Discussion: Abortion

[Anita18]

No, both arguments are equally illogical. Using the fear of banning birth control as an argument to keep abortion legal is not a valid argument. The two are separate issues. Now is it possible if the Catholic Church was writing the law, it would be a valid point, sure? But that's not going to happen and to pretend like it would does little good.
Again, I said it CAN be an argument, depending on WHO is making the law and defining it. Most lawmakers are not doctors and would not have the know-how to define each one specifically. (I also have the feeling that nobody cares to gain the know-how, since the public doesn't exactly care to either...)

And it wouldn't even have to be the Catholic Church, it could be any anti-abortion faction in the country.

I am a biologist, and in my view birth control can be viewed as abortion if you interpret the definition of abortion in a particular way, and what you believe the birth control pill does or doesn't do.

[Marx]

Considering I have been in a position to have to make that decision, to have that talk - I really doubt that.

So you made a decision with a significant other, so did I, but my decision let to travel. Do you really need to get into a **** measuring contest here?

It seems obvious to me that you both have had some experiences in real life (with respect to abortion) that others here might not have. That being said, no ones experience trumps another...so let's stick to the topic and stop trying to outdo the other.

Thanks. :cwink:

[StorminNorman]

Again, I said it CAN be an argument, depending on WHO is making the law and defining it. Most lawmakers are not doctors and would not have the know-how to define each one specifically. (I also have the feeling that nobody cares to gain the know-how, since the public doesn't exactly care to either...)

But you act as if lawmakers make laws in some back room with no influence outside of it. That doesn't happen. Law is not made in a vacuum, no one is going to accidentally write an abortion law that bans all contraception. You are dealing in an extreme, unrealistic hypothetical. Medical experts, abortion experts, all of them would testify and have a voice in any abortion law.

Of course all of this ignores the purple elephant in the room - the fact that there will never be an anti-abortion measure passed in this country.

[Paradoxium]

Forgive my ignorance on this, more of a scientific than a political question. But the pill kind makes it difficult for the spermy to unite with the egg to fertilize right? I know it thickens the cervical mucus so the sperm can't get in, change the uterus lining (so egg can't implant to the wall), and prevent eggs from being released (well not reliable, you know). It has nothing to do with preventing birth if the egg by some miracle gets fertilized though? Unless you guys are discussing about morning after pills. :huh:

edit: you know what, I think it might have to something to do with the uterus lining implanting bit. My bio is crap, could the egg by fertilized and not be implanted or something?

[Carcharodon]

Forgive my ignorance on this, more of a scientific than a political question. But the pill kind makes it difficult for the spermy to unite with the egg to fertilize right? I know it thickens the cervical mucus so the sperm can't get in, change the uterus lining (so egg can't implant to the wall), and prevent eggs from being released (well not reliable, you know). It has nothing to do with preventing birth if the egg by some miracle gets fertilized though? Unless you guys are discussing about morning after pills. :huh:

edit: you know what, I think it might have to something to do with the uterus lining implanting bit. My bio is crap, could the egg by fertilized and not be implanted or something?As far as I know, all contraceptive birth control prevents fertilization in some form or another. This also goes for the Plan B pill.

That said, continued use of birth control after fertilization/implantation CAN cause complications.

EDIT: http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html I may have been wrong with my initial statement.

A less-biased site: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/AN00592

Progestin will not only prevent fertilization, but in high doses will prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining.

[Carcharodon]

Retarded DP. My bad.

[Mister Sinister]

Retarded DP. My bad.

Seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine then?

:D

[Paradoxium]

Ok I see why people connect abortion with birth control. The egg is fertilized than sticks to the uterus wall. The pill prevents that.

I jumbled it up and thought of it in reverse.

[Carcharodon]

Ok I see why people connect abortion with birth control. The egg is fertilized than sticks to the uterus wall. The pill prevents that.

I jumbled it up and thought of it in reverse.Pills with progestin. That is an important distinction; not all b.c. pills operate in such a fashion.

[Carcharodon]

Seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine then?

:DTook me a while, but I got it lol. No, haven't seen it.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Again, I ask why should the actions of a psycho change O'Reilly's (or anyone elses) opinion of Tiller?


Not change his opinion, but ease up on the rhetoric.

The man was killed. O'Reilly continuing the "Dr. Killer" stuff makes it sound like the guy had it coming. As if it was a justified death.

Which is ****ed up.

[StorminNorman]

Not change his opinion, but ease up on the rhetoric.

The man was killed. O'Reilly continuing the "Dr. Killer" stuff makes it sound like the guy had it coming. As if it was a justified death.

Which is ****ed up.

O'Reilly has been rather strong on the fact that Tiller's death is unacceptable. He has stressed the importance of laws and how this country cannot succumb to anarchy (taking the law into your own hands).

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Taking the law into one's own hands sounds like something O'Reilly would be for, honestly.

[StorminNorman]

Then you have not listened to O'Reilly talk about the subject.

[Addendum]

It's not like he ever says anything of value

[StorminNorman]

Sure he does. O'Reilly's a smart man, he often says intelligent things. Intelligent ideas are always valuable, in some way.

[metr0man]

This whole situation illuminates the fundamental flaw in the logic in a lot of the pro-life circles... that is that if abortion WAS pure murder, people like Dr. Tiller would essentially be modern day Mengele, and the murderer of thousands and millions. The loonies would actually be the rational ones.

Who wouldn't be happy that the murderer of millions got taken out?

O'reilly himself called Tiller a "baby-killer" regularly. he's guilty of "Nazi stuff", runs a "death mill" and has said Tiller is basically a rapist and a child molester, because he performed abortions on young rape victims (ie - referring statuatory rape)

So if he actually believed that stuff, he should be thrilled. As should any of the 'abortion is murder' folks.

Certainly I wouldn't shed a tear if some, say, 9/11 planners (whom we can certainly call murderers or accessories ot murder) bit the dust.

[StorminNorman]

Because Pro-Lifers don't want anarchy. Rational Pro-Lifers understand that taking a gun and killing an abortion doctor, even if they wish to end his practice, is not acceptable.

[metr0man]

Because Pro-Lifers don't want anarchy. Rational Pro-Lifers understand that taking a gun and killing an abortion doctor, even if they wish to end his practice, is not acceptable.

"his practice" = baby butchering, modern-day holocaust (according to the 'abortion is murder' folks). The worst crime imagineable.

Most people wouldn't blink twice at the thought of Osama getting blown away, and he's responsible, for what, 5 or 10 thousand deaths. A fraction of the amount from abortions.

Or a child rapist or molester, or whatnot.

If someone had, say, an actual kid-killing factory, where he took, say, tens of thousands of toddlers, and just chopped their heads off (that would be at least as bad a crime as abortion according to 'abortion is murder' folks) ... I would not think ANY less of someone who took a gun and blew that toddler killer away.

[Grievous]

Sure he does. O'Reilly's a smart man, he often says intelligent things. Intelligent ideas are always valuable, in some way.
:up:
agree, O'Reilly is very smart, and people make big deals about a idk month old baby but they could care less about all the baby lives that are cancelled each day.

[Marx]

GEORGE TILLER FUNERAL DRAWS HUNDREDS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/06/george-tiller-funeral-att_n_212155.html

Hundreds of people gathered Saturday to honor slain abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, eulogized by a longtime friend as a passionate and generous man who repeatedly overcame difficult challenges.

Tiller's funeral at College Hill United Methodist Church also drew small groups of protesters. Police and federal marshals provided heavy security.

Tiller, one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions, was killed by a gunshot last Sunday in the foyer of his own church, Reformation Lutheran, while he was serving as an usher and his wife was singing in the choir. His family had the funeral at the Methodist church to accommodate the large number of mourners.

His son, Maury, said the manner of his father's death resulted in an unimaginable outpouring of love and support for the family.

But he added: "I struggle with the manner he was welcomed into heaven."

Others recalled personal quirks that made him human.

Tiller's daughter, Rebecca, recalled how her father loved "Star Trek," and gave her a framed poster of Trekkie sayings for her apartment, which he promised her would bring her success if she read them each day before going out. Among his favorites were: "Live long and prosper," and, "When you go out to the universe remember, boldly go where no man has gone before."

He also was remembered for his generosity and sense of humor.

[Prison Mike]

CNN interviewed the killer and he seemed happy to know that the practice has been shut down. He doesn't think he did anything wrong. In fact, he's been getting letters of encouragement! Oh what a world we live in.

[Marx]

CNN interviewed the killer and he seemed happy to know that the practice has been shut down. He doesn't think he did anything wrong. In fact, he's been getting letters of encouragement! Oh what a world we live in.

I always find it interesting that there are people (like this killer) who are so pro-life that they believe it's right to take a life of a person who opposes their ideology.

The killer has supposedly said from prison that 'more violence is coming'.

[moraldeficiency]

Same mindset as a terrorist or any zealot for that matter. Different ideals, exact same self justifications and mindset.

[Anita18]

"his practice" = baby butchering, modern-day holocaust (according to the 'abortion is murder' folks). The worst crime imagineable.

Most people wouldn't blink twice at the thought of Osama getting blown away, and he's responsible, for what, 5 or 10 thousand deaths. A fraction of the amount from abortions.

Or a child rapist or molester, or whatnot.

If someone had, say, an actual kid-killing factory, where he took, say, tens of thousands of toddlers, and just chopped their heads off (that would be at least as bad a crime as abortion according to 'abortion is murder' folks) ... I would not think ANY less of someone who took a gun and blew that toddler killer away.
Salon has an article where the journalist finds personal accounts of women who were patients of Dr. Tiller. I think all of them would be offended at your conclusion that Dr. Tiller (and they) were baby killers. Deciding to abort your close-to-be-born baby is a very hard decision. Most people do not make it lightly, just like most people think that Dr. Tiller's murder was absolutely wrong and a tragedy.

If any good can come of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, one of the very few providers of late-term abortions in the U.S., perhaps it's the opportunity to have a conversation about the reality of termination in the second and third trimesters. Anti-choice activists often cast late-term abortions as the murder of a viable baby at the whim of a woman who doesn't wish to be inconvenienced, carried out by a doctor who looks at her and sees only cartoon dollar signs. They're egged on by relatively mainstream figures like Bill O'Reilly, who declared that Dr. Tiller "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." Such misinformation and outright lies about procedures that are in fact rare and only performed when medically necessary are what led anti-choice activists to call Tiller "America's Doctor of Death," and accuse him of running a "murder mill." The reality of what Dr. Tiller did, however -- helping women in absolutely desperate circumstances, when almost no one else would -- is what led one woman who had to terminate a wanted pregnancy because of a terrible late-term diagnosis to call the doctor and staff at his Women's Health Center "our heaven when we were living in hell."

