredibly generalizing. I reiterate what I said before: this seems desperate, and it would be generous to call it "reaching."

[Paradyme]

Thanks for responding guys. I'm still having trouble with this issue. I hope there are people working to decipher when life begins, scientifically. I feel that would clearly put an end to the debate.

[Carcharodon]

I hope there are people working to decipher when life begins, scientifically. I feel that would clearly put an end to the debate.Never going to happen, for some very basic reasons.

Firstly, the major developmental benchmarks pale in comparison to the first: fertilization. This is when you get your full set of chromosomes (the formation of a diploid zygote), after which the zygote will begin to divide. This is the formation of an individual, and its genetic makeup most definitely confirms its human identity.

If you want to get technical, then under the biological definition of life, even haploid reproductive cells (sperm and eggs) are ALSO considered living. In order to settle the debate, we would have to re-define "living" in a purely human context.

THEN we come to the issue of these successive benchmarks. We would need to look at such things as heart and brain development, as well as development of the entire nervous system. But this is where we run into a problem: virtually any definition we come up with runs the risk of being arbitrary to some extent.

Why choose the development of a heart-beat as a cutoff point? What would be the scientific basis of that distinction? It's not like we never knew when that happened before, and so weren't able to choose that point in time. In fact, we have detailed knowledge of human development, and have had such knowledge for a long, long time. Is it a question of the degree of autonomy?

From the pro-choice side, we get an argument that says that a baby isn't technically an autonomous life-form until it is no longer dependent on the mother (with the exception of post-birth care) for survival. However, this argument alone leaves the possibility of partial-birth abortions on the table. Virtually nobody actually supports this procedure, so clearly there are other (perhaps unspoken) considerations. In fact, the pro-lifers (I hate that name almost as much as I hate "pro-abortion"...) are the only group with any solid definition: conception.

Let's consider something other than degrees of autonomy. How about the ability to feel pain as a basis for a decision? We can only gauge this by studying the various stages of development and monitoring responses to stimuli, but how effective is that, really, at establishing just what the fetus feels? (**Side-note: I'm not too familiar with the fetal development of the nervous system, so I don't know the progression or what happens when. Just saying.**).

The point is that none of these benchmarks (other than fertilization) can ever act as some distinctive barrier, because somebody will ALWAYS find something wrong with it.

Science can't end this debate. Period.

[Addendum]

I'm missing the hypocrisy here, for a very specific reason I mentioned before:



It wasn't her fault that the choice existed. She had NO control over that. Maybe she didn't want to have a choice, but she did for reasons FAR beyond her own control.

Do you understand how that really doesn't equate to hypocrisy?

I never said it was her fault. The fact that she chose to not have an abortion and then take a stance that attempts to deny other women to have that choice is hypocrisy

[Carcharodon]

I never said it was her fault. The fact that she chose to not have an abortion and then take a stance that attempts to deny other women to have that choice is hypocrisyShe didn't have any other choice than to choose. It is conceptually impossible for her to NOT have made a choice unless abortion was ALREADY ILLEGAL.

[Addendum]

And her stance with the pro-life side is to make abortion illegal, thereby denying women the ability to choose.

Hence, hypocrisy

[Carcharodon]

And her stance with the pro-life side is to make abortion illegal, thereby denying women the ability to choose.

Hence, hypocrisyIf I murder somebody in self defense (in other words, if I had no choice but to commit murder), and I then tell you that murder is wrong, does that make me a hypocrite?

If it does, then I'm 100% okay with Palin's hypocrisy.

[Addendum]

There aren't any groups that are trying to make murder illegal.

It's like someone who smokes and drinks trying to outlaw smoking and drinking.

[Carcharodon]

There aren't any groups that are trying to make murder illegal.Way to dodge the question. I love non-answers.

It's like someone who smokes and drinks trying to outlaw smoking and drinking.No, it's not. Not even remotely. Smokers and drinkers aren't forced to smoke and drink.

[Addendum]

And no one is holding a woman at knife point forcing her to choose to have an abortion or not.

[Marx]

Thanks for responding guys. I'm still having trouble with this issue. I hope there are people working to decipher when life begins, scientifically. I feel that would clearly put an end to the debate.

Religion and science don't really mix. Alot of the opposition to these issues stem from religious beliefs, it doesn't matter to them what 'science says'.

[Carcharodon]

And no one is holding a woman at knife point forcing her to choose to have an abortion or not.How was Palin NOT forced to choose? Have you read ANYTHING I've written so far? Here's a refresher:

She didn't have any other choice than to choose. It is conceptually impossible for her to NOT have made a choice unless abortion was ALREADY ILLEGAL.

Maybe that wasn't clear enough, so let me rephrase: SHE WAS FORCED TO CHOOSE. In fact, every pregnant woman in countries where abortion is legal has been forced to choose.

:yay:

[Addendum]

No one FORCED Palin to choose. She made that decision herself. No one forced her to choose, nor did any one choose for her. The fact that a particular medical procedure which is optional and legally available isn't forcing that procedure on anyone.

Back to your self-defense hypothetical, it would be similar if an individual kills another in self-defense, but wants to make that action illegal.

Or if you'd like, back with the Terri Schiavo debacle, I believe there was a member or former member of congress who had made the decision to end the life support for a member of their family, but wanted to deny that to Terri and Michael Schiavo

[Carcharodon]

So the gynecologist is going up to their patients and making them decide?:facepalm

I don't know how much more simply I can explain this, and I've already wasted too much energy on it, but I'll give it the old college try...let's try a good old exercise in logic:

1. In a country (or state) in which abortion is illegal, there is no choice (in theory) for a pregnant woman but to have the baby.

2. In a country (or state) in which abortion is legal, a woman has two options: can you guess what they are? Okay, allow me to expedite:

The first option: Have the baby.
The second option: Don't have the baby.

3. Now that we've established that in a country (or state) in which abortion is legal, a woman has two options, we're introduced to the idea of a "choice." A choice consists of choosing between two more more options.

4. Palin had at least two options: you can fill in the blank here.

5. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Palin to have chosen NEITHER option.

6. Therefore, PALIN WAS FORCED TO MAKE A CHOICE. FORCED.

[Carcharodon]

Back to your self-defense hypothetical, it would be similar if an individual kills another in self-defense, but wants to make that action illegal.Yes or No: Does the scenario I described make the person a hypocrite?

