Carried over here from the Political Arena - The Obama Administration's First 100 Days.


. . . However, the modern day pro-abortion crowd doesn't care about that because their movement is based on the eugenics movement of the late 1800s through the 1940s. In fact, the entire modern day Democrat party is.

Kerry, I am tolerant and accepting of individuals that, for what ever reason, feel a personal need to avail themselves of the legal medical procedure of aborting a pregnancy and I choose to not sit in judgment of their decision. Further, I don't know a single individual who claims to be "pro-abortion". Most of the people I know would much rather that there were fewer abortions, more adoptions and better family planning education, but feel that abortion is a difficult personal medical choice, not a matter for government to dictate.

Characterizing everyone that disagrees with you on this issue as "pro-abortion" merely serves to continue an argument and will never lead to a discussion. I simply can't understand how anyone can describe themselves as "pro-life" and still support the death penalty and other state sponsored killing. Perhaps if we start by simply acknowledging our personal reverence for every life, we can find some common ground.

Michael Smith

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

I guess I'm "pro-innocent life". I have a big problem with ending the life of an innocent human, be they 2-weeks from conception or wrongly convicted on death row.

I'm anti-abortion. Not pro-life.

Abortion is the ultimate display of selfishness.

Abortion is the ultimate display of selfishness.


Not even close.

Ask Kaylee Anthony.

Oh wait, you can't ask her...her selfish mother killed her because she got in the way of her 'single' life.

I think murder and suicide are the ultimate selfish acts.

Not even close.

Ask Kaylee Anthony.

Oh wait, you can't ask her... her selfish mother killed her because she got in the
way of her 'single' life.

I think murder and suicide are the ultimate selfish acts.

Abortion is murder.

Not even close.

Ask Kaylee Anthony.

Oh wait, you can't ask her...her selfish mother killed her because she got in the way of her 'single' life.

I think murder and suicide are the ultimate selfish acts.

A selfish mother kills her three year 3 year old daughter.

A selfish mother hires an abortionist to kill her pre-born child.

No difference.

Abortion is murder.

How can you murder something that can't survive on its own (first and second trimester)?

Abortion is the ultimate display of selfishness.

So if you (if you are female) or one of your friends/daughter/mother is raped and gets pregnant, it would be selfish of them to have an abortion? You are totally clueless if you truly meant what you said. You can disagree with abortion, so don't have one. You are in no position to tell ANYONE that they can or can't have one. It is their choice, whether you agree or not!

How can you murder something that can't survive on its own (first and second trimester)?

By killing it.

By the way, a baby can't survive on it's own after birth.

So if you (if you are female) or one of your friends/daughter/mother is raped and gets pregnant, it would be selfish of them to have an abortion? You are totally clueless if you truly meant what you said. You can disagree with abortion, so don't have one. You are in no position to tell ANYONE that they can or can't have one. It is their choice, whether you agree or not!

So if you (if you are female) or one of your friends/daughter/mother is raped and gets pregnant, it would be selfish of them to kill the newborn infant? You are totally clueless if you truly meant what you said. You can disagree with killing newborn infants, so don't have do it. You are in no position to tell ANYONE that they can or can't kill newborn infants. It is their choice, whether you agree or not!

You are in no position to tell ANYONE that they can or can't have one. It is their
choice, whether you agree or not!

Murder is also a choice. That doesn't make it right.

We can argue the science and morality all day, but I fall on the side of pro-choice SHEERLY because the government shouldn't have ANY hand in this debate. Let people decide their own spirituality and morality on such an issue.

(Besides, you can't deny the fact that abortions are often beneficial to society as a whole. )

(Besides, you can't deny the fact that abortions are often beneficial to society as a whole. )

I'm guessing some folks will deny it anyhow.

As for me, I'm kind of happy where we're at legally. Casey seems to be as fair a framework for the competing rights and powers as could possibly be conceived.

It hinges (for me) on the question of when life begins. (In my mind) the most logical point is conception. At that point the woman's right to her body is superceeded by the child's right to continue to exist as a human life. To terminate the life is homocide, IMO.

We can argue the science and morality all day, but I fall on the side of pro-choice SHEERLY because the government shouldn't have ANY hand in this debate. Let people decide their own spirituality and morality on such an issue.