Susan Hill, President of the National Women's Health Foundation, who knew Dr. Tiller for over two decades and referred girls and women to his clinic, said in a phone interview, "We always sent the really tragic cases to Tiller." Those included women diagnosed with cancer who needed abortions to qualify for chemotherapy, women who learned late in their pregnancies that their wanted babies had fatal illnesses, and rape victims so young they didn't realize they were pregnant for months. "We sent him 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds who were way too far along for anybody [else] to see," said Hill. "Eleven-year-olds don't tell anybody. Sometimes they don't even know they've had a period."

.....

Susan Hill says enduring the expense and stress of travel is the only option for most women who need late abortions in the U.S. "The restrictions under the Bush administration made it impossible for most states to allow abortions past 16 weeks. All the southern states are restricted tremendously. A few places in New York, if it was medically necessary, could possibly do it, but the paperwork was unbelievable, and there was no time left. That's why they referred people to Tiller. And for that he lost his life. "

Hill last spoke to Dr. Tiller two weeks ago, not long after the Women's Health Center was vandalized, and she asked the 67-year-old why he didn't retire in the face of increasing harassment, after already having been shot in both arms and seen his clinic bombed. "Because I can't leave these women," he told her. "Those are the words I'm always going to remember from him. He just believed that when he left, they wouldn't get any kind of care." Unfortunately, it seems he may have been right. I asked Hill where women who need late-term abortions can go now, and her response was bleak. "There's Warren Hern, out in Boulder, Colorado, but he doesn't go as far as Dr. Tiller went." When it comes to those "really tragic cases," Hill said the harsh truth is, "We don't know where we're going to send them."

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/06/01/late_term_abortion/

I think it also offends me greatly that pro-lifers think they know better than the women which these pregnancies are happening to. We don't know these women - some of them may use it for birth control, but for most it's the conclusion of a dream taken away, and abortion is really the best choice out of many terrible scenarios.

I always find it interesting that there are people (like this killer) who are so pro-life that they believe it's right to take a life of a person who opposes their ideology.

The killer has supposedly said from prison that 'more violence is coming'.
He's insane.

[Marx]

He's insane.

Without a doubt.

[StorminNorman]

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/06/01/late_term_abortion/

I think it also offends me greatly that pro-lifers think they know better than the women which these pregnancies are happening to. We don't know these women - some of them may use it for birth control, but for most it's the conclusion of a dream taken away, and abortion is really the best choice out of many terrible scenarios.

Theres a difference between abortion and late term.

[Anita18]

Theres a difference between abortion and late term.
And what difference is that?

[StorminNorman]

And what difference is that?
I dunno? The late term part.

[Anita18]

I dunno? The late term part.
:oldrazz:

The only difference is a mandated timeline, really.

[StorminNorman]

:oldrazz:

The only difference is a mandated timeline, really.

You could argue that the difference between murder and abortion is a timeline.

Late-Term Abortion is generally defined as an abortion that takes place after the fetus is viable. So this isn't just a small mass of cells that couldn't survive outside of the woman's womb. It isn't just a parasite.

[Addendum]

And? Why should it be my business if a woman decides to get a late term abortion or not?

[StorminNorman]

Because we are dealing with life in this case, not a parasite. The abortion procedure becomes different.

You can't ignore the obvious difference.

[Addendum]

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't care if a woman decides to get an abortion. I also don't care if that abortion is a late-term abortion. It's her business, not mine.

[BlackestNight]

And? Why should it be my business if a woman decides to get a late term abortion or not?

At that point in the pregnancy, you’re potentially dealing with the life of another being and just saying the mother’s will (only with unjustified reason) trumps the life of a baby is just wrong.

[Addendum]

At that point in the pregnancy, you’re potentially dealing with the life of another being and just saying the mother’s will (only with unjustified reason) trumps the life of a baby is just wrong.

And that's your opinion. It just hasn't convinced me why I should stick my nose in the business of another individual.

[StorminNorman]

And that's your opinion. It just hasn't convinced me why I should stick my nose in the business of another individual.

Did you ever live next door to a woman named Kitty Genovese?

[Addendum]

No, but then again I've never bothered to get to know any of my neighbors.

[StorminNorman]

Haha :up:

[Anita18]

You could argue that the difference between murder and abortion is a timeline.

Late-Term Abortion is generally defined as an abortion that takes place after the fetus is viable. So this isn't just a small mass of cells that couldn't survive outside of the woman's womb. It isn't just a parasite.
Perhaps, but it's still INSIDE the woman at this point and getting nutrients from her blood supply. It's still a "parasite," although one that could possibly live outside of the womb with proper medical care. There's a reason why human gestation is 9 months and not 6. :oldrazz:

[Prison Mike]

I think if these pro-lifers had gotten a chance to learn what type of patients Dr. Tiller was seeing, then maybe some of them would reconsider their position. It seems that a lot of them just naturally assumed he would treat mostly some 16 year old girls who flippantly decided not to be a parent. A lot of the cases that Dr. Tiller saw were real tragic ones. 11 or 12 year old rape victims, women diagnosed with cancer, women who knew their babies had fatal illnesses, etc. What really bugs me is that the killer believes he did something right and is getting encouraging letters from the public. The public doesn't see anything wrong with scenario. Some think of him as a hero. It frightens me.

[StorminNorman]

Perhaps, but it's still INSIDE the woman at this point and getting nutrients from her blood supply. It's still a "parasite," although one that could possibly live outside of the womb with proper medical care. There's a reason why human gestation is 9 months and not 6. :oldrazz:

Tell that to those people born premature.

[Bathead]

Tell that to those people born premature.

And a large percentage of those would not have lived without extreme medical intervention, hardly viable on their own out of the womb without some form of life support.

[Anita18]

And a large percentage of those would not have lived without extreme medical intervention, hardly viable on their own out of the womb without some form of life support.
Exactly. I'd wager that very, very few premature babies could have survived without medical intervention.

[Nivek]

It's her business, not mine.

See, that's what I have never understood about these Anti-abortion types

For people concerned that they don't want the Government getting involved in giving Americans affordable health insurance, or biological research that could save lives, they are quick to take up the call of aborted fetuses and jelly brained coma victims because of some b.s. projected sense of morality (saying the victims cannot speak for themselves, and that kind of crap). When in fact these are flawed, damaged individuals themselves who feel the need to push their ignorant opinions into the lives of others. The fact that someone may have had different life experience or make hard decisions that other possibly could not, lack the foresight to see past their own selfishness. It's silly since you try to interfere with their lives, you hear all this "Government has no business in my life" backtalk.

Case in point, does this murder in the Tiller case have a wife & kids? Nope, he was a divorced loner involved in Militias and Militant anti-Abortion groups. He doesn't seem like someone who has a love for life, just a nut looking to justify his murderous appetites.

[Anita18]

Dr. Tiller's clinic is to remain closed indefinitely

Dr. Warren Hern, one of the few remaining doctors in the country who performs late-term abortions, said the closure of the clinic was an "outrage" and he feels the loss for Dr. Tiller's family and the patients he served.

"How tragic, how tragic," Hern said when contacted by phone at his Boulder, Colo., clinic. "This is what they want, they've been wanting this for 35 years."

Asked whether he felt efforts should be made to keep the clinic open, he said: "This was Dr. Tiller's clinic. How much can you resist this kind of violence? What doctor, what reasonable doctor would work there? Where does it stop?"

Hern said he began receiving death threats when he opened his first outpatient abortion clinic in 1973, which has prompted him to take security measures that includes "working behind four layers of bullet proof glass."

"I will never be safe the rest of my life," Hern said. "No matter what I do. Even if I close my office. They've told me, don't bother wearing a bulletproof vest, we're going to go for a head shot."

Hern blamed comments from anti-abortion groups for Tiller's death.

"The anti-abortion fanatics have to shut up and go home. They have to back off and they have to respect other people's point of view. This is an outrage, this is a national outrage."

Randall Terry, the founder of the original Operation Rescue group, responded to news that Tiller's clinic would remain closed with, "Good riddance." He said history would remember Tiller's clinic as it remembers Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jaLZyHUZ2vWSrE1Go3eZ1qUW47GgD98N95B80

Ugh, it's so sad. The terrorists won.

[Paradoxium]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.htm

Non-marital births on the rise, aka more single mothers, aka higher statistical likelihood of delinquency. The economic cost of aborting one child compared to rehabbing and incarceration says it all. Another reason to support abortion (and birth control pills)

Probably more productive at this point to discourage aborting than trying to "legislate it away". Kind of like encouraging people to stop being fat asses, instead of trying legislate it away somehow. You can't social engineer people through laws.

I blame this one both mainstream social conservatives and social liberals. Former for thinking they can socially engineer people, the latter for producing a huge crop of apologetic beta/omega fail-males.

[moraldeficiency]

I blame this one both mainstream social conservatives and social liberals. Former for thinking they can socially engineer people, the latter for producing a huge crop of apologetic beta/omega fail-males.

This is chock full of awesome and vitamin D.

[Marx]

HEALTH BILL MIGHT DIRECT TAX MONEY TO ABORTION
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/health/policy/20abortion.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

An Obama administration official refused Sunday to rule out the possibility that federal tax money might be used to pay for abortions under proposed health care legislation.

Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director, asked whether he was prepared to say that “no taxpayer money will go to pay for abortions,” answered: “I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It’s obviously a controversial issue, and it’s one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.”

Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, who along with Mr. Orszag was asked about the issue on “Fox News Sunday,” said it had the potential to complicate the legislative battle over health care. “I would hate to see the health care debate go down over that issue,” Mr. Gregg said.

Abortion has been simmering behind the scenes as an issue in legislation to guarantee access to health insurance for all Americans. The debate affects not only the public health insurance plan that Democrats want to create, but also private insurers, who would receive tens of billions of dollars of federal subsidies to cover people with low and moderate incomes.

Under the House bill, for example, most insurers would have to provide an “essential benefits package” specified by the health and human services secretary, who would receive recommendations from a federal advisory committee. Opponents of abortion want Congress to prohibit inclusion of abortion in that benefits package, while advocates of abortion rights say the package should be left to medical professionals to determine.

In an analysis of the House bill, the National Right to Life Committee said that ordinary principles of administrative law could allow the Obama administration to determine what would be included in the benefits package. “There is no doubt,” the group said, “that coverage of abortion will be mandated, unless Congress explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of federal authority to define ‘essential benefits.’ ”

Even if the health secretary did not require coverage of abortion, the group said, “federal courts would interpret the broadly worded mandatory categories of coverage to include abortion.”

Susan M. Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, said that most insurance companies offered benefit packages that included abortion coverage but that many employers decided not to buy such packages.