[Addendum]

You're ignoring #7: She wants to deny that choice to other women

[Addendum]

Yes or No: Does the scenario I described make the person a hypocrite?

If the individual takes the stance of outlawing killing in self-defense, yes

[Carcharodon]

You're ignoring #7: She wants to deny that choice to other womenI'm not ignoring that. All I'm trying to establish is that Palin was indeed forced to make a choice. That was the purpose of that logical progression.

The logic is bullet-proof. Sorry.

[Carcharodon]

If the individual takes the stance of outlawing killing in self-defense, yesThat's your distortion of my scenario, but fine.

[Addendum]

And she's still a hypocrite for wanting to deny women of that choice

[Carcharodon]

And she's still a hypocrite for wanting to deny women of that choiceDo you acknowledge that she was forced to choose?

[Addendum]

If someone is making her decide. Having a medical procedure legal isn't forcing that procedure on anyone

[Carcharodon]

If someone is making her decideDude, I just presented to you logic that could withstand an asteroid impact, and you STILL won't acknowledge it.

Incredible.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

She's Being forced to decide?

Yeah, because she got pregnant. Choices come with those types of things.

To take the choice off the table to "protect" women from being "forced" to choose...makes no sense.

And yeah, she's a hypocrite because she was allowed to choose...and chose. Only, other women should not be able to choose.

Seems fair...

[Addendum]

Abortion isn't a mandatory procedure. It's entirely optional and isn't forced onto patients by their gynecologist

She chose not to make use of that optional procedure.

She then wants to outlaw that optional procedure.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Incredible too, that Palin supposedly believes in "less government" but wants it to tell women not to have abortions.

Strange.

[Marx]

I think the point of the whole argument about Palin and 'having the choice to abort her mentally challenged child' is that she entertained the idea, but ultimately chose not to.

The hypocrisy lies in the 'entertainment' of the idea despite the fact that she is so 'adamantly pro-life'.

[Carcharodon]

To take the choice off the table to "protect" women from being "forced" to choose...makes no sense.What type of weed do you smoke? I want to buy some. :huh:

And yeah, she's a hypocrite because she was allowed to choose...and chose. Only, other women should not be able to choose.

Seems fair...She wasn't just allowed to choose: she was forced.

[Carcharodon]

Abortion isn't a mandatory procedure. It's entirely optional and isn't forced onto patients by their gynecologistWho's saying it is? Not me.

She chose not to make use of that optional procedure.

She then wants to outlaw that optional procedure.Thanks for the re-cap, C.O. :huh:

Seriously, is your rebuttal just re-stating the obvious?

[Carcharodon]

Having a medical procedure legal isn't forcing that procedure on anyone*SIGH* Nobody's saying that it is. It's like you're arguing with somebody else entirely.

[Carcharodon]

I think the point of the whole argument about Palin and 'having the choice to abort her mentally challenged child' is that she entertained the idea, but ultimately chose not to.

The hypocrisy lies in the 'entertainment' of the idea despite the fact that she is so 'adamantly pro-life'.If it were based on her actions (in other words, if she had actually HAD an abortion) I would consider her hypocritical.

If the claim of her hypocrisy is purely on the grounds of "she made a choice," then the fact that she was forced to choose renders me unable to really hold it against her.

That's all I'm saying. I get that side of the argument. I'm not dense. :oldrazz:

[redfirebird2008]

If it were based on her actions (in other words, if she had actually HAD an abortion) I would consider her hypocritical.

If the claim of her hypocrisy is purely on the grounds of "she made a choice," then the fact that she was forced to choose renders me unable to really hold it against her.

That's all I'm saying. I get that side of the argument. I'm not dense. :oldrazz:

That's a BS argument. She said she actually thought about having an abortion. For someone who is so staunchly pro-life, she shouldn't have even had one inkling of a thought about ever having an abortion. Doesn't matter whether she was forced to choose or not. If she has such strong moral principles, the thought of having an abortion NEVER would have crossed her mind. But it did.

[redfirebird2008]

And since when is being able to choose equal to being oppressed? "Forced to choose." What a load of crap. That's one of those strawman arguments that is technically correct, but it applies to so many different things in life that it makes it a total load of crap when trying to pretend that the person involved was somehow oppressed. You know, she was forced to choose between having unprotected sex or not having unprotected sex. I wish her the best of luck in raising her son, but I don't have ANY sympathy for her whatsoever. She had her choice and she made it. She knew the risks of getting pregnant in her 40's. It's been proven through history that there's a higher chance of complications for a pregnant woman in her late 30's or older than there is for younger women. "Forced to choose." LMFAO. Don't want to be forced to choose whether to have an abortion? Don't have unprotected sex, or better yet, don't have sex at all!

Things we are "forced to choose" in life:

1. Eating vs. not eating.
2. Driving a car or not driving a car.
3. Using a computer or not using a computer.
4. Working or not working.
5. Going to bed at a decent hour or staying up late.


And on and on.

[Addendum]

Damn those forced choices.

[Carcharodon]

And since when is being able to choose equal to being oppressed? "Forced to choose." What a load of crap. The ENTIRE ISSUE is over choice, and begrudging her for having to make a choice in the first place.

That's one of those strawman arguments that is technically correct, but it applies to so many different things in life that it makes it a total load of crap when trying to pretend that the person involved was somehow oppressed. You keep spouting this "oppressed" B.S., but nobody ever said she was oppressed. What is it with you people today and putting words in my mouth?

You know, she was forced to choose between having unprotected sex or not having unprotected sex.Actually, she wasn't.

I wish her the best of luck in raising her son, but I don't have ANY sympathy for her whatsoever. She had her choice and she made it. She knew the risks of getting pregnant in her 40's. It's been proven through history that there's a higher chance of complications for a pregnant woman in her late 30's or older than there is for younger women.Agreed on this point.

"Forced to choose." LMFAO. Don't want to be forced to choose whether to have an abortion? Don't have unprotected sex, or better yet, don't have sex at all!Again, I agree with the sentiment, but in practice it's useless because we're talking about a scenario in which the sex and fertilization has already occurred.

Things we are "forced to choose" in life:

1. Eating vs. not eating.
2. Driving a car or not driving a car.
3. Using a computer or not using a computer.
4. Working or not working.
5. Going to bed at a decent hour or staying up late.


And on and on.
1. Survival vs. Non-Survival
2. Yes, you're right.
3. Correct.
4. Correct.
5. Correct.