(Besides, you can't deny the fact that abortions are often beneficial to society as a whole. )

We can argue the science and morality all day, but I fall on the side of pro-choice SHEERLY because the government shouldn't have ANY hand in this debate. Let people decide their own spirituality and morality on such an issue.

(Besides, you can't deny the fact that killing newborn babies are often beneficial to society as a whole. )

How can you murder something that can't survive on its own (first and second trimester)?

The same way you murder someone who has had a terrible accident and needs life support to give them time to heal.

I simply can't understand how anyone can describe themselves as "pro-life" and still support the death penalty and other state sponsored killing.

I have never understood this viewpoint. Why someone would think it was okay to kill a baby in the womb but want a murderer to live. You're equating Tim McVeigh with an unborn child whose future is yet to be seen. McVeigh made his choice. The unborn haven't.


(Besides, you can't deny the fact that abortions are often beneficial to society as a whole. )

I hope this was said in jest. But this aligns with the whole argument that women should abort due to rape or incest.

Ask John Cox, one of the Republican candidates for president in the last election process, how he feels about it. You may not agree with his politics, but he was conceived in rape but he has gone on to try to serve and make his country better.

Or what about Frederic Douglass? He believed that he was a product of rape and may very well have been.

There are many others out there who were products of rape who are thankful for their life and have gone on to live normal or exceptional lives.

The same way you murder someone who has had a terrible accident and needs life support to give them time to heal.

So euthenasia is wrong too? When every doctor says that someone has no chance of recovery you still would never pull the plug? That just sounds idiotic to me. Allow someone to pass on with dignity. If I were ever in a vegetative state, the last thing I would want is to drag on a slow painful death and be a constant and horrible burden on my family and friends.

I hope this was said in jest. But this aligns with the whole argument that women should abort due to rape or incest.



No, it wasn't at all. There are probably more than a few solid arguments for allowing abortions so as to benefit society. Unwanted children are a financial drain on individuals and the community as a whole. For instance, the woman that just had octuplets after already having 6 kids. Prime example that allowing some of those fetuses to be aborted would be better for EVERYONE involved in a hardcore economic sense.

So euthenasia is wrong too? When every doctor says that someone has no chance of recovery you still would never pull the plug? That just sounds idiotic to me. Allow someone to pass on with dignity. If I were ever in a vegetative state, the last thing I would want is to drag on a slow painful death and be a constant and horrible burden on my family and friends.

Thats not at all what ECO was talking about.
I could be in an accident that would require quick medical attention and life-support or I would die. Yet 6 months after receiving medical attention and life support I am fully able to survive on my own and am pretty much back to normal.

So how is that any different from a 3 month old fetus if your argument is "the fetus can't survive on its own"? Neither can a fully grown man who was just in an accident or a new born infant. So why don't we just ignore that 6 months (or a few years) down the road that they will be able to survive and just kill them?

No, it wasn't at all. There are probably more than a few solid arguments for allowing abortions so as to benefit society. Unwanted children are a financial drain on individuals and the community as a whole. For instance, the woman that just had octuplets after already having 6 kids. Prime example that allowing some of those fetuses to be aborted would be better for EVERYONE involved in a hardcore economic sense.

So why not just kill the new born octuplets since it would be better for society?

No, it wasn't at all. There are probably more than a few solid arguments for allowing abortions so as to benefit society. Unwanted children are a financial drain on individuals and the community as a whole. For instance, the woman that just had octuplets after already having 6 kids. Prime example that allowing some of those fetuses to be aborted would be better for EVERYONE involved in a hardcore economic sense.

Aborting babies is not the way to get unemployed single mothers to stop having babies. Stopping the government and society from giving handouts to these people based on how many mouths they have to feed is the answer to stopping that.

I've known some couples who couldn't have babies and have adopted. Many end up going overseas because the wait in the US is so long. How about instead of aborting these babies, they get put up for adoption? We solve two problems right there. These children aren't unwanted, they're just wanted by different people. Someone wants them. It just may not be the biological parent.

I guess I just take any crime against children personal since I'm a father of four and I see how precious children can be.

But I can see you point about allowing abortions to benefit society. If your parents had aborted you we'd all be a lot better off. How did that feel? Someone else making the decision of whether you live or die for you.

Well, first of all, I am a contributing member of the tax base, so aborting me would have been a NEGATIVE thing for society. :D

Secondly, don't let your heart get in the way of making a legal point or a logical point. Your way (stopping all welfare) would put children in the way of starvation, disease, and increased crime, which is draining on society. My way would preclude all of that.