[StorminNorman]

See, I think a strong case can be made that the government should NOT fund abortions. Since the argument is that the government plays no role in the mother's medical care due to her right to privacy, the government has no say in the protection of the unborn child. But I think the case can be made that the government should not facilitate abortion due to the arguable protection a fetus deserves.

It's not necessarily my opinion, but I do think it is a much harder argument to make.

[Kelly]

As long as Planned Parenthood is not funded by my money, and Catholic Hospitals are not forced to do abortions, I'm fine with it.

[Marx]

A new law introduced this month in Ohio would REQUIRE the consent of the father in all abortion cases.

[Mister Sinister]

How does that work in rape cases?

[Paradoxium]

hahahaha that is totally going to piss off teH feminists, I approve :funny::up:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8958/cognaccigar.png

[Marx]

I'm not exactly sure...it was just mentioned on the news. I would think rape is an exception.

[Marlboro Man]

A new law introduced this month in Ohio would REQUIRE the consent of the father in all abortion cases.

I just read about that. Apparently, it would be a crime punishable by jail time for the mother to have an abortion without the father's consent.

I oppose abortion. But I also understand that this is an issue for women's rights, and that the mother should be the one to make the final decision. The worst part about that law is it insists if the mother doesn't know who the father is, she has to make a list of all possible fathers and then take a DNA test, and then the father still gets to decide even though the two were never in a serious relationship. That doesn't do anything for women. It actually says that women don't deserve to make decisions on their own and that men should still run their lives.

[Marx]

I can honestly see both sides of it. On one hand, the father should have input on the decision. On the other hand, if there is a strained relationship, or no relationship at all, I do not think the father should have input.

[Marlboro Man]

I don't think it should be a crime though.

[Marx]

I don't think it should be a crime though.

I do not agree with the 'punishable by jail' part at all. I think that is incredibly demeaning to women.

[Kelly]

Sooooo, the woman gets pregnant, she carries the child for 9 months, goes through the sickness, goes through time out from work, goes the childbirth, and probably carries the majority of the cost....the father of the child doesn't do a ****ing thing.....except ejaculate, and he has a say in whether she keeps the baby? hmmmmm.....

[chaseter]

I am sure there will be a case where the father wants to keep it, the mother doesn't, and we end up with a Mr. Mom scenario. Science is advancing!

[Dude101]

Im pro choice.

[Marx]

SCOTT ROEDER: GEORGE TILLER MURDER WAS JUSTIFIED
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/26/scott-roeder-george-tille_0_n_245084.html

The man accused of killing one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers will get his first look this week at the evidence against him, even as he has called the shooting of Dr. George Tiller justified.

Scott Roeder, 51, is charged with one count of first-degree murder in Tiller's death and two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two ushers who tried to stop him during the May 31 melee in the foyer of the doctor's church.

Unless the defense waives the preliminary hearing set for Tuesday, prosecutors must convince a judge that they have enough evidence to merit a trial. Roeder would then enter a plea.

Tiller, 67, had been the target of relentless protests for most of the 36 years that he performed abortions at his Wichita clinic, where he practiced as one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions. He was shot in both arms by an anti-abortion activist in 1993, and his family said the doctor had been repeatedly threatened over the years.

Prosecutors have largely refused to discuss the case and Roeder's comments to the press. Defense attorneys have not returned calls to The Associated Press seeking comment, and Roeder has declined to say what plea he plans to enter.

Roeder has had plenty else to say, however. With their client itching to talk – and with prosecutors apparently having several witnesses to the shooting – defense attorneys face a difficult case.

[VampElvis]

OK, I'll bite......

State police at the Corunna post have confirmed a well-known anti-abortion activist was shot multiple times and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School.

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/09/antiabortion_activist_shot_in.html

Queue rampant speculation.

[redfirebird2008]

OK, I'll bite......

State police at the Corunna post have confirmed a well-known anti-abortion activist was shot multiple times and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School.

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/09/antiabortion_activist_shot_in.html

Queue rampant speculation.

Hopefully they catch the perpetrator.

[StorminNorman]

I hope Keith Olbermann apologizes for the rhetoric he has used on anti-abortion activists. I hope he can sleep well knowing he has BLOOD on his hands.

[redfirebird2008]

I hope Keith Olbermann apologizes for the rhetoric he has used on anti-abortion activists. I hope he can sleep well knowing he has BLOOD on his hands.

:hehe:

[VampElvis]

Hopefully they catch the perpetrator.

The story said they'd arrested a suspect but they've played it pretty close to the vest as to the details.

[Marx]

I was just reading about this...

[Anita18]

OK, I'll bite......

State police at the Corunna post have confirmed a well-known anti-abortion activist was shot multiple times and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School.

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/09/antiabortion_activist_shot_in.html

Queue rampant speculation.
There are dangerous loonies on both sides, what's there to speculate?

[Marx]

There are dangerous loonies on both sides, what's there to speculate?

Exactly.

[Nivek]

A new law introduced this month in Ohio would REQUIRE the consent of the father in all abortion cases.

So, is there a new mutation in Ohio that allows men to carry children? That's pretty messed up.

[VampElvis]

UPDATE: "Offened" Murder Arrested

http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=349067

.......
As to the reason for the killing of pro-life activist Jim Pouillon, Harlan Drake has told police that he was “offended” by Pouillon’s anti-abortion messages. Neighbors of Jim Pouillon say that he was a quiet man in recent years but his checkered past was a result of his boisterous protests. They have commented that some might not have agreed with his message or his graphic displays of aborted fetus’ on his protest signs but he was quiet man in his older age......

[StorminNorman]

There are dangerous loonies on both sides, what's there to speculate?

Exactly. There are dangerous loonies on both sides - and thus any attempt to try to paint O'Reilly or Beck or Olbermann as guilty parties is foolish.

[Grievous]

A new law introduced this month in Ohio would REQUIRE the consent of the father in all abortion cases.
:up:
How does that work in rape cases?
The Baby never asked to be brought into this world through rape. I say in a case like this if the mother does not want it than once the baby is born they help the women find a family for it.

[Marx]

:up:

The Baby never asked to be brought into this world through rape. I say in a case like this if the mother does not want it than once the baby is born they help the women find a family for it.

I'm still not sure how this law applies to rape cases. By the logic of 'all abortion proceedings would REQUIRE the father's consent', that would suggest that a rapist would have a say so over his victim. In which case, I do not agree with that at all.

[Franklin Richards]

This reminds me of criminals who break in to houses and sue the owners for defending themselves.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Dude101]

If she doesn't want to have the baby tho, you got have to have the abortion rights. Also that law is stupid.

[Marx]

SENATE PANEL REJECTS STRENGTHENING OF ABORTION PROVISION
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/30/senate-panel-rejects-gop-bid-to-strengthen-abortion-provision/

[Grievous]

If she doesn't want to have the baby tho, you got have to have the abortion rights. Also that law is stupid.
In my personal view I see women that want abortion as people that think their above life itself.

[Tally Man]

In my personal view I see women that want abortion as people that think their above life itself.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. -The Dude

Oversimplification much?

[Grievous]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. -The Dude

Oversimplification much?
and I believe my opinion is the truth, so were are you getting at?

[Marx]

and I believe my opinion is the truth, so were are you getting at?

And I believe your opinion is not the truth. Your opinion is your opinion.

[Carcharodon]

and I believe my opinion is the truth, so were are you getting at?Do you need a definition for "oversimplification?" Really?

AND you've never seen The Big Lebowski? Really???

[Marx]

NEW OKLAHOMA LAW TO POST DETAILS OF WOMEN'S ABORTIONS ONLINE
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/08/oklahoma-abortion-online/

Wow...

[Addendum]

Strange. I thought medical records were private

[Nivek]

NEW OKLAHOMA LAW TO POST DETAILS OF WOMEN'S ABORTIONS ONLINE
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/08/oklahoma-abortion-online/

Wow...

Isn't this illegal as all hell? Doesn't this violate basic patient privacy rights?

Do not tell me "less government in our lives" Republicans support this crap...

[Marx]

Strange. I thought medical records were private

Isn't this illegal as all hell? Doesn't this violate basic patient privacy rights?

Do not tell me "less government in our lives" Republicans support this crap...

I think the loophole is that the questionaire that will have to be filled out does not ask for a name or address. What is argued in the article though, is that the questions asked could very well identify a woman who is from a smaller town.

[Nivek]

I think the loophole is that the questionnaire that will have to be filled out does not ask for a name or address. What is argued in the article though, is that the questions asked could very well identify a woman who is from a smaller town.

On that basis alone, this law is unconstitutional. But I think that's the point of this Law, the people who wrote it are trying to shame women into not having Abortions. Sickening... :dry:

[Marx]

On that basis alone, this law is unconstitutional. But I think that's the point of this Law, the people who wrote it are trying to shame women into not having Abortions. Sickening... :dry:

I think so too Nivek. It's like legalizing a scarlet letter branding. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Grievous]

And I believe your opinion is not the truth. Your opinion is your opinion.
note the word believe, and after reading some post I believe that some of you thought I was saying my opinion was the truth. All I said was I believe my opinion is the truth about most women that are pro abortion. I never said it was the truth. Sorry if I did not understand some of your guys post but I still wanted to make my self clear.

[Nivek]

I think so too Nivek. It's like legalizing a scarlet letter branding. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif


Where are the people standing up for these people to uphold individual rights and keeping the government from interfering with their health.

Oh yeah, they are usually the ones holding the Anti-abortion signs... or those damn dirty Liberals running the ACLU.

[Matt]

On that basis alone, this law is unconstitutional. But I think that's the point of this Law, the people who wrote it are trying to shame women into not having Abortions. Sickening... :dry:

Almost as sickening as having your own child killed while it is inside of you.

That said, this law is wrong and starts a very very nasty precedent. Anti-abortion activists go about it the wrong way. I oppose abortion, but I'm also a realist. The problem with the anti-abortion movement is that they are the same people who run to schools with pitchforks and torches when the school tries to teach sexual responsibility or give out condoms. They are the same people who oppose young women being on the pill. If you want to lower the rate of abortions, a little education and wider availability of contraceptives for young people would go a lot further than this.

[Marx]

note the word believe, and after reading some post I believe that some of you thought I was saying my opinion was the truth. All I said was I believe my opinion is the truth about most women that are pro abortion. I never said it was the truth. Sorry if I did not understand some of your guys post but I still wanted to make my self clear.

Thanks for clearing it up. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Almost as sickening as having your own child killed while it is inside of you.

That said, this law is wrong and starts a very very nasty precedent. Anti-abortion activists go about it the wrong way. I oppose abortion, but I'm also a realist. The problem with the anti-abortion movement is that they are the same people who run to schools with pitchforks and torches when the school tries to teach sexual responsibility or give out condoms. They are the same people who oppose young women being on the pill. If you want to lower the rate of abortions, a little education and wider availability of contraceptives for young people would go a lot further than this.