...yet I fail to see how ANY of that is somehow able to negate my point. It's a theoretical exploration of logic. How can anybody begrudge her for having to make a choice when that was the only possible option, given the reality of the universe that we live in?

[Carcharodon]

That's a BS argument. She said she actually thought about having an abortion. For someone who is so staunchly pro-life, she shouldn't have even had one inkling of a thought about ever having an abortion. Doesn't matter whether she was forced to choose or not. If she has such strong moral principles, the thought of having an abortion NEVER would have crossed her mind. But it did.Hey, you can waste your time and energy spewing dribble about how horrible Palin is, but why? What's the point anymore?

I just happen to think that the level of hypocrisy is severely overstated here, in what appears to me to be a waste of time and energy over an irrelevant political figure.

So have fun. :up:

[redfirebird2008]

The entire notion of being "forced" to do something is the equivalent of oppression. It seemed pretty clear that you were implying that she was somehow being unfairly forced to choose. She had a chance to avoid the entire issue altogether but she chose to have unprotected sex when she could have avoided it with two other choices: protected sex or no sex at all. ;)

[Carcharodon]

It seemed pretty clear that you were implying that she was somehow being unfairly forced to choose.I never said it was unfair, nor did I imply that it was unfair. Again, stop putting words in my mouth. :huh:

She had a chance to avoid the entire issue altogether but she chose to have unprotected sex when she could have avoided it with two other choices: protected sex or no sex at all. ;)Irrelevant, considering the event we're arguing over occurred AFTER all of that. If you have a time machine, I'd like to buy it from you. :up:

[redfirebird2008]

I never said it was unfair, nor did I imply that it was unfair. Again, stop putting words in my mouth. :huh:

Irrelevant, considering the event we're arguing over occurred AFTER all of that. If you have a time machine, I'd like to buy it from you. :up:

So OK, Mr. Stop Putting Words in My Mouth. What was the point of continuously CAPITALIZING "FORCED" over and over and over and over again? WTF was the point in emphasizing that if your intent wasn't to imply that being "forced to choose" is somehow a bad thing? Why point it out? Like I said, it was a strawman argument and you can come up with similar arguments for many activities in life. It's a pointless exercise.

[Carcharodon]

So OK, Mr. Stop Putting Words in My Mouth. What was the point of continuously CAPITALIZING "FORCED" over and over and over and over again? WTF was the point in emphasizing that if your intent wasn't to imply that being "forced to choose" is somehow a bad thing? Why point it out? Like I said, it was a strawman argument and you can come up with similar arguments for many activities in life. It's a pointless exercise.She was forced. I kept emphasizing it because Addendum clearly didn't understand what I was trying to say with my initial posts, as evidenced by his replies.

How can you possibly criticize somebody for the act of making a choice when said act is the only possibility according to the laws of, well...reality?

It would be a strawman argument if we weren't debating the act itself, but we are.

[Addendum]

I'm criticizing her for attempting to DENY others that same choice she made

[Marx]

If it were based on her actions (in other words, if she had actually HAD an abortion) I would consider her hypocritical.

If the claim of her hypocrisy is purely on the grounds of "she made a choice," then the fact that she was forced to choose renders me unable to really hold it against her.

That's all I'm saying. I get that side of the argument. I'm not dense. :oldrazz:

I never said that you were dense and didn't understand it. I'm just saying that is what the problem is. If she is so 'adamantly pro-life' she never would have even entertained the idea.

That said...

Let's ALL take the notch of this conversation down a little bit. It's quite easy to get fired up over all of this, but there is no need to put words in other's mouthes that aren't there or make snide comments about a poster 'coming to their conclusions by using pot'.

[Carcharodon]

I'm criticizing her for attempting to DENY others that same choice she madeThat's fine, but I'm trying to address the issue of hypocrisy, not whether her views on abortion are right or wrong.

Again, it is my contention that since she never condoned having the choice (as evidenced by her current campaign...come on, it's pretty obvious) and that since the act of choosing was inevitable and out of her control (again, "sex with condoms or without" notwithstanding), she should not be considered a hypocrite for making said choice and still holding her views.

And please keep in mind the fact that I think Sarah Palin is a waste of ****ing Carbon.

[Carcharodon]

Let's ALL take the notch of this conversation down a little bit. It's quite easy to get fired up over all of this, but there is no need to[...]make snide comments about a poster 'coming to their conclusions by using pot'.Oh, come on, that wasn't meant to be malicious. The only reason I'm ever AT the Hype! anymore is because of debates like this. I :heart: them.

[Addendum]

So it's not hypocritical for one to make a choice and wanting to deny others the opportunity to have that same choice?

[Star]

So if I get pregnant I'm supposed to go through a horrible process I want nothing to do with right now (birth) ????

Pro choice

[Addendum]

If the pro-life movement has their way, yes

[Star]

That's unfair

[redfirebird2008]

In a way, society pays too. Single mothers have a stronger chance than anyone of needing government aid, which means the taxpayer has to foot the bill on it. So not only would making abortion illegal be an infringement on the civil liberties of women, it would also cause an added cost to society due to the number of single mothers going up drastically under a pro-life governmental policy.

[Bill]

So if I get pregnant I'm supposed to go through a horrible process I want nothing to do with right now (birth) ????

Pro choice

Well, if the prospect of pregnancy is horrible, maybe you should abstain from sex as having kids (becoming pregnant) is a possible outcome of such an act. I figure if you are having sex, and you know that getting pregnant with a baby is a possible outcome, then you should, at the very least, be able to "go through with it."

[Carcharodon]

So it's not hypocritical for one to make a choice and wanting to deny others the opportunity to have that same choice?If Palin had had her way all along, the choice wouldn't have even existed. I don't think you can fault somebody for hypocrisy if they were forced to choose in this case.

[redfirebird2008]

If Palin had had her way all along, the choice wouldn't have even existed. I don't think you can fault somebody for hypocrisy if they were forced to choose in this case.

If it's a value she holds so dear, she never even would have considered abortion. No one was holding a gun to her head.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

You keep saying "forced to choose" as if her rights are being infringed upon.

As if the governement choosing for her isn't forcing her to do something in the first place.

If they take away the right to choose for women...then they're "forcing" women to go through childbirth.

I dunno **** about childbirth. But, it looks like a pain in the ass. So..."forcing" women to go through that...fair??