I'm glad you love your children. 99.8% of parents do. But we're just making hypotehticals here and discussing ideas; we're not asking you to abort your children, so there's no need to go to that emotional plane that makes logic futile. Forcing women to have unwanted children, I believe, steps beyond the government's constitutional role and is intrusive upon individuals. Carrying a child and giving birth is one of the most physically traumatic and emotionally draining things a human woman can go through. And the government is going to FORCE people to do that? Not to mention, once the government FORCES a woman to go through that, does the government pay for ALL of the costs of the kid since it forced the woman to have it? Nope. Just some, and that's a drain on all of us. Not to mention, parents that don't want the kid have a higher propensity of not nurturing the kid, leading to destructive behavior. (All I'm doing is making points here about the societal utility of allowing abortions; not making judgments on whether it's morally right or wrong.)

You say all babies are wanted by someone? I think a socialized baby-placement service isn't very reasonable logistically.

Look, 100 years ago it benefited society, the world, and the human race to have as many children as possible. In this day and age, as a personal thought, I think it's irresponsible to not have family planning.


BTW- I'm adopted. I'm glad I wasn't aborted, obviously. But I still believe the government shouldn't have that control over people. Like most things, I believe a compromise is best. I personally think that 3rd trimester abortions should be banned, 1st trimester should be allowed, and I'm not quite sure about the in-between. I could live with that compromise.

You say you're a contributing member of society and you pay your taxes. How did we know that before you were born? How did we know that when you were 5? You could've grown up to be on welfare and too lazy to get off your butt and do something. So why should we make the assumption that these babies won't grow up to be contributing members of society.

And I didn't say to stop all welfare to children. I'm saying that how welfare is done needs to be overhauled. These women are putting the cart before the horse. They think if they need more money they'll just have more children because the gov't. will give them more welfare. And it becomes and endless circle.

You speak of logic. Well if we can get people to think (teenagers et. al.) before having sex and thus having children then there will be little need for welfare for "unwanted" children. That's logical. You don't solve the problem after it's here, you solve it before it's here and thus it isn't a problem. Family planning should be thinking before hand not aborting after. People need to be responsible for their actions.

Yes, having a baby is physically traumatic for a woman's body. But having an abortion is emotionally and mentally traumatic. Many women who've had abortions have come forward and said so. They've said if they had been told what an abortion encompassed and what it would do to them emotionally they would've made a different decision.

You tell us not to be emotional about this, but emotion and logic are not mutually exclusive. I think we're all emotional to some extent when it comes to issues like this. I know people on the other side of the debate from me can be and are passionate about their belief.

I'm with you, I think we need less gov't. intrusion in our life. But when it comes to preserving human life then I think it's what the gov't. was intended for - not whether or not we need a playoff in college football. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sorry, I know double post.

But you also made a statement about socialized baby-placement. That's putting words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. Why can't we just use the placement and adoption agencies that are already in place such as the Catholic Charities?

No one is ever going to persuade someone else on this subject.

Why bother discussing at all? What has changed about it?

I sooooo hate to see abortion talked about in a political context. It's a wedge issue which any politician who has the remotest clue about how the three branches of government work knows "solving" this thing is above his pay grade. The only reason they bring it up at all is to get people who don't know any better riled up.

If a politician at the state level or lower is bringing up abortion, either he's a cynical SOB who thinks you're a moron or he doesn't have enough of a grasp on the political process to be fit to serve.

I have never understood this viewpoint. Why someone would think it was okay to
kill a baby in the womb but want a murderer to live.

That's why I'm anti-abortion and not pro life. If somebody has been proven by a
jury to deserve the death penalty, then I'm all for it.

I believe each child, some say fetus, should have the right to appear before a jury
before the death sentence is given. THEN they should have the right to appeal
whatever decision is made.

So euthenasia is wrong too? When every doctor says that someone has no chance of recovery you still would never pull the plug? That just sounds idiotic to me. Allow someone to pass on with dignity. If I were ever in a vegetative state, the last thing I would want is to drag on a slow painful death and be a constant and horrible burden on my family and friends.

You didn't even read my post, did you?

The same way you murder someone who has had a terrible accident and needs life support to give them time to heal.
The fact pattern was that the person simply needed time to heal. Nothing was said about someone who was dying or brain dead. Euthanasia had nothing to do with the fact pattern I gave.