Exactly.

[Manic]

I believe women who shag recklessly and get abortions regularly because a baby might cramp their style are truly despicable people, and they're the kinds of individuals who make me against abortion. If you're raped, however, I think it's okay. If you just don't know how to keep your legs shut though, you should have to deal with the consequences.

However, my opinion on abortion is (I believe) rather moot. As a realist, I know that women who don't want their babies will find ways to get abortions. I'd rather the procedure was legally performed by trained professionals than some women go out and get themselves badly hurt by using a bicycle spoke. There's a very good reason why it became legal a few decades back, and my opinions be damned, I think abortion needs to be legal.

[SpiderByte]

People should have a choice. The government shouldn't decide what we can and can't do with our own lives. What does it matter to them if someone decides they don't want a child? Will it affect the lives of the entire country? Will The world explode? No, it won't.

It's the mother's choice. No matter what anyone says, it all comes down to their choice. If it's so wrong, then they wouldn't do it in the first place, and this thread wouldn't exist.

[Matt]

That is the dumbest logic I have ever heard. "If its wrong then people wouldn't do it in the first place." Apparently murder and rape are just things the right made up to scare you into voting for them during the war on crime. And you say the government shouldn't decide what we do with our own lives but why should the mother decide what to do with an infant's life? Is it okay to kill a 6 month old?

[Franklin Richards]

Has the brain fully developed into a person yet?


According to Medline Plus.

Weeks 25 to 28

* Rapid brain development occurs.
* The nervous system is developed enough to control some body functions.
* The eyelids open and close.
* The respiratory system, while immature, has developed to the point where gas exchange is possible.


That's when they become a person.



:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Addendum]

That is the dumbest logic I have ever heard. "If its wrong then people wouldn't do it in the first place." Apparently murder and rape are just things the right made up to scare you into voting for them during the war on crime. And you say the government shouldn't decide what we do with our own lives but why should the mother decide what to do with an infant's life? Is it okay to kill a 6 month old?

6 months after it's born? No.

[Grievous]

People should have a choice. The government shouldn't decide what we can and can't do with our own lives. What does it matter to them if someone decides they don't want a child? Will it affect the lives of the entire country? Will The world explode? No, it won't.

It's the mother's choice. No matter what anyone says, it all comes down to their choice. If it's so wrong, then they wouldn't do it in the first place, and this thread wouldn't exist.
It's that right there that makes me view most Women that want to have an abortion as people that only care about their self and don't care what the other person thinks.

[Hobgoblin]

I believe women who shag recklessly and get abortions regularly because a baby might cramp their style are truly despicable people, and they're the kinds of individuals who make me against abortion. If you're raped, however, I think it's okay. If you just don't know how to keep your legs shut though, you should have to deal with the consequences.

However, my opinion on abortion is (I believe) rather moot. As a realist, I know that women who don't want their babies will find ways to get abortions. I'd rather the procedure was legally performed by trained professionals than some women go out and get themselves badly hurt by using a bicycle spoke. There's a very good reason why it became legal a few decades back, and my opinions be damned, I think abortion needs to be legal.

Same here. Abortion needs to become far less common, but it must stay legal.

[Addendum]

It's that right there that makes me view most Women that want to have an abortion as people that only care about their self and don't care what the other person thinks.

If a woman chooses to get an abortion or not, it's none of my damn business.

[Grievous]

If a woman chooses to get an abortion or not, it's none of my damn business.
True
But in a case were you told your wife you would like to have a child and she was ok with it but after awhile she changes her mind and wants a abortion is a different story. Because thats your future child she is about to do away with. Also I just wanted to state this because it seems to me that when people defend abortion the first and it seems like the only thing they say is rape. which is a reason but I believe there is a better way than abortion to solve the problem. But the reason I think people always bring up rape is because they can't think of any other good reason to have abortions.

[Addendum]

I don't have a wife. In the highly unlikely and improbable event that that changes, I certainly do not want to be a father.

[Marx]

If a husband and wife are deciding on an abortion, BOTH should have to consent. If a woman is raped by a man, that man should have no say so over his victim.

[Franklin Richards]

True
But in a case were you told your wife you would like to have a child and she was ok with it but after awhile she changes her mind and wants a abortion is a different story. Because thats your future child she is about to do away with. Also I just wanted to state this because it seems to me that when people defend abortion the first and it seems like the only thing they say is rape. which is a reason but I believe there is a better way than abortion to solve the problem. But the reason I think people always bring up rape is because they can't think of any other good reason to have abortions.

Catastrophic birth defects?


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Kelly]

If a husband and wife are deciding on an abortion, BOTH should have to consent. If a woman is raped by a man, that man should have no say so over his victim.

Sure he should have a say, he should be heard....but in the end, it is still her body, her choice.

[Marx]

Sure he should have a say, he should be heard....but in the end, it is still her body, her choice.

Of course it's still her body in the end, but it's her husband. (And the child is just as much his as it is hers.)

[Addendum]

And her decision has more weight, since she's the one pregnant.

Just like his decision regarding a vasectomy has more weight

[Marx]

UPDATE: OKLAHOMA 'PUBLICITY LAW' BLOCKED BY COURT
http://www.womensenews.org/story/reproductive-health/091020/okla-abortion-publicity-law-blocked-court

[Nivek]

Good, maybe the more attention is given to it, it will be gotten rid of. It's a stupid, Illegal law...

[SuBe]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html?test=latestnews

[Hobgoblin]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html?test=latestnews

Pressuring patients to get abortions to increase profits? Sick.



Its absolutely wrong to do that, but I'm still pro-choice.

[Matt]

I'm not sure I'd call myself pro-choice. I am anti-abortion but also anti-regulation (mostly due to potential fall out from such regulation).

[Marx]

Pressuring patients to get abortions to increase profits? Sick.



Its absolutely wrong to do that, but I'm still pro-choice.

Agreed.

I'm not sure I'd call myself pro-choice. I am anti-abortion but also anti-regulation (mostly due to potential fall out from such regulation).

Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion man.

[SuBe]

I am not one to debate Abortion. I never talk about it and I have my opinions of it. I do have a question however for everyone.

I believe that Every Man, Woman, and Child are entitled to the Same rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness (not the guarantee of, mind you). But, my question is, at what point do Rights begin? I am anti-Big Government whether Conservative or Liberal. I don't want Government telling me or anyone else what to do as long as my choices do not harm someone else without their consent. But, at what point do your right to Life kicks in?

I wrestle with this on the Abortion issue, I never want the Government to tell any woman what she MUST do to her own body. But what about the rights of the child to life? I don't think I can ever come to a 100% decision on Abortion, I just wonder what everyone's opinions are on that.

[Marx]

I am not one to debate Abortion. I never talk about it and I have my opinions of it. I do have a question however for everyone.

I believe that Every Man, Woman, and Child are entitled to the Same rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness (not the guarantee of, mind you). But, my question is, at what point do Rights begin? I am anti-Big Government whether Conservative or Liberal. I don't want Government telling me or anyone else what to do as long as my choices do not harm someone else without their consent. But, at what point do your right to Life kicks in?

I wrestle with this on the Abortion issue, I never want the Government to tell any woman what she MUST do to her own body. But what about the rights of the child to life? I don't think I can ever come to a 100% decision on Abortion, I just wonder what everyone's opinions are on that.

In my opinion, the right to life should start the instant the fetus is able to survive OUTSIDE of the mother's womb. (Which is why I am completely opposed to late-term abortion unless the mother's health is in question.)

[Addendum]

But, at what point do your right to Life kicks in?

at birth.

[Matt]

Agreed.



Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion man.

Didn't say it was.

In my opinion, the right to life should start the instant the fetus is able to survive OUTSIDE of the mother's womb. (Which is why I am completely opposed to late-term abortion unless the mother's health is in question.)

Do you believe in the soul, or spirit, or some sort of higher consciousness?

[Anita18]

I'm not sure I'd call myself pro-choice. I am anti-abortion but also anti-regulation (mostly due to potential fall out from such regulation).
I don't think ANYONE on this green earth is "pro-abortion." Unless you absolutely loathe all children and think human beings should die out. :funny:

People who are pro-choice simply don't believe that the government should be able to tell women what to do with their bodies. I think it especially prickles us because of the history of humankind oppressing women in general.

In my opinion, the right to life should start the instant the fetus is able to survive OUTSIDE of the mother's womb. (Which is why I am completely opposed to late-term abortion unless the mother's health is in question.)
The tricky thing is that with improved medical care, the age of viability for a fetus is getting younger and younger. One day a fetus might be able to survive outside the womb for the entire gestation period.

For me, I think a right to life starts when the fetus can breathe on its own outside the mother's womb without any medical intervention. I'm sure there's an age where most fetuses are able to do that.

Also, children don't exactly have the same rights to life as adults do. That's why parents who refuse lifesaving medical treatments for their children always make the news...

[Marx]

Do you believe in the soul, or spirit, or some sort of higher consciousness?

Yes, I do believe in something beyond what we are.

The tricky thing is that with improved medical care, the age of viability for a fetus is getting younger and younger. One day a fetus might be able to survive outside the womb for the entire gestation period.

For me, I think a right to life starts when the fetus can breathe on its own outside the mother's womb without any medical intervention. I'm sure there's an age where most fetuses are able to do that.

Also, children don't exactly have the same rights to life as adults do. That's why parents who refuse lifesaving medical treatments for their children always make the news...

That's pretty much my position as well.

[Paradyme]

I am not one to debate Abortion. I never talk about it and I have my opinions of it. I do have a question however for everyone.

I believe that Every Man, Woman, and Child are entitled to the Same rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness (not the guarantee of, mind you). But, my question is, at what point do Rights begin? I am anti-Big Government whether Conservative or Liberal. I don't want Government telling me or anyone else what to do as long as my choices do not harm someone else without their consent. But, at what point do your right to Life kicks in?

I wrestle with this on the Abortion issue, I never want the Government to tell any woman what she MUST do to her own body. But what about the rights of the child to life? I don't think I can ever come to a 100% decision on Abortion, I just wonder what everyone's opinions are on that.

I'm in the same boat.

I don't think ANYONE on this green earth is "pro-abortion." Unless you absolutely loathe all children and think human beings should die out. :funny:

...

You forgot about that one crazy chick that's aborted some 15 kids out of spite.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1220095/American-abortion-addict-15-terminations-17-years-publishes-memoir.html

[Matt]

Yes, I do believe in something beyond what we are.


And does that effect your views on abortion?

[Marx]

And does that effect your views on abortion?