[Paradyme]

CBB, see Bill's post.

[redfirebird2008]

CBB, see Bill's post.

Lots of folks probably don't even think about the fact that sex is the act of potential reproduction. They just think it's "fun" without realizing that conception could very easily occur. :hehe:

[Carcharodon]

If it's a value she holds so dear, she never even would have considered abortion. No one was holding a gun to her head.She's human. What else can I say? I think this is ridiculous, and that you guys are trying way too hard on this one.

Take it or leave it. :up:

[Carcharodon]

You keep saying "forced to choose" as if her rights are being infringed upon.

As if the governement choosing for her isn't forcing her to do something in the first place.

If they take away the right to choose for women...then they're "forcing" women to go through childbirth.

I dunno **** about childbirth. But, it looks like a pain in the ass. So..."forcing" women to go through that...fair??You keep missing the point, so I'm not going to put the effort in anymore. It has NOTHING to do with her rights being infringed upon.

It's really not my fault that you keep interpreting it that way. The logic I put forth is extremely basic, yet you guys try to read into it so much that you get caught up with imaginary implications. It's actually frustrating.

Dunno what else to say.

[redfirebird2008]

She's human. What else can I say? I think this is ridiculous, and that you guys are trying way too hard on this one.

Take it or leave it. :up:

Trying too hard? To me this situation is funny more than anything. The irony completely goes over her head.

1. "I want abortion outlawed!"

2. "I thought, for a fleeting moment, about getting an abortion." :hehe:

[Carcharodon]

Trying too hard? To me this situation is funny more than anything. The irony completely goes over her head.

1. "I want abortion outlawed!"

2. "I thought, for a fleeting moment, about getting an abortion." :hehe:We're talking about hypocrisy, not irony. The irony is enormous.

[redfirebird2008]

We're talking about hypocrisy, not irony. The irony is enormous.

There's hyocrisy there too, but the irony is what sticks out the most to me. She just kind of mentioned this "fleeting moment" idea as if it didn't completely contradict every single thing she's ever publicly said about abortion. The way it reads, it almost seems like a nonchalant comment. :hehe:

[Paradyme]

There's hyocrisy there too, but the irony is what sticks out the most to me. She just kind of mentioned this "fleeting moment" idea as if it didn't completely contradict every single thing she's ever publicly said about abortion. The way it reads, it almost seems like a nonchalant comment. :hehe:

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/ltsugawa/IndigoMontoya.jpg
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
:woot:

[redfirebird2008]

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i153/ltsugawa/IndigoMontoya.jpg
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
:woot:

As Shep Smith at Fox News said earlier this week after accidentally dropping the f-bomb on an Internet broadcast, "Oops." :hehe:

[redfirebird2008]

Hyocrisy...sounds like the aristocracy of pot smokers...or something. :p

[Addendum]

Hyocrisy - The ruling elite of Chinese martial arts

[redfirebird2008]

Hyocrisy - The ruling elite of Chinese martial arts

:hehe:

[Bill]

You keep saying "forced to choose" as if her rights are being infringed upon.

As if the governement choosing for her isn't forcing her to do something in the first place.

The reason she is "forced" to choose is that after she became pregnant, she has two options; she can have the baby or she can terminate the pregnancy. The state of being pregnant forces her to choose between these two options. Of course, more options open up for consideration if she chooses to have the baby. She can either keep it or give it up for adoption. If she chooses to terminate the pregnancy(kill the baby in pro-life speak) then you give up any further choices on your part, or the baby's.

If they take away the right to choose for women...then they're "forcing" women to go through childbirth.

I dunno **** about childbirth. But, it looks like a pain in the ass. So..."forcing" women to go through that...fair??

No one "forced" her to have sex, but she did, knowing (one would think) that the possibility existed that it could result in pregnancy. Abortion is looked at as a "get out of pregnancy free card" for those that want to do the crime, but don't want to do the time because of immaturity, ignorance, idiocy or laziness.

It looks painful to me, too. And if I didn't want to "go through with it" then I either wouldn't have sex, make sure my contraceptives were in working order, or ready to have kids.

[redfirebird2008]

Abortion is looked at as a "get out of pregnancy free card" for those that want to do the crime, but don't want to do the time because of immaturity, ignorance, idiocy or laziness.


And what about a case where the pregnant woman is pregnant due to rape or a case where the woman will likely die if she chooses to go through the child birth process? Outlawing it entirely doesn't seem fair or morally right in those instances.

[Bill]

And what about a case where the pregnant woman is pregnant due to rape or a case where the woman will likely die if she chooses to go through the child birth process? Outlawing it entirely doesn't seem fair or morally right in those instances.

No, and I don't advocate completely outlawing it just because of those circumstances. The woman wasn't given the choice to have sex, so she should, at the very least, have that choice. And she certainly shouldn't have to die because of it.

My comments are directed at those who are making a conscious choice to have sex, and then using abortion to absolve them of any responsibility for that choice when it proves to be "inconvenient."

[Addendum]

It's none of my business if a woman considers being pregnant "inconvenient"

[Bill]

It's none of my business if a woman considers being pregnant "inconvenient"

Hopefully, the possibility of fatherhood never "inconveniences" you. After all, it is none of your business.

[Luca]

No one "forced" her to have sex, but she did, knowing (one would think) that the possibility existed that it could result in pregnancy. Abortion is looked at as a "get out of pregnancy free card" for those that want to do the crime, but don't want to do the time because of immaturity, ignorance, idiocy or laziness.

It looks painful to me, too. And if I didn't want to "go through with it" then I either wouldn't have sex, make sure my contraceptives were in working order, or ready to have kids.

Okay, so suppose you did have sex, or as you say "commit the crime," and she's now pregnant. She wants to have an abortion because she doesn't feel like she's ready to take care of a child. Granted, she made an irresponsible choice, but at this point, do you believe the law should deny her the possibility of doing that? Do you think it best for a child to be born into such an environment? You seem to put more importance on the parents "learning their lesson" and living up to their responsibilities, than on the child, regardless of what's best for him/her.

[redfirebird2008]

No, and I don't advocate completely outlawing it just because of those circumstances. The woman wasn't given the choice to have sex, so she should, at the very least, have that choice. And she certainly shouldn't have to die because of it.

My comments are directed at those who are making a conscious choice to have sex, and then using abortion to absolve them of any responsibility for that choice when it proves to be "inconvenient."