No one is ever going to persuade someone else on this subject.

Why bother discussing at all? What has changed about it?

I sooooo hate to see abortion talked about in a political context. It's a wedge issue which any politician who has the remotest clue about how the three branches of government work knows "solving" this thing is above his pay grade. The only reason they bring it up at all is to get people who don't know any better riled up.

If a politician at the state level or lower is bringing up abortion, either he's a cynical SOB who thinks you're a moron or he doesn't have enough of a grasp on the political process to be fit to serve.

Agreed. There are some things that people will never agree on or be persuaded on. It has too many personal ties for so many for someone to just say, "oh, I was wrong." It just doesn't happen that way.

That said, I am a woman and I am pro-choice. I don't know if I could personally ever go through with it, but I think the option should be there when needed. Not as a birth control method, but there are cases when I am certainly ok with it.

Agreed. There are some things that people will never
agree on or be persuaded on...

... and I am one of them, who by the way, that was taught by a woman that
abortion, under any circumstance, is wrong.

So euthenasia is wrong too? When every doctor says that someone has no
chance of recovery you still would never pull the plug?

Every doctor? I think not.

And yes, euthanasia is wrong. Period.

... and I am one of them, who by the way, that was taught by a woman that
abortion, under any circumstance, is wrong.

Is that sort of like how having black friends insulates you from being called a racist?

C'mon, what kind of reasoning is that?

Is that sort of like how having black friends insulates you from being called a racist?

C'mon, what kind of reasoning is that?

Not at all, it was used by bandnerd, she said she's a woman, to justify something
so I simply used it for the same reason. I think it's supposed to give credence to
one's beliefs.

lol...

It seems that you were more-less validating her belief that her opinion matters more because of her gender when you brought a woman who taught you something into the mix.

-- just sayin' :cool18:

You didn't even read my post, did you?

The fact pattern was that the person simply needed time to heal. Nothing was said about someone who was dying or brain dead. Euthanasia had nothing to do with the fact pattern I gave.

Sorry, totally misunderstood that the first time.

But come on prunepicker, whats the reasoning to be against euthanasia?

Sorry, totally misunderstood that the first time.

But come on prunepicker, whats the reasoning to be against euthanasia?

No problem - thanks.

It seems that you were more-less validating her belief that her opinion matters
more because of her gender when you brought a woman who taught you
something into the mix.

-- just sayin' :cool18:

Not exactly. The gist is that it doesn't matter what sex you are or how you
arrived to the conclusion of your opinion. In other words, a woman's opinion is no
more valid than a man's. However, some believe one or the other is.

No one is ever going to persuade someone else on this subject.

Why bother discussing at all? What has changed about it?



Mid, you constantly opine on tons of threads without changing people's minds. We're sharing ideas here. That's a good thing.

I was just throwing the female part in there in case someone didn't know. Just to clarify. I have a ******.

The whole issue would be made moot, I believe, if we passed laws to facilitate getting "unwanted" children to parents who DID want them. Start with declaring that anything growing inside a woman belongs to her and her alone. Then set up a system where in any woman who finds herself not wanting to deliver a baby (for whatever reason) can register that she will have a kid ready to deliver in x months and that it will be available to the highest bidder or the person who impresses her most favorably. Intersted parties can contact her and they can make any deal that is agreeable to both parties. No need whatever for gov't intervention. If you feel that there is just something obsene about that thought, please go back and think it all the way through, backward, forward and sideways and I think you will see that it will do what all of our laws, bureaus, committees, and so forth claim to be trying to do, but MUCH more elegantly. The fact that such a system is needed is very sad and somehow obsene, but the way things are is the alternative. This would be a huge blessing to those who hate the thought of any abortions in that they could put their money where their mouths are and with no hassle. So if the gov't will set up the system and get back and let it roll, everyone on both sides can be contented knowing that there were no longer any unwanted children in the country. :)

I have never understood this viewpoint. Why someone would think it was okay to kill a baby in the womb but want a murderer to live. You're equating Tim McVeigh with an unborn child whose future is yet to be seen. McVeigh made his choice. . . . .

I wasn't equating the life of an unborn child with anything traxx, nor did I suggest that criminals be set free if you are also confused about my view of that. What's the point in twisting what someone posts to try and justify your argument? And, BTW, McVeigh was an unborn child pretty early on. If he had been aborted; no Murrah bombing . . . so would abortion be OK if we could read the tea leaves and know what lies in the future. What is the difference between snuffing Tim as a fetus or as a convicted mass murderer.