I am personally opposed to abortion (with the exception of a few situations) but I do not believe that my opinion should be law. I believe everyone should have the option...which is why I am pro-choice.

[Nivek]

For me, I think a right to life starts when the fetus can breathe on its own outside the mother's womb without any medical intervention. I'm sure there's an age where most fetuses are able to do that.



The current definition of legal Birth agrees with you, as do I. :cwink:

[Franklin Richards]

I don't think there is anything beyond. Which is why I not only am Pro-Choice but I eat meat and vegetables. I wear leather and fur. I utilize aloe vera on cuts.


If someone does believe in something beyond that's fine but what makes them so egotistical as to believe that this "beyond" factor is singularly human?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Nivek]

Maybe it's just energy transference, who knows? People see ghosts of animals as well.

[Marx]

I don't think there is anything beyond. Which is why I not only am Pro-Choice but I eat meat and vegetables. I wear leather and fur. I utilize aloe vera on cuts.


If someone does believe in something beyond that's fine but what makes them so egotistical as to believe that this "beyond" factor is singularly human?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

I've seen way too many things to think that there's nothing beyond this.

[Franklin Richards]

Sorry, Marx but I don't believe it. I could easily explain away any phenomenon you've encountered. Plus Occam's Razor leads me to believe that you were mistaken or not being truthful.


No offense. :D


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Marx]

Sorry, Marx but I don't believe it. I could easily explain away any phenomenon you've encountered. Plus Occam's Razor leads me to believe that you were mistaken or not being truthful.


No offense. :D


:thing: :doom: :thing:

None taken. (We're all entitled to our own opinions.)

[Anita18]

And does that effect your views on abortion?
It doesn't for me because a soul only exists relative to the world around it. If someone is never born, I don't think they truly have a soul. They're always the bittersweet potentiality of what might have been, but I don't think the souls of unborn babies haunt us or anything.

Like, if there was nothing at all in existence except for the black vacuum of space, I don't believe souls could exist. Something must have lived to see at least a moment of this earth and its wonders before it can have a soul, in my opinion.

[Venomfan]

anybody know if this is real?
http://www.breitbart.tv/planned-parenthood-leader-resigns-after-watching-ultrasound-of-abortion-procedure/

[Marx]

OBAMA HEADS TO CAPITOL HILL AS ABORTION ISSUE LOOMS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/07/obama-visits-capitol-hill-as-abortion-issue-looms/

[Manic]

My immediate thought was "there's an abortion issue looming any more than usual?" But upon reading it, it turns out some people don't want abortion covered by the public option except in cases of incest, rape, and the mother's health. I say drop it. It's too much of a hot-button issue, and women who want non-important abortions will just continue doing what they always do.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal, but unless in cases of incest, rape, and mother's health, elective procedures should not be covered by our government.

I'd rather have my tax dollars go to a procedure that people actually need like immunizations required for a child to go to school or an organ transplant to a dying person than an abortion that is needed because someone forgot to use birth control.

[Grievous]

at birth.
I'm not a doctor and someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the baby's heart starts beating before birth right? Anyway if I'm right than your wrong about life starting at birth because I say anything with a heartbeat reguardless of it's current state is life.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm not a doctor and someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the baby's heart starts beating before birth right? Anyway if I'm right than your wrong about life starting at birth because I say anything with a heartbeat reguardless of it's current state is life.

I'm not the type of person who goes off saying that life begins at conception due to any spiritual meanings or because I'm pro-life (I'm actually pro-choice), but life beginning at conception is scientific fact.

New genetic material is created once the sperm and egg cells fuse together and cells are in a technical manner alive.

Sure it's alive in the same manner that bacteria and protists are when conception occurs, but it develops into something much more complex developing brain activity, a heart beat, and other functions that create a sustainable human being. Something that can't happen if the cells were dead.

[Addendum]

The rights that citizens of the US have are only obtained by 1) birth on US soil, or 2) through the immigration process. They are not obtained simply through conception. Plus, everyone on the planet celebrates "birthdays", not "conceptiondays" or "second month day"

So the "right to life" or "at what points do one's rights begin" happen at birth.

[hippie_hunter]

The rights that citizens of the US have are only obtained by 1) birth on US soil, or 2) through the immigration process. They are not obtained simply through conception. Plus, everyone on the planet celebrates "birthdays", not "conceptiondays" or "second month day"

So the "right to life" or "at what points do one's rights begin" happen at birth.

There's a difference between that and biology. There is life beyond just human beings and what we view on culture. Hell with that logic, dogs, plants, mushrooms, etc. aren't alive either.

A fetus isn't alive in the same manner that you and I are alive, but it fulfills all the criteria that scientists consider to be criteria for life. At first it would be comparable to life of bacteria and protists (which are alive as well) but eventually develops into a far more complex multi-celled organism.

[Addendum]

But SuBe's question was regarding when one's rights begin. That happens at birth, not earlier.

[hippie_hunter]

But SuBe's question was regarding when one's rights begin. That happens at birth, not earlier.

In that case I do agree that rights as a human being begin at birth.

That said I do support things such as double homicide on pregnant women.

[Addendum]

Lawyers have student loans as well, so I don't mind it

[Marx]

NEW ABORTION NUMBERS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/30/abortion-us-states-obama-healthcare-data

[Marx]

OKLAHOMA JUDGE EXTENDS HOLD ON ABORTION LAW
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/19/oklahoma-judge-extends-hold-on-controversial-abortion-law/

[SuperFerret]

I'm for abortions. I think that there's enough people in this world that we don't need every pregnancy to reach full term, even considering natural miscarriages and such.

As an aside, I hate the whole "Pro-Life"/"Pro-Choice" labeling system. I'm both pro-choice (in that I support choices and having options open) and pro-life (in that I feel that life in general is precious), and neither of those opinions have anything to do with abortion inherently.

[Kelly]

I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal, but unless in cases of incest, rape, and mother's health, elective procedures should not be covered by our government.

I'd rather have my tax dollars go to a procedure that people actually need like immunizations required for a child to go to school or an organ transplant to a dying person than an abortion that is needed because someone forgot to use birth control.I

I agree, I'm pro-choice, but I do not want it to be covered by my taxes. I'm also afraid, that if we go that direction, we will end up also covering late term, and partial birth abortions on down the road. I do not believe in those types of abortions. It seems that with the government, you give them a little, they end up taking your ass.

And yes, I have absolutely no problem with my tax dollars paying for immunizations kids need for school. As far as transplants, if it is a child, and not some alcoholic that destroyed his/her liver, or chain smoker that destroyed his/her heart, definitely.

[Carcharodon]

As far as transplants, if it is a child, and not some alcoholic that destroyed his/her liver, or chain smoker that destroyed his/her heart, definitely.You're aware that those people are usually at the bottom of the list, or don't make the list at all, right? They have a system for determining who gets which organs already.

[Carcharodon]

That said I do support things such as double homicide on pregnant women.I really don't think this sounds like you want it to sound. :huh:

[Kelly]

You're aware that those people are usually at the bottom of the list, or don't make the list at all, right? They have a system for determining who gets which organs already.

Yeah...So? doesn't change my statement...

[Tally Man]

I agree, I'm pro-choice, but I do not want it to be covered by my taxes. I'm also afraid, that if we go that direction, we will end up also covering late term, and partial birth abortions on down the road. I do not believe in those types of abortions. It seems that with the government, you give them a little, they end up taking your ass.

Just wondering that since these abortions make up a very small portion of the procedures done in terms of actual abortions where the fear of government funded partial birth abortions or late term abortions comes from?

[Marx]

ROEDER DENIED 'NECESSITY DEFENSE' IN TILLER MURDER CASE
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/22/kansas.doctor.killed/index.html

[Brock]

I'm for abortions. I think that there's enough people in this world that we don't need every pregnancy to reach full term, even considering natural miscarriages and such.

As an aside, I hate the whole "Pro-Life"/"Pro-Choice" labeling system. I'm both pro-choice (in that I support choices and having options open) and pro-life (in that I feel that life in general is precious), and neither of those opinions have anything to do with abortion inherently.
That statement is beyond a worrisome opinion. With that logic a murder is fine, simply because there's so many people already in the world that we don't need the stress of the extra life. On that reasoning you would support any loss of life.

[Marx]

I just read an AP article that is reporting college football star, Tim Tebow, and his mother will appear in a 'Focus on the Family' anti-abortion SUPER BOWL ad to 'celebrate life'.

:dry:

[Kelly]

That's his choice...

[Grievous]

I just read an AP article that is reporting college football star, Tim Tebow, and his mother will appear in a 'Focus on the Family' anti-abortion SUPER BOWL ad to 'celebrate life'.

:dry:
:up:

If I was on a major sports team I would try to get some anti-abortion words out whenever I had some time too.

[Grievous]

If that :dry: is aimed at me let me just say what this football star is doing is no different then all the women that stop you on the street and try to get you to sign something that says your for Abortion. We have just as much right to use are power to try to stop something as much as other people who try to get something.

[StorminNorman]

I just read an AP article that is reporting college football star, Tim Tebow, and his mother will appear in a 'Focus on the Family' anti-abortion SUPER BOWL ad to 'celebrate life'.

:dry:

Tebow!

The fact that Tebow was almost aborted is just too perfect. Too perfect.

[Cuyan]

If that :dry: is aimed at me let me just say what this football star is doing is no different then all the women that stop you on the street and try to get you to sign something that says your for Abortion. We have just as much right to use are power to try to stop something as much as other people who try to get something.
Except I am not going out of my way to force my opinion on other people. Every belief/opinion has soldiers that make the rest look ignorant.

[StorminNorman]

Except I am not going out of my way to force my opinion on other people. Every belief/opinion has soldiers that make the rest look ignorant.

How is Tim Tebow speaking about an issue he cares about "forcing an opinion on others"?

[Cuyan]

When did I talk about Tim Tebow?

[Marx]

:up:

If I was on a major sports team I would try to get some anti-abortion words out whenever I had some time too.

Tebow certainly has a right to express his opinion. The issue I have is that this is going to be a commercial in the Super Bowl. I think that's inappropriate.

[Carcharodon]

Tebow certainly has a right to express his opinion. The issue I have is that this is going to be a commercial in the Super Bowl. I think that's inappropriate.Has there ever been a pro-choice ad during the Super Bowl? Would that likewise be inappropriate?

[Marx]

Has there ever been a pro-choice ad during the Super Bowl? Would that likewise be inappropriate?

I honestly don't know if there's been a pro-choice ad before...either way, that too would be inappropriate. There should be no place for political opinion commericals to run during Super Bowl programming.

[Paradoxium]

In poor tact? Possibly. As long as the money is out of their own pockets, they can do whatever the hell they want. No, if it is a majority federally funded organizations... they can rot in the pits of Tartarus condemned to watch reruns of Smallville.