I agree with this sentiment except for the single mom issue. It's a burden on the rest of us if a woman has a child and can't take care of it. She ends up on welfare and my tax dollars end up being used to take care of her child. If it didn't have a potential impact on honest taxpayers like myself, I wouldn't have a problem with your idea.

[Addendum]

Hopefully, the possibility of fatherhood never "inconveniences" you. After all, it is none of your business.

I've never seen anything appealing in fatherhood, so I use a condom. Plus I have a tendency to smoke and depending on the weather I ride my bike. Both lower sperm count. I also wear BVDs, which are rumored to lower sperm count as well.

[Bill]

Okay, so suppose you did have sex, or as you say "commit the crime," and she's now pregnant. She wants to have an abortion because she doesn't feel like she's ready to take care of a child. Granted, she made an irresponsible choice, but at this point, do you believe the law should deny her the possibility of doing that? Do you think it best for a child to be born into such an environment? You seem to put more importance on the parents "learning their lesson" and living up to their responsibilities, than on the child, regardless of what's best for him/her.

There's this thing out there, but I don't know if you've heard of it. I have, because I've done it. It's called adoption. If she's not ready to take care of a child, there are couples out there more than willing to do so. A baby doesn't get killed, a couple that would otherwise be childless get to be parents and the mother and father(if he hung around) get to do a big "PHEW, I'm so glad we got outta dat one!" It's a win, win, win situation.

[Bill]

I agree with this sentiment except for the single mom issue. It's a burden on the rest of us if a woman has a child and can't take care of it. She ends up on welfare and my tax dollars end up being used to take care of her child. If it didn't have a potential impact on honest taxpayers like myself, I wouldn't have a problem with your idea.

Great, then let's terminate all who burden the honest taxpayer.

[Marx]

BRISTOL PALIN: 'LEARN FROM MY EXAMPLE'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/06/learn-from-my-example-says-bristol-palin/

Teen mom Bristol Palin had a simple message for teens on Wednesday, the 8th Annual National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

The daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin - the 2008 vice presidential nominee - said in an interview on NBC's Today Show that she wanted other teens to "learn from my example."

"If you're going to have sex, I think you should have safe sex," the unwed, teenage mother said as she held her infant son, Tripp. "And, regardless of what I did or anything like that, I think that abstinence is the only 100 percent foolproof way of preventing teen pregnancy."

Her father, Todd, acknowledged that his daughter was negotiating difficult territory as she holds herself out as an increasingly public advocate for the cause of preventing teen pregnancy.

"It's kind of a fine line that we're definitely walking on," he said when asked whether the governor's daughter could both advocate for teens to abstain and encourage practicing safe sex.

The young mother did have one topic she was not willing to discuss in detail - her increasingly strained relationship with Levi Johnston, Tripp's father.

"I'm honestly not here to talk about my personal life," Palin told Lauer, adding that Johnston was involved in raising their son.

"They're working out a schedule," Todd Palin said of the young parents'
arrangements. "I know that both of them will love and care for their son together."

In a recent interview with CNN's Larry King, Johnston and his family said they were considering legal action to protect his parental rights.

[Figs]

No one "forced" her to have sex, but she did, knowing (one would think) that the possibility existed that it could result in pregnancy. Abortion is looked at as a "get out of pregnancy free card" for those that want to do the crime, but don't want to do the time because of immaturity, ignorance, idiocy or laziness.

It looks painful to me, too. And if I didn't want to "go through with it" then I either wouldn't have sex, make sure my contraceptives were in working order, or ready to have kids.

That's how I feel on the subject.

I just don't think it should be outright illegal because of cases involving rape. I don't think it would be right to force a woman to have a child that will always remind her of that horrible incident. Not to mention, in rape cases the woman is obviously not choosing to go along with it like casual sex. I wish they could come up with a law that would outlaw abortion exceptin cases involving rape. Only problem with that is how would they know if the girl was lying or not in each case.

[StorminNorman]

BRISTOL PALIN: 'LEARN FROM MY EXAMPLE'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/06/learn-from-my-example-says-bristol-palin/

I have to applaud Bristol's handling of this situation. She has demonstrated great maturity, IMO.

[Wiseman]

I'm just going to give my opinion on abortion rather than reading through all this. I believe abortion should be illegal unless it's a pregnancy from a rape of some sort(incest would count as rape imo). And anyone who doesn't want to raise their baby should have to go through all those sites with people just dying to have kids but for whatever reason cannot conceive one themselves. You'd be suprised how many babies would find good homes that way. And maybe if women are taught that they have real consequences to their actions rather than just having to pay a couple hundred and get their "problem" sucked out of them it would cut down on teen pregnancy after a generation. Now where the problem finds it's way into this situation would be proving rape. The sad fact is that most girls who are really raped don't report it because they feel ashamed of the situation(even though they shouldn't) and an aweful lot of girls who claim rape never really were (because they have no shame). So if you only allow abortions if it's a rape victim well what's going to stop more girls coming out and accusing innocent guys of rape so they can get rid of the baby.

[Marx]

I have to applaud Bristol's handling of this situation. She has demonstrated great maturity, IMO.

She's definitely falling under alot of criticizm.

[Paradyme]

I'm just going to give my opinion on abortion rather than reading through all this. I believe abortion should be illegal unless it's a pregnancy from a rape of some sort(incest would count as rape imo). And anyone who doesn't want to raise their baby should have to go through all those sites with people just dying to have kids but for whatever reason cannot conceive one themselves. You'd be suprised how many babies would find good homes that way. And maybe if women are taught that they have real consequences to their actions rather than just having to pay a couple hundred and get their "problem" sucked out of them it would cut down on teen pregnancy after a generation. Now where the problem finds it's way into this situation would be proving rape. The sad fact is that most girls who are really raped don't report it because they feel ashamed of the situation(even though they shouldn't) and an aweful lot of girls who claim rape never really were (because they have no shame). So if you only allow abortions if it's a rape victim well what's going to stop more girls coming out and accusing innocent guys of rape so they can get rid of the baby.

I thought there was a procedure they can do that can decipher if it was forcible or not. Maybe, I've been watching too much t.v.

She's definitely falling under alot of criticizm.

Why is she being criticized?

[Wiseman]

I thought there was a procedure they can do that can decipher if it was forcible or not. Maybe, I've been watching too much t.v.