Simply put, I don't believe that I or the state has the right to take another life for any reason except in the rare case of self defense . . . there are lots of scenarios that describe those situations and no point in going into that black hole here.

In case you hadn't heard the vast majority of the rest of civilization on this planet also opposes the death penalty and uses life in prison as the maximum punishment.

IMO there are rare cases where abortion is appropriate, but not as birth control. But, that's none of the state's business either.

You either believe that life is sacred or you don't . . . how can there be some half-way position where one life has value and another doesn't? Isn't the teaching of about every religion pretty much that god, however you conceive of god, makes the call not man.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

I was just throwing the female part in there in case someone didn't know. Just to clarify. I have a ******.

Well thank God it's not a clown car! :sofa:




The whole issue would be made moot, I believe, if we passed laws to facilitate getting "unwanted" children to parents who DID want them. Start with declaring that anything growing inside a woman belongs to her and her alone. Then set up a system where in any woman who finds herself not wanting to deliver a baby (for whatever reason) can register that she will have a kid ready to deliver in x months and that it will be available to the highest bidder or the person who impresses her most favorably. Intersted parties can contact her and they can make any deal that is agreeable to both parties. No need whatever for gov't intervention. If you feel that there is just something obsene about that thought, please go back and think it all the way through, backward, forward and sideways and I think you will see that it will do what all of our laws, bureaus, committees, and so forth claim to be trying to do, but MUCH more elegantly. The fact that such a system is needed is very sad and somehow obsene, but the way things are is the alternative. This would be a huge blessing to those who hate the thought of any abortions in that they could put their money where their mouths are and with no hassle. So if the gov't will set up the system and get back and let it roll, everyone on both sides can be contented knowing that there were no longer any unwanted children in the country. :)

WTH? That's about the worst idea I've ever heard in this debate on any forum...Ever. BIDDING ON BABIES?

:doh:

They could always set up a e-babes auction system to handle for the bidding

They could always set up a e-babes auction system to handle for the bidding

lol...Ebay-bies.com.

Well thank God it's not a clown car! :sofa:







Yeah, I really just wanted to say ******. ;)

I wasn't trying to insinuate that my being a woman somehow makes me immune or whatever the above poster was trying to say...forgive me, I haven't been awake long...but, I think it does give a different perspective when you yourself could be in a situation where abortion could be something that would have to be considered. If it could never happen to you, sure, it's easy to say it's always wrong.

It kind of goes along with assisted suicide for me. Sure, people say it's wrong, and legally it's wrong...but if you've ever watched someone suffer and completely lose themselves and they want to die but can't...well, your vision suddenly becomes a little more gray.

In case you hadn't heard the vast majority of the rest of civilization on this planet also opposes the death penalty and uses life in prison as the maximum punishment.

Um.. are you sure?


IMO there are rare cases where abortion is appropriate, but not as birth control. But, that's none of the state's business either.


Either life is sacred or it isn't. Right?

That's about the worst idea I've ever heard in this debate on any forum...Ever. BIDDING ON BABIES?

How come? It solves everyone's problems and very efficiently. Compare it to what is in existence. Don't just slough it off. Respond to the points made. Or are you wanting to remain blind to reality?

I don't think anyone is trying to change anyone's mind....

But the point is to explain the reasoning behind opinions so that the other person might have a better understanding of why you feel the way you do about an issue. And hopefully, show a little more understanding, compassion or empathy instead of black and white judgements.

It's so easy to sit on the sidelines and judge others..

I love the saying 'Walk a mile in someone else's shoes' that sums it up for me .. unless you are a woman who has been raped, carrying an unwanted fetus, you'll never really fully understand what she is going through. You can say you do, but you don't.

And the last thing she needs is to have a man or anyone else telling her how horrible, evil and awful she is for making, what sometimes is, the absolute worst decision of her entire life.

I think the same thing about teen pregnancies.. you have a 14 year old girl telling a 14 year old boy that she in on birth control.. she's not, she wants a baby to love - she gets pregnant... he is now liable and responsible for paying to raise a child he never intended on having.. ( and yeah, we could talk all day about why and how he should never have had sex to begin with.. and I agree, but it happens... hormones get in the way... and they find a way)

So, now these kids are stuck. A 14 year old carrying a baby in high school... a boy spending his paycheck for the next 20 years on child support...