[Kelly]

In poor tact? Possibly. As long as the money is out of their own pockets, they can do whatever the hell they want. No, if it is a majority federally funded organizations... they can rot in the pits of Tartarus condemned to watch reruns of Smallville.

Exactly....if they (whatever group is dishing out the money) can pay the millions for the time, then they have every right to put the commercial, PSA, whatever out there. They have a right to spend their money however they want.

If I wanted to pay millions and have a PSA made saying that Houston I.S.D.'s new proposal to use student's grades on the State TEKS test as the major reason for firing is WRONG, I sure as hell have the right to do that, and this group has the right as well.

BTW, I don't have millions to do that....

AND, if its a group getting any of my tax dollars, then that would be a nogo as well...

[Marx]

HLN is reporting that Roeder took the stand today in the Tiller murder trial. He admitted to shooting Dr. Tiller and said that he did it to 'save the lives of unborn children'.

[Marx]

ROEDER HAS 'NO REGRETS'
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/28/abortion.roeder.testifies/index.html?hpt=T1

[SentinelMind]

Tebow certainly has a right to express his opinion. The issue I have is that this is going to be a commercial in the Super Bowl. I think that's inappropriate.

Yeah, CBS should replace it will another of their 10 ads of young men in a club eye hopping skimpy, drunk, and willing women.

[Addendum]

Politics and the Superbowl are an unhealthy combination

[Cuyan]

Yeah, CBS should replace it will another of their 10 ads of young men in a club eye hopping skimpy, drunk, and willing women.
Are these condom commercials or are these just pictures in your head?

[Kelly]

As far as the Tebow thing, just from what I've heard about the commercial (I can't say for sure because I haven't seen it...) but from what I've heard, it sounds to me like they are not saying anything about "taking away a woman's choice"...but simply trying to convince people to simply have the baby...

As I said, I don't know for sure...but that is an assumption I'm willing to make, and with that assumption...as a person who is "pro-choice" I don't really see a problem with that...it is their First Amendment right, not sure why its being shown during the Super Bowl, but hey again, if they have the 2 million they can buy time on any program they want. The Pro-abortion groups can buy time as well, hell they would have celebrities out the waazoo ready to film something for free....but I don't think they are actually sure that coming out with a strong "pro-abortion" thing would work. I think they truly believe that it is possible that it is how I described it, and they are afraid that their commercial would come off as much too harsh.

I just don't see the big deal...as I said I a m Pro-Choice, I am not necessarily Pro-Abortion, but I sure as hell don't have a problem with a woman's choice, to have the child, or not to have the child...that is what the choice is all about. Seems to me this is a commercial telling the story of a woman who made the "choice" to keep her child. So what...?

[Addendum]

I mute the commercials during the Superbowl anyway

[Kelly]

My church had a Super Bowl Party back in the 90's when the Cowboys were playing...and all the departments in the church did their own commercials and we played them during the SB commercials...they were HILARIOUS. Best Super Bowl I've ever seen. It was great....but I am the same Ad...except that I will simply record the SB, and start watching 15 minutes after kick off, and I will just fast forward through the commercials.

[Paradoxium]

bleh team sports were never my thing (to watch anyways)

[Addendum]

I'd rather watch them than play them. I love the indoors

[Timstuff]

As far as the Tebow thing, just from what I've heard about the commercial (I can't say for sure because I haven't seen it...) but from what I've heard, it sounds to me like they are not saying anything about "taking away a woman's choice"...but simply trying to convince people to simply have the baby...

As I said, I don't know for sure...but that is an assumption I'm willing to make, and with that assumption...as a person who is "pro-choice" I don't really see a problem with that...it is their First Amendment right, not sure why its being shown during the Super Bowl, but hey again, if they have the 2 million they can buy time on any program they want. The Pro-abortion groups can buy time as well, hell they would have celebrities out the waazoo ready to film something for free....but I don't think they are actually sure that coming out with a strong "pro-abortion" thing would work. I think they truly believe that it is possible that it is how I described it, and they are afraid that their commercial would come off as much too harsh.

I just don't see the big deal...as I said I a m Pro-Choice, I am not necessarily Pro-Abortion, but I sure as hell don't have a problem with a woman's choice, to have the child, or not to have the child...that is what the choice is all about. Seems to me this is a commercial telling the story of a woman who made the "choice" to keep her child. So what...?

How the heck is a pro-choice superbowl ad supposed to work, anyway? They don't allow political ads (i.e. nothing regarding voting or politicians), so what would they do? It's easy to make a pro-life ad without getting political, because you can just appeal to expecting parents and make the case for why you should let the baby be born. If you tried to do a similar ad that was pro abortion, it would come across as Bob Barker imploring you to spay or neuter your pets, except it's talking about aborting human babies.

*Gentle piano music plays in the background. Ashley Judd steps forward, while a photo montage plays in the background showing single people enjoying aspects of life without kids, like college, traveling, dating, etc., along with footage of nature being destroyed by overpopulating humans*

Ashley Judd: "The world is overpopulated. If you don't need that fetus, please do planet earth a favor and abort it. Think of all the money you'll save! No daipers, no asking mom to baby sit so you can study for finals, no long arguments about how you don't 'get them' when they turn 13. It's your choice, so know your options."

No matter how mild you try to make the message, it will inevitably come across as being in bad taste. It's one thing to make the case for choice, but since that's political they superbowl won't allow it, so ultimately a pro-choice superbowl commercial would have to make the case for abortion itself, and that would not go over well with very many people.

[Marx]

BREAKING NEWS!

After debating for 37 minutes, the jury has found Scott Roeder GUILTY of first degree manslaughter in the case of murdering Dr. George Tiller.

[Kelly]

It took 37 minutes?....I guess the jury foreman was a slow writer...lol

[Anita18]

BREAKING NEWS!

After debating for 37 minutes, the jury has found Scott Roeder GUILTY of first degree manslaughter in the case of murdering Dr. George Tiller.
They convicted him of first degree MURDER. Huge difference there. :oldrazz:

Good. I'm glad his "I was only doing it to save children" defense didn't work. What a bunch of hooey - he KILLED someone in cold blood. He got what he deserved.

[Kelly]

They are now looking at the automatic 25 year chance at parole, and changing that to 50....I hope they get that change...

But, of course this comes with an automatic appeal, so this ******* gets more taxpayer money.

[Marx]

They convicted him of first degree MURDER. Huge difference there. :oldrazz:

Good. I'm glad his "I was only doing it to save children" defense didn't work. What a bunch of hooey - he KILLED someone in cold blood. He got what he deserved.

Was he convicted of murder? I'll have to go back and read it...I thought it said manslaughter. :O

I thought it was interesting that he was so cold and blunt. He's so against murder, that he commits it to stop someone from doing something he doesn't approve of.

[Grievous]

How the heck is a pro-choice superbowl ad supposed to work, anyway? They don't allow political ads (i.e. nothing regarding voting or politicians), so what would they do? It's easy to make a pro-life ad without getting political, because you can just appeal to expecting parents and make the case for why you should let the baby be born. If you tried to do a similar ad that was pro abortion, it would come across as Bob Barker imploring you to spay or neuter your pets, except it's talking about aborting human babies.

*Gentle piano music plays in the background. Ashley Judd steps forward, while a photo montage plays in the background showing single people enjoying aspects of life without kids, like college, traveling, dating, etc., along with footage of nature being destroyed by overpopulating humans*

Ashley Judd: "The world is overpopulated. If you don't need that fetus, please do planet earth a favor and abort it. Think of all the money you'll save! No daipers, no asking mom to baby sit so you can study for finals, no long arguments about how you don't 'get them' when they turn 13. It's your choice, so know your options."

No matter how mild you try to make the message, it will inevitably come across as being in bad taste. It's one thing to make the case for choice, but since that's political they superbowl won't allow it, so ultimately a pro-choice superbowl commercial would have to make the case for abortion itself, and that would not go over well with very many people.
Case and point that abortion is a selfish and evil act. I say if your willing to risk having a baby then you should have to go through with having one aswell. Maybe it will teach people to stop being careless. People must stop getting the idea that they can do what ever they want and just have the baby killed before birth and that way it won't be considered murder.

[Grievous]

Tebow certainly has a right to express his opinion. The issue I have is that this is going to be a commercial in the Super Bowl. I think that's inappropriate.
just because it is a big show does not mean it is inappropriate. If you want to get a message across than you should look for the best way to. The Super Bowl is no different than any other game when it comes to getting messages across. I just hope there will be more people with the sense at the game to clap instead of boo when the ad goes off.

[Marx]

just because it is a big show does not mean it is inappropriate. If you want to get a message across than you should look for the best way to. The Super Bowl is no different than any other game when it comes to getting messages across. I just hope there will be more people with the sense at the game to clap instead of boo when the ad goes off.

*looks over at Grievous' avvy* :up:

The Super Bowl is no place for politically charged ads. (No matter what the issue is.)

[Kelly]

Freedom of Speech says otherwise...

And I really have to actually see the ad before I call it political or not...

[Marx]

Freedom of Speech says otherwise...

And I really have to actually see the ad before I call it political or not...

If that were true, CBS wouldn't have rejected a gay dating website Super Bowl ad. Pretty hypocritical to allow ads for 'Go Daddy', Tim Tebow anti-abortion, and straight dating websites.

[Kelly]

We don't know what was in that ad, just as we don't know what is in Tebow, or if it is even an anti-abortion ad...only CBS has seen the ads...and it is their choice of what they show and don't. So, if we are going to say that its not Freedom of Speech, ok....but its CBS' choice, so they don't have to allow that freedom to happen on their network if they don't want to...

So ***** at CBS, the organization that paid for the Tebow Ad has every right to put forth the ad and if CBS says yes or no...is their choice.

[Addendum]

Freedom of speech and CBS deciding what ads to air on it's network and affiliates are 2 separate things.

[Kelly]

Possibly, but in this case....the group putting together the ad has freedom of speech to back them, and CBS can make whatever call they want on who and what they include during the Super Bowl. So in this case, they are related to an extent.

The group has the right to pay the money for the ad, and CBS has the right to allow it. Pretty simple, and don't see much of a problem with it.

[Addendum]

Freedom of speech only applies if the government decides to prohibit the ad from playing.

If CBS decides to not run the ad, it's simply a business decision. Nothing more.

[SentinelMind]

Why can't companies be allowed to choose what type of ads they want to show on their programming? Why do Far Leftists feel they have to dictate what type of commercials and programs private companies must or mustn't show on their network?

[Addendum]

Why can't companies be allowed to choose what type of ads they want to show on their programming?

If CBS decides not to run the ad, they do so of their own volition :dry:

No one here is forcing CBS one way or another. Just simply stating opinion.