There is such a thing as a rape kit. Which is what hospital personel have to use on women who come in claiming to be raped so they can try to extract semen samples and find fingerprints on her but that doesn't prove that she was actually raped, it just proves that she had sex with someone. It's kinda like the Kobe rape case. She accused him of rape and clearly he had sex with her but it was consentual, the only reason that case got thrown out of court is cause Kobe has money for good attorneys and she had a credibility issue

[Marx]

Why is she being criticized?

Hypocrisy.

[Paradyme]

There is such a thing as a rape kit. Which is what hospital personel have to use on women who come in claiming to be raped so they can try to extract semen samples and find fingerprints on her but that doesn't prove that she was actually raped, it just proves that she had sex with someone. It's kinda like the Kobe rape case. She accused him of rape and clearly he had sex with her but it was consentual, the only reason that case got thrown out of court is cause Kobe has money for good attorneys and she had a credibility issue

Hm, thanks.

Hypocrisy.

I've always considered hypocrisy to be you say one thing and do another. Not do one thing then say the opposite. I tend to consider the ladder to be 'learning by experience'. She is telling people to stay abstinent because she thinks they'd be better off than her. Right? Or did I misread the article.

[Marx]

I've always considered hypocrisy to be you say one thing and do another. Not do one thing then say the opposite. I tend to consider the ladder to be 'learning by experience'. She is telling people to stay abstinent because she thinks they'd be better off than her. Right? Or did I misread the article.

You read it correctly...but some people find her new found pedestal phony and hypocritic.

[Carcharodon]

Hypocrisy.I just don't get it. Is she supposed to say, "Hey, get knocked up early!"? People just need to lay off. (I realize you're not the one saying it, Marx).

I applaud her.

[Addendum]

Abstinence really worked for her.

[Carcharodon]

Abstinence really worked for her.She made a mistake and now she's trying to help others AVOID said mistake, and she's getting blasted for it?

How in the blue hell does that make sense? It just seems spiteful and ignorant.

[Timstuff]

If an ex gangster serving a life sentence tells kids to stay away from gangs, does that make him a hypocrite?

[Addendum]

Hey, if abstinence worked, she wouldn't have a kid.

[Paradyme]

You read it correctly...but some people find her new found pedestal phony and hypocritic.

If an ex gangster serving a life sentence tells kids to stay away from gangs, does that make him a hypocrite?

She made a mistake and now she's trying to help others AVOID said mistake, and she's getting blasted for it?

How in the blue hell does that make sense? It just seems spiteful and ignorant.

Exactly, what I was thinking.

Hey, if abstinence worked, she wouldn't have a kid.

Clearly, it didn't work for her but she is trying to tell people to be stronger than she was.

Abstinence does work if you go through with it. It's the most difficult form of not having sex since you actually have to have quite a bit of will power.

[Addendum]

And the sausage was her kryptonite

[Timstuff]

Abstinence does work if you go through with it. It's the most difficult form of not having sex since you actually have to have quite a bit of will power.

Why does it always seem like it's the tall beautiful people who have a hard time abstaining? For me, not getting laid seems to come naturally... :o

[Paradyme]

And the sausage was her kryptonite

:wow:

Why does it always seem like it's the tall beautiful people who have a hard time abstaining? For me, not getting laid seems to come naturally... :o

:lmao:

[StorminNorman]

She made a mistake and now she's trying to help others AVOID said mistake, and she's getting blasted for it?

How in the blue hell does that make sense? It just seems spiteful and ignorant.

Bingo. People don't like her mother, so they are going to insult Bristol.

[StorminNorman]

More Americans Pro-Life than Pro-Choice... (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx)

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Kinda a tricky question depending on how it's asked.

But interesting indeed.

[StorminNorman]

The question asked was:

"With respect to the Abortion issue, do you consider yourself Pro Life or Pro Choice" - it wasn't a tricky question.

[Addendum]

Which is why he said "depending on how it's asked"

[Marx]

More Americans Pro-Life than Pro-Choice... (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx)



http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

The question asked was:

"With respect to the Abortion issue, do you consider yourself Pro Life or Pro Choice" - it wasn't a tricky question.

The larger majority of those who are Pro-Choice are Pro-Life. Meaning that they personally are opposed to it, but do not believe that they should have the right to tell someone else what to do.

This is a loaded question...and it depends on how it is asked.

[Hobgoblin]

And the fact that only 51% of those answered claim to be pro life is hardly news. I'm sure the scales swing back and forth from month to month. Look at the "undecided" percentage. Thats well enough to send the margin over or under 50% at any given time. It comes down to the undecided ones tipping the scales.

[Paradyme]

The larger majority of those who are Pro-Choice are Pro-Life. Meaning that they personally are opposed to it, but do not believe that they should have the right to tell someone else what to do.

This is a loaded question...and it depends on how it is asked.

Thats why it says in respect to Abortion as in Pro-Life means no abortion, Pro-Choice means yes to aborition.

But I understand where you guys are coming from. I think most view it though as one is pro abortion, the other isn't.

[Marx]

Thats why it says in respect to Abortion as in Pro-Life means no abortion, Pro-Choice means yes to aborition.

But I understand where you guys are coming from. I think most view it though as one is pro abortion, the other isn't.

Again, I believe that the larger majority of people are Pro-Life, the different lies in the specifics. (Should you be able to tell another how live their life? etc.)

[Paradyme]

Again, I believe that the larger majority of people are Pro-Life, the different lies in the specifics. (Should you be able to tell another how live their life? etc.)

Well, until they better define the specifics people are going to look at it the way that the media is feeding it to them.

[Marx]

Well, until they better define the specifics people are going to look at it the way that the media is feeding it to them.

I have never seen any media outlet (outside of an extreme right pundit/network) refer to Pro-Choice as Pro-Abortion in a serious context.

[CaptainClown]

I could see a lot of people saying "I am pro-life however i believe I have no right in deciding'

[StorminNorman]

And the fact that only 51% of those answered claim to be pro life is hardly news. I'm sure the scales swing back and forth from month to month. Look at the "undecided" percentage. Thats well enough to send the margin over or under 50% at any given time. It comes down to the undecided ones tipping the scales.

This is the first time Pro Choice has been the majority since 1994 (when they started asking the question).

[StorminNorman]

I could see a lot of people saying "I am pro-life however i believe I have no right in deciding'

That's pro choice.

If Gallup received that answer, they would mark it pro choice.

[Paradyme]

I have never seen any media outlet (outside of an extreme right pundit/network) refer to Pro-Choice as Pro-Abortion in a serious context.

Seems pretty deeply seeded to me that a lot of people think that Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion and Pro-Life is Anti-Abortion.

I already know what you guys say is Pro-Choice's argument but it seems that most still don't know the definition.

[Carcharodon]

This is the first time Pro Choice has been the majority since 1994 (when they started asking the question).It's important to recognize that this doesn't necessarily mean that the number of pro-lifers (HATE that label) is greater in this country than the number of pro-choicers. That may not actually be true at all, or it may be. It may be indicating that a growing proportion of the population is moving towards being "pro-life"...or, again, it may not.

*This works the other way around, by the way.

[Marx]

Seems pretty deeply seeded to me that a lot of people think that Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion and Pro-Life is Anti-Abortion.

I already know what you guys say is Pro-Choice's argument but it seems that most still don't know the definition.

I completely understand where you're coming from Para. The fact of the matter is that Pro-Choice couldn't be farther from Pro-Abortion.

[Kelly]

Exactly......I'm Pro-Choice, but "for me" I would not have an abortion. I think there are many, many mental and physical aspects of abortion that women have absolutely no clue about, and are not properly educated on these things. So, abortion is not a choice I would make, BUT.....I do not believe that women should not have the choice. I would just hope that we would do more in the education portion of this debate....because that IMO is what is lacking.

[Marx]

OBAMA CALLS FOR 'COMMON GROUND' ON ABORTION AT NOTRE DAME
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/16/obama.notre.dame/index.html

President Obama delved into the charged abortion debate in a controversial Notre Dame commencement address Sunday, urging civility and a search for common ground on one of the most divisive issues in American politics.

Addressing a sharply divided audience at the storied Catholic university, Obama conceded that no matter how much Americans "may want to fudge it ... at some level the views of the two camps are irreconcilable."

"Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction," he said. "But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature."

The commencement ceremony was boycotted by a number of graduates dismayed by the university's decision both to tap Obama as its commencement speaker and to give him an honorary degree. The president is a supporter of abortion rights and federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research -- positions that are anathema to traditional Catholic teachings.

Some graduates attended the ceremony, but expressed their disapproval by donning mortarboards marked with a cross and the outline of an infant's footprints. Others countered by wearing mortarboards adorned with an Obama campaign symbol.

Twenty-seven people were arrested prior to Obama's speech, according to a spokeswoman for the St. Joseph County, Indiana, jail. Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff identified as "Roe" in the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, was among those arrested.

But inside, several hecklers who interrupted the start of Obama's speech were loudly booed by the audience.

[Marx]

DOCTOR WHO PERFORMED ABORTIONS SHOT TO DEATH
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/31/kansas.doctor.killed/index.html

Dr. George Tiller, whose Kansas women's clinic was the epicenter of the state's battles over abortion for nearly two decades, was shot and killed at his church Sunday morning, his family said.

Tiller, 67, was one of the few U.S. physicians who still performed late-term abortions. He survived a 1993 shooting outside his Wichita clinic.

He was fatally shot shortly after 10 a.m. Sunday at Reformation Lutheran Church, Wichita police said.

Sunday afternoon, authorities took a man into custody near Kansas City after stopping a car that matched a description of the killer's getaway vehicle, according to sheriff's deputies in Johnson County, Kansas. No charges had been filed.

Wichita police said they were searching for a powder-blue Ford Taurus in connection with the killing. Witnesses provided a license number of the car the killer used to speed away from the church, police spokesman Gordon Bassham said.

Tiller "dedicated his life to providing women with high-quality heath care despite frequent threats and violence," his family said in a written statement.

"We ask that he be remembered as a good husband, father and grandfather and a dedicated servant on behalf of the rights of women everywhere," the family said.

Abortion is one of the hottest buttons in U.S. politics, with opponents arguing the practice is tantamount to the murder of an unborn child. Abortion rights supporters argue the decision to terminate a pregnancy is best left to the woman.

The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, which has led numerous demonstrations at Tiller's clinic, condemned the shooting as a "cowardly act."

[bored]

Tiller shot, killed in Wichita

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
George Tiller has long been a focal point of protest by abortion opponents because his clinic, Women's Health Care Services in Wichita, is one of the few in the country where late-term abortions are performed.
Photo 10 of 10
Related Stories

* Reaction to Tiller's death

| EMAIL | PRINT | COMMENT | SHARE
By The Capital-Journal
Created May 31, 2009 at 11:40am
Updated May 31, 2009 at 2:36pm

WICHITA - Law enforcement officers Sunday captured the alleged gunman in the shooting death of controversial abortion clinic doctor George Tiller.

Tiller, 67, was slain in the lobby of Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita. No one else was injured in the shooting, which occurred shortly after 10 a.m.

A gunman fled the church in a 1993 light blue Ford Taurus registered in the Kansas City suburb of Merriam, and officials are confirming a man was taken into custody in that area.

Tiller was no stranger to violence from people opposed to late-term abortions. A protester shot Tiller in both arms in 1993, and his clinic was bombed more than 20 years ago.

Mourners gathered outside the Wichita church where Tiller was gunned down. They also left flowers at the abortion clinic, Women’s Health Care Services, operated by Tiller.

Teresa White, of Andover, left a rosary at the clinic for Tiller. She had visited the facility previously to pray for aborted fetuses, she said.

“You can’t solve anything by killing,” White said.

“Today’s event is an unspeakable tragedy for all of us and for George’s friends and patients,” said attorney Dan Monnat, on behalf of the Tiller family. “This is particularly heart wrenching because George was shot down in his house of worship, a place of peace.”

Monnat said Tiller was shot as he served as an usher during morning services.

The doctor’s attorney also said Tiller had asked federal prosecutors to step up investigations of vandalism and other threats against the clinic out of fear that the incidents were increasing and that Tiller’s safety was in jeopardy.

At the same time expressions of sympathy poured forth in Wichita, opponents of abortion drove past the clinic cheering and honking horns in celebration of Tiller’s demise.

“George Tiller was a mass murderer,” said Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue. “We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.”

Such was the ferocity of sentiment about the life of a doctor who ran one of the country’s three clinics performing abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy.

Tiller remained prominent in the news in recent years, in part because of an investigation started begun by former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, an abortion opponent.