[SentinelMind]

Pro-abortion groups are working around the clock to stop the ad.

But I agree, let's allow CBS to make business decisions about their own network.

[Addendum]

If some pro-choice group wants to spend money over a commercial, I don't care. If another pro-life group wants to spend money to support the ad, I don't care.

[Kelly]

If some pro-choice group wants to spend money over a commercial, I don't care. If another pro-life group wants to spend money to support the ad, I don't care.

That is the way I look at it, I just don't see the big deal in all of this...

CBS has seen the commercial, if there was anything that would throw them under the bus they wouldn't allow it....

BUT, I will say, that I think the Pro-abortion advocates would have a tough time putting out a commercial that would not be too controversial....simply because we are a center/right country at the moment. IN FACT, I would be interested to see a commercial that might be a counter to this. I think the problem is, this isn't really a PRO-LIFE commercial, so they might would have a problem putting out a counter to it.

[SentinelMind]

None of us have seen the ad, but if the ad distinctly tells viewers to vote/contact certain politicians, change laws, support certain justices, or overturn Roe v Wade, I would agree with some of the criticism. But if it simply Tim Tebow celebrating his life and tell his personal story, I don't think much criticism is warranted.
If a doctor discourages someone from getting an abortion, is the doctor making a political statement? You can't say simply encouraging or discouraging someone from making a certain health-related decision is an automatically example of political activity. Would an ad encouraging women to get more breast cancer check-ups during superbowl or donating facilities that do so upset the Far Left? I doubt it.

[Addendum]

It doesn't matter to me what the "far left" thinks or the "far right". If either idiotic group wants to waste money on political ads during the Superbowl, it's their money plus the money of the gullible that donated. It'll simply be another commercial on mute during the game.

[Kelly]

None of us have seen the ad, but if the ad distinctly tells viewers to vote/contact certain politicians, change laws, support certain justices, or overturn Roe v Wade, I would agree with some of the criticism. But if it simply Tim Tebow celebrating his life and tell his personal story, I don't think much criticism is warranted.
If a doctor discourages someone from getting an abortion, is the doctor making a political statement? You can't say simply encouraging or discouraging someone from making a certain health-related decision is an automatically example of political activity. Would an ad encouraging women to get more breast cancer check-ups during superbowl or donating facilities that do so upset the Far Left? I doubt it.


From what I heard it doesn't, it is simply an ad about someone who "chose" to keep their baby.....which IMO is a part of the "Pro-Choice" that many forget about.

BUT, if it is as you say, then yeah there is room for criticism, but they still have everyright to say it, and CBS has every right to allow it. IMO. I don't believe we have a law out there that states it can't be done. Until then, they have every right.

[Marx]

Why can't companies be allowed to choose what type of ads they want to show on their programming? Why do Far Leftists feel they have to dictate what type of commercials and programs private companies must or mustn't show on their network?

This has nothing to do with 'far leftists'.

:dry:

[Anita18]

Was he convicted of murder? I'll have to go back and read it...I thought it said manslaughter. :O

I thought it was interesting that he was so cold and blunt. He's so against murder, that he commits it to stop someone from doing something he doesn't approve of.
I think only the murder charge comes in degrees. Manslaughter is either voluntary or involuntary. I watch too much Law and Order. :oldrazz:

Yeah, that was the whole hypocrite thing about it. Plus he gunned him down in front of his wife IN CHURCH. He might have gotten a little more leeway (I hope not, but I could see it happening) if he had shot Tiller in his clinic.

BUT, I will say, that I think the Pro-abortion advocates would have a tough time putting out a commercial that would not be too controversial....simply because we are a center/right country at the moment. IN FACT, I would be interested to see a commercial that might be a counter to this. I think the problem is, this isn't really a PRO-LIFE commercial, so they might would have a problem putting out a counter to it.
Are we? I have the feeling that most people are centrists - fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I'm exactly that way, but overall I side with the Democrats because the Republicans still have that socially conservative thing going on.

It's only the extremists you hear from because they squawk the loudest, but I don't think "most people" are center/right in all aspects of politics.

[Carcharodon]

None of us have seen the ad, but if the ad distinctly tells viewers to vote/contact certain politicians, change laws, support certain justices, or overturn Roe v Wade, I would agree with some of the criticism. But if it simply Tim Tebow celebrating his life and tell his personal story, I don't think much criticism is warranted.
If a doctor discourages someone from getting an abortion, is the doctor making a political statement? You can't say simply encouraging or discouraging someone from making a certain health-related decision is an automatically example of political activity. Would an ad encouraging women to get more breast cancer check-ups during superbowl or donating facilities that do so upset the Far Left? I doubt it.Agreed.

I don't think it's wrong to try to convince people NOT to have an abortion. In fact, that's probably a good thing.

I do think it's wrong to use that platform to try to make a statement about the legality and morality of abortion, though.

[Heretic]

Ads are run all the time telling people to call their congressman. Im nt sure why abortion should be banned from that.

[Carcharodon]

I don't think anybody is arguing that it should be banned, are they?

[Heretic]

Well, I suppose some people are saying that they shouldnt be allowed to run the ad.

There are standards, of course, that I would place on this sort of thing. The only one I can think of right now would be NAMBLA though. Otherwise, let the different groups fight it out. Heck, have Pro-life choose one football team and pro-choice the other, and whichever team wins tips the law. That would make as much sense as a lot of what happens in Washington.

[Marx]

FIRST TIM TEBOW SUPER BOWL AD AIRS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/07/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-v_n_436383.html

[Kelly]

OMG, that was horrible....lol

[Kelly]

OMG, that was horrible....lol

[VampElvis]

Funny stuff - almost makes me wished I'd watched the game......... almost.

[Kelly]

I watched it, but I graded papers and put grades into the computer for the entire game. The only advertisment I actually watched when it was on was the Snicker's commercial with Abe Vagoda and Betty White.

[SentinelMind]

Wow, the pro-abortion movement got owned really hard by that Tebow ad. Sad to see all that prejudicial outrage wasted.

[VampElvis]

hAHAHAHAHAhHAHAhHHAhHAHAAhaHa
You said it!

[Marx]

Wow, the pro-abortion movement got owned really hard by that Tebow ad. Sad to see all that prejudicial outrage wasted.

To be fair, when you hear 'Tim Tebow' and 'Focus on the Family' in the same sentence, coming to the conclusion that it is an over the top anti-abortion ad isn't that hard to do.

[Addendum]

I'd rather that Focus on the Family would just concern themselves with their own families, and let other families be.

[Kelly]

To be fair, when you hear 'Tim Tebow' and 'Focus on the Family' in the same sentence, coming to the conclusion that it is an over the top anti-abortion ad isn't that hard to do.

Once I saw a description of the ads about 2 weeks ago...I pretty much figured out there wasn't a lot to it.

[Marx]

I'd rather that Focus on the Family would just concern themselves with their own families, and let other families be.

Same here Add.

[VampElvis]

So you guys are against activism? Or do you have a particular grief with this group? (Sorry for the edit, accidentally submitted before I was finished)

[Marx]

So you guys are against activism?

...only when it's hypocritical and bigoted. :cwink:

[Addendum]

So you guys are against activism?

Just be active with your family

[VampElvis]

...only when it's hypocritical and bigoted. :cwink:

I'll ignore the bigoted part lest this degenerate into religious demagoguery, but in what way are they hypocritical in regard to this family activism? I know little about the organization which is why I ask. I don't find their broadcast particularly entertaining so I never listen. I'm hoping you'll enlighten me. Feel free to PM if you fear the thread being hijacked further.

[Kelly]

I'll ignore the bigoted part lest this degenerate into religious demagoguery, but in what way are they hypocritical in regard to this family activism? I know little about the organization which is why I ask. I don't find their broadcast particularly entertaining so I never listen. I'm hoping you'll enlighten me. Feel free to PM if you fear the thread being hijacked further.


http://www.focusonthefamily.com/

Develop your own opinion on them...:yay:

[Kelly]

Since we are talking about hypocrisy....how is THIS FOR hypocrisy...

National Organization for Women upset over 'domestic violence' in Tebow pro-life ad?


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/National-Organization-for-Women-upset-83814942.html#ixzz0ez7VbYsU[[ (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/National-Organization-for-Women-upset-83814942.html#ixzz0ez7VbYsU)

NOW president Terry O'Neill said it glorified violence against women. "I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it," she said. "That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."




The link has the commercial....

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET....she says nothing about this commercial...

X1Sv_z9jm8A


Hmmmmmm....... :huh:

[SentinelMind]

To be fair, when you hear 'Tim Tebow' and 'Focus on the Family' in the same sentence, coming to the conclusion that it is an over the top anti-abortion ad isn't that hard to do.


No, Focus on the Family provides many health and psychological services families (marriage counseling, addiction relief) in this country, they're brand is not simply limited to anti-abortion. Tim Tebow is a Christian college league-winning football player and while he has spoken about his faith on the field, I doubt being anti-abortion is the first thing most think about when they hear his name. I think NOW and other Far Leftists have blown their top because they feel threatened by the mere suggestion of an idea that doesn't fit in their ideology.


I'd rather that Focus on the Family would just concern themselves with their own families, and let other families be.

If other Focus on Family wants to reach out to families in distress and those families want their help, why does anybody care? Oh, because the group doesn't support a pro-abortion agenda. I got it.

[Addendum]

Please. They just want the families money. If they actually help the family, that's simply an unintended consequence.

[VampElvis]

Mother furious after in-school clinic sets up teen's abortion


http://www.komonews.com/news/local/88971742.html

What the hell?

Originally printed at http://www.komonews.com/news/local/88971742.html
SEATTLE -- The mother of a Ballard High School student is fuming after the health center on campus helped facilitate her daughter's abortion during school hours.
The mother, whom KOMO News has chosen to identify only as "Jill," says the clinic kept the information "confidential."
When she signed a consent form, Jill figured it meant her 15 year old could go to the Ballard Teen Health Center located inside the high school for an earache, a sports physical, even birth control, but not for help terminating a pregnancy.
"She took a pregnancy test at school at the teen health center," she said. "Nowhere in this paperwork does it mention abortion or facilitating abortion."
Jill says her daughter, a pro-life advocate, was given a pass, put in a taxi and sent off to have an abortion during school hours all without her family knowing.
"We had no idea this was being facilitated on campus," said Jill. "They just told her that if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free of charge and no financial responsibility."
The Seattle School District says it doesn't run the health clinics at high schools. Swedish Medical Center runs the clinic at Ballard High and protects the students' privacy.
T.J. Cosgrove of the King County Health Department, which administers the school-based programs for the health department, says it's always best if parents are involved in their children's health care, but don't always have a say.
"At any age in the state of Washington, an individual can consent to a termination of pregnancy," he said.
But Jill says she not only didn't have a say in her daughter's abortion, but also didn't know about it.
"Makes me feel like my rights were completely stripped away."

[Matt]

Yeah, she ought to sue the hell out of everyone involved.

[Franklin Richards]

That story is hard to believe in this day and age.

A person of any age can consent to an abortion? What?

You can't buy a drink until you're 21. Is this a Washington State thing?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Mystirious]

But Jill says she not only didn't have a say in her daughter's abortion, but also didn't know about it.
"Makes me feel like my rights were completely stripped away."



May I ask what right this foolish woman believes she had to decide whether her daughter kept the baby or not?

Her daughter's body is her own personal property. She should have final say of what gets put into it or taken out of it. If she chose to have an abortion I do not see how it is any of her mother's business.

[Bathead]

Well, from my understanding of the lawis,until the girl is 18 yrs.old , her parents are totally responsible for her. Whether or not this includes something like abortion I guess depends on specific state law. I would think at the very least, the mother should have been notified, but the final decision is totally up to the girl.

[Carcharodon]

Well, from my understanding of the lawis,until the girl is 18 yrs.old , her parents are totally responsible for her. Whether or not this includes something like abortion I guess depends on specific state law. I would think at the very least, the mother should have been notified, but the final decision is totally up to the girl.Doctor-Patient confidentiality often (if not always, I don't know) comes into effect well before 18.

Was the school outside of its legal rights?

[Majic Walrus]

May I ask what right this foolish woman believes she had to decide whether her daughter kept the baby or not?

Her daughter's body is her own personal property. She should have final say of what gets put into it or taken out of it. If she chose to have an abortion I do not see how it is any of her mother's business.

It might sound harsh, but as long as she has custody of her daughter legally she has the right to know anything and everything in her daughter's life. She can decide what flavors of soda she drinks, what she watches on TV, and what color socks she wears if she wants to.

Can she decide about an abortion? Yeah it's an elective medical procedure that must have consent and she's the person who does that. It appears that she signed a document that the teen health center thought gave them the right to, " put [her daughter] in a taxi and sent off to have an abortion during school hours all without her family knowing."

I just can't believe that it did. A parent has the right to know where their kid is when they send them to school. It's why school aged kids still have to get consent forms signed to go on field trips. And I'm pretty sure that "getting an abortion" falls under the "get consent" section of what to do.

[Mystirious]

It might sound harsh, but as long as she has custody of her daughter legally she has the right to know anything and everything in her daughter's life. She can decide what flavors of soda she drinks, what she watches on TV, and what color socks she wears if she wants to.

I disagree with all of the above.

I just can't believe that it did. A parent has the right to know where their kid is when they send them to school. It's why school aged kids still have to get consent forms signed to go on field trips. And I'm pretty sure that "getting an abortion" falls under the "get consent" section of what to do.

As far as I am concerned the only person who's consent they required was the person actually having the abortion. It is her body. No one else has the right to tell her what to do with it. Least of all her clearly mentally unbalanced mother

[Matt]

If the state requires the parents to financially support the child (and they do. At this point in her life, if they threw her out, they'd be charged with abandoning a minor) then they have the right to at least have a say in her medical care.

[Kelly]

Exactly Marx...

[Majic Walrus]

I disagree with all of the above.

As far as I am concerned the only person who's consent they required was the person actually having the abortion. It is her body. No one else has the right to tell her what to do with it. Least of all her clearly mentally unbalanced mother

So what rights to parents have to raise their kid?

[SentinelMind]

This is disgusting and yet does not surprise me. School boards now beginning to think they have a right to be your child's substitute parent.


May I ask what right this foolish woman believes she had to decide whether her daughter kept the baby or not?

Her daughter's body is her own personal property. She should have final say of what gets put into it or taken out of it. If she chose to have an abortion I do not see how it is any of her mother's business.

A mother has a right to know about and giving consent about her child's health. If the child is dependent of hers in tax return and in law, she is her guardian. I don't see how anyone can argue that a mother doesn't have a right to know the high school is facilitating her child's abortion, even if for some twisted reason you think the child should have the final word.

Why is a high school facility even facilitating abortions?

[redfirebird2008]

Why is a high school facility even facilitating abortions?


Excellent question.

[Mystirious]

So what rights to parents have to raise their kid?

She can raise her child. Though it sounds to me like she is a rather poor parent.

I just do not believe she has any right to say whether or not her daughter gets an abortion or not.


A mother has a right to know about and giving consent about her child's health. If the child is dependent of hers in tax return and in law, she is her guardian. I don't see how anyone can argue that a mother doesn't have a right to know the high school is facilitating her child's abortion, even if for some twisted reason you think the child should have the final word.


I think that the child shuld have the final word because it is her body and her body belongs to her and her alone. Therefore she has the right to decide whether she wants an abortion or not.

Her mother is one of those Pro-Life lunatics. It is clearly a good idea not to inform her of the abortion.

[Addendum]

Patients have the final word, no matter the age.

[SentinelMind]

Being opposed to abortion on moral grounds makes you a lunatic? How dare you believe in sanctity of life? Americans are sick and tired of secularists and statists thrusting their agenda down American families at their peril.

The school should have been required to inform the parent of any medical procedure going on tax-payer funded educational facilities, especially in areas where a child cannot legally avoid attending like a public school.

[StorminNorman]

She can raise her child. Though it sounds to me like she is a rather poor parent.

I just do not believe she has any right to say whether or not her daughter gets an abortion or not.

I think that the child shuld have the final word because it is her body and her body belongs to her and her alone. Therefore she has the right to decide whether she wants an abortion or not.

Her mother is one of those Pro-Life lunatics. It is clearly a good idea not to inform her of the abortion.

The problem is that 14 and 15 and 16 year old girls cannot possibly grasp the seriousness of the problem (if they had, they probably wouldn't be pregnant to begin with).

While I understand the occasional awful situation this pits doctors in (when awful parents are involved), the parents should typically always be notified.

[SentinelMind]

Patients have the final word, no matter the age.

Who is paying for those procedures? Trust me, it ain't the child. :whatever:

Why is child attending the school? Trust me, it ain't because they want to.

[Matt]

Exactly Marx...

Marx? :huh:

Patients have the final word, no matter the age.

Then the parents should be able to throw her out without fear of being charged with abandonment. If the state (which the school is an agent of) wants to keep the child's medical information from her parents, than they should take on financial responsibility for her and also be responsible for her safety and well being.

If the state wants to take parental rights off of a parent, they should also be forced to take on parental responsibilites. Shouldn't have it both ways.

[Addendum]

Being opposed to abortion on moral grounds makes you a lunatic? How dare you believe in sanctity of life? Americans are sick and tired of secularists and statists thrusting their agenda down American families at their peril.

The school should have been required to inform the parent of any medical procedure going on tax-payer funded educational facilities, especially in areas where a child cannot legally avoid attending like a public school.

And I'm sick and tired of so-called "conservative christians" going on about "small government" even though every government does nothing but grow as it continues to exist, but then want their beliefs forced onto everyone.

[Mystirious]

Being opposed to abortion on moral grounds makes you a lunatic? How dare you believe in sanctity of life? Americans are sick and tired of secularists and statists thrusting their agenda down American families at their peril

Americans? So you have asked every person currently living in America what their thoughts are on the matter and they are all Pro Life? You live in a secular country. Get over it because that will never change, thankfully.

And yes, I think that the belief that a foetus is alive is a sign of mental illness. It is a delusion. Abortion is not murder

And I really do not care either way. The world is dangerously over populated. We do not need more brats cluttering it up.

[Addendum]

Who is paying for those procedures? Trust me, it ain't the child. :whatever:

Why is child attending the school? Trust me, it ain't because they want to.

Hey, if a kid with cancer doesn't want to have chemo, then they shouldn't have the chemo. No matter if mommy and daddy ***** and moan.

[SentinelMind]

Informing a parent about tax-payer funded operations on a child who is the financial and legal guardian of a child is the responsibility of the government. Transparency and accountability is responsibility of sound government. The other side has no argument. You let the government take a child and do whatever you want with her while still deeming the child too immature to be responsible on his or her own.

[Addendum]

No, I'm in favor of doctor-patient privilege no matter the age.

As for "sound government", I believe that only happens when they cease to exist.

[Mystirious]

And I'm sick and tired of so-called "conservative christians" going on about "small government" even though every government does nothing but grow as it continues to exist, but then want their beliefs forced onto everyone.

As am I. If they want to cling to the belief that there is anything more than this life that is their perogative. However expecting everyone to follow their beliefs is quite foolish and rather pitiable

The problem is that 14 and 15 and 16 year old girls cannot possibly grasp the seriousness of the problem (if they had, they probably wouldn't be pregnant to begin with).

While I understand the occasional awful situation this pits doctors in (when awful parents are involved), the parents should typically always be notified.

I feel that the girl was perfectly able to grasp the situation. That is why she made the intelligent decision to get rid of the foetus rather than allow it to ruin her life

I will not go into detail. But I have been witness to what can happen when parents who are Pro Life learn their child has had an abortion. And it is not pleaseant.

So you will forgive me if I reall do not consider this womans psychotic mother to have any right to know that her daghter has made the sensible choice and aborted the foetus she could not possibly properly care for at her age.

[Matt]

Hey, if a kid with cancer doesn't want to have chemo, then they shouldn't have the chemo. No matter if mommy and daddy ***** and moan.

Not really. There is a reason we have legal coming of age in this country. A child is not emotionally or mentally mature enough to make such a decision. It all comes down to developmental stages and someone who is 14, 15, 16, or even 17 are not developed enough to make these decisions alone. In fact, most psychiatrists will say that 18 is too young for a child to be making decisions on their own. Even if you want to make the argument about the child making the decision "no matter if mommy and daddy ***** and moan," then one must at least concede that mommy and daddy have the right to know about it in advance so they can ***** and moan. As long as they are financially and phsyically responsible for the child (which is a state mandate unless they can disown the child which is a very difficult to obtain with a minor), then they have the right to know in advance.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, from my understanding of the lawis,until the girl is 18 yrs.old , her parents are totally responsible for her. Whether or not this includes something like abortion I guess depends on specific state law. I would think at the very least, the mother should have been notified, but the final decision is totally up to the girl.


Abortion doesn't fit into the equation, I think.

I mean, it might...when parents are thrown in jail along with their kids for the crimes they commit. They're responsible for they're spawns...to a point. Not 100%, though. Otherwise, the relationship doesn't seem like parent-and-child...but something else entirely.

It's all very murky, I think. But, the parent can't have absolute control. Maybe most of it, but absoulte responsibility seems unfair to the parent I think.