“I am stunned by this lawless and violent act, which must be condemned and should be met with the full force of law,” Kline said in a statement. “We join in lifting prayer that God’s grace and presence rest with Dr. Tiller’s family and friends.”

Prosecutors alleged Tiller had gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires. A Wichita jury in March acquitted Tiller of all 19 misdemeanor counts.

However, the Kansas Board of Healing Arts made public a similar complaint against the doctor in December.

Abortion opponents also questioned then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ ties to Tiller before the Senate confirmed her this year as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary. Tiller donated thousands of dollars to support Sebelius’ political career over the years.

Mary Kay Culp, state executive director of Kansans for Life, which had fought to oppose Sebelius’ political career and to shut down Tiller’s clinic, said the doctor’s shooting death was a tragic turn of events.

“Our organization has a board of directors, and a 35 year history of bringing citizens together to achieve thoughtful education and legislation on the life issues here in Kansas,” she said. “We value life, completely deplore violence, and are shocked and very upset by what happened in Wichita today.” Tiller’s clinic was bombed in mid-1980s. He was shot in both arms in 1993 by abortion protester Rachelle “Shelley” Shannon of Grants Pass, Ore.

In 1991, the Summer of Mercy protests organized by Operation Rescue drew thousands of anti-abortion activists to this city for demonstrations marked by civil disobedience and mass arrests.

After those protests, Tiller kept mostly to his heavily guarded clinic, although in 1997 he opened it to three tours by state lawmakers and the media.

A candlelight vigil has been scheduled for 8 p.m. Sunday in Wichita’s Old Town area.

I wasn't sure exactly which thread to put this in. Regardless of your ideology, please keep your comments respectful.

[Mister Sinister]

Pro-life - supporting the sanctity of life (so long as it's microscopic).

[Marx]

This can be discussed in the Discussion: Abortion thread.

[Mister Sinister]

As I mentioned in another thread, pro-life only means microscopic life now.

PS. Doctor Who performed abortions?

[Addendum]

So that's what went on in the back corner of the TARDIS

[StorminNorman]

George Tiller the baby killer died?

Wow.

[redfirebird2008]

George Tiller the baby killer died?

Wow.

Yeah, he died. He was murdered by a "pro-lifer." Two wrong's don't make a right.

[Addendum]

So he was killed for performing a legal procedure

[bored]

This can be discussed in the Discussion: Abortion thread.

Admittedly, I started a new thread specifically to keep out bile like this:


George Tiller the baby killer died?

Wow.

[Marx]

Admittedly, I started a new thread specifically to keep out bile like this:

Unfortunately, comments like that will happen no matter where you post it.

[redfirebird2008]

What do y'all think the odds are that this pro-lifer supports torture policies against terrorists? I consider "pro-life" murderers and bombers to be terrorists. Perhaps we should waterboard him and then ask him what he thinks of the policy. :p

[StorminNorman]

Yeah, he died. He was murdered by a "pro-lifer." Two wrong's don't make a right.

There is certainly some irony there.

Two wrong's don't make a right at all. I am not on the pro-lifer's stance on abortion. I am mostly apathetic about Tiller's death. That being said, I am not going to mourn the guy. I despise late term abortions.

[redfirebird2008]

There is certainly some irony there.

Two wrong's don't make a right at all. I am not on the pro-lifer's stance on abortion. I am mostly apathetic about Tiller's death. That being said, I am not going to mourn the guy. I despise late term abortions.

I'm not mourning the guy but I am noticing massive irony and hypocrisy in the notion of someone calling themselves pro-life and then murdering another person. :hehe:

[bored]

There is certainly some irony there.

Two wrong's don't make a right at all. I am not on the pro-lifer's stance on abortion. I am mostly apathetic about Tiller's death. That being said, I am not going to mourn the guy. I despise late term abortions.


Then could you at least refrain from throwing out asinine little nicknames the "pro-lifers" are so enchanted with?

[Marx]

OPERATION RESCUE FOUNDER MORE CONCERNED WITH OBAMA'S REACTION TO TILLER MURDER
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/randall-terry-operation-r_n_209531.html

Randall Terry, the founder of anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who led protests against George Tiller's clinic in Wichita, Kansas in 1991, issued a statement about today's killing of the abortion doctor.

In his comments, Terry does not grieve for Tiller or denounce the murder but seems more concerned about President Obama's reaction and what it bodes for the pro-life movement.
"George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.

Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches."

Terry did not return calls for comment.

Other anti-abortion groups condemned Tiller's murder in strong terms, reports the Catholic News Agency.
Troy Newman, President of the Kansas-based Operation Rescue said in a statement that his organization "has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller's family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ"...

Shaun Kenney, executive director of American Life League, explained that leaders within the pro-life movement "often discuss justice in connection with our mission to end the tragedy of abortion. Today, Dr. George Tiller's life ended in an act defying those principles."

[Schlosser85]

Randall Terry cares more about attention for himself than he does about abortion, IMO.

I remember the way him and Jesse Jackson fell all over themselves rushing to Terri Schiavo as soon as there were lots of cameras around.

[Handsome Rob]

Pro-life - supporting the sanctity of life (so long as it's microscopic).

And all Muslims are terrorist or terrorist supporters. All homosexuals are secretly pedophiles (or pedophilia supporters). Oh, and all Democrats are God-hating communists. Hey, can we make any more blanket statements of a movement or belief system based on its most extreme members?

:whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever: :whatever::whatever:

This pro-lifer thinks whoever killed Dr. Tiller should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. He (or she) is a murderer.

[Addendum]

If Dr. Tiller wasn't murdered, he could not be prosecuted. According to the law, he committed no crimes since abortion is a legal procedure.

[Matt]

Let's look at it form the alternate perspective:

Why should a child be born into a home where it's going to be thought of as a mistake and an incovenience instead of a product of true love and commitment, which is what childbirth is supposed to be?

I'd rather be alive and a mistake than dead.


It's not as black and white as you seem to want to make it. A woman doesn't just say "**** it, I'm killing this baby." It's a severe, emotionally crippling decision. You portray it as way too simple.

Now-a-days, for a lot of girls, abortion is simply becoming a form of birth control, so yeah...it is becoming alarmingly more black and white.

[Wiseman]

Now-a-days, for a lot of girls, abortion is simply becoming a form of birth control, so yeah...it is becoming alarmingly more black and white.

Preach it brother Matt, I've been saying this for years