Ideally, stop the pregnancy in it's tracks, before it even gets started.. the morning after pill... whatever.. but I think doing it very early on is appropriate in some situations. I don't agree with late term abortions or casual.. 'ooopsie, my bad, have another abortion situations'. But, I will never say, ' too bad this happened to you, you were raped (by a Man!) , but I'm forcing you to carry a baby to term and have a daily reminder of your horror, then have this baby to have him taken from you and given to strangers and live with that for the rest of your life'

Doesn't matter who taught you what, that doesn't validate anything either. KKK parents teach their kids all sorts of things...

I've often wondered, what's the point of all of those starving children in Africa and elsewhere to be born, and to live just a few years to die a painful life filled with suffering and agony? Why is that preferable?

That is selfish to me.. to bring a child into this world that you know you can't feed. God, I wish they would put some sort of birth control in their water or something ....

And, I've always wondered this too .... If a technician spills a petri dish filled with a fertilized egg, did he just murder a baby?

You can't buy people - it is against the constitution. So bidding on babies is out on a legal basis.

If you could bid on babies, it creates a market for women to have children they have no intention of raising. It would be a human puppy mill.

Women who are in the business of selling their babies are more likely to be emotionally or mentally ill. Certain mental illnesses (bi polar for example) tend to have a genetic component.

Women who sell their babies could be doing it for money if they have a substance abuse problem. Not good for the babies.

You end up with what amounts to a contract. As things are, now, mothers can back out of an adoption up to a certain period. I don't see how a contract could trump regular adoption law but it differs from place to place. I'm only saying that wholescale "selling" of babies would open a pandora's box of legal issues and things could go south in a hurry.

Those are a few comments about the problems with selling babies.

The whole issue would be made moot, I believe, if we passed laws to facilitate
getting "unwanted" children to parents who DID want them.

That's the best option available. Rather than murdering innocent and helpless
children, find them a home.



Then set up a system where in any woman who finds herself not wanting to
deliver a baby (for whatever reason) can register that she will have a kid ready
to deliver in x months and that it will be available to the highest bidder or the
person who impresses her most favorably.

The system is already in order. They're "Adoption Agencies" and they can't keep
up with the demand.



So if the gov't will set up the system and get back and let it roll, everyone on
both sides can be contented knowing that there were no longer any unwanted
children in the country. :)

The government doesn't need to get involved. The private sector provides the
most efficient means of finding homes for unwanted children.

Good Post!

I don't think anyone is trying to change anyone's mind....

But the point is to explain the reasoning behind opinions so that the other person might have a better understanding of why you feel the way you do about an issue. And hopefully, show a little more understanding, compassion or empathy instead of black and white judgements.



Ultimately it IS a black and white issue. Pro-lifers think that a fetus is a human life with the same rights as every other human life. Pro-Choicers think that a fetus is just a glob of cells and not a human being. ALL of the other arguments and rationalizations are based on this dichotomy. Everything you just posted to rationalize your position as a pro-choicer is based on the foundation that the fetus is not a human. Everything that a pro-lifer posts to rationalize his position is based on the foundation that the fetus is a human.

Unless both sides agree to scrap the spurious and often stupid side arguments/debates/rationalization and focus on answering the question of when life begins in a manner that satisfies all parties (which may not ever happen, admittedly) then the entire debate is a waste of time and the two sides will remain irreconcilable.

You're right Caboose, but I disagree with the last part. Since reasonable people may differ as to "when life begins," I think that our decision-making bodies may have to work with other criteria to come to a decent compromise instead of addressing the root question.

Either life is sacred or it isn't. Right?


Damn straight. That's why I believe that abortion should be allowed--for the simple fact that those wasted lives that fall into utter chaos and become that drain on our nation can exist and do exist!

Yes, I know there's the chance that that life force could be put into a good home and raised to become a doctor or a lawyer or something else very important. But I believe that opportunity should be given to the the planned pregnancy children that grow up to eventually make the choice to fill those positions. I mean, let's think about it. If an unwanted pregnancy product never happened in the first place then we just wouldn't even be having this conversation. Unfortunately it happens too much and too often to even try and regulate. And there's also that chance, too, that the planned pregnancy children grow up to be total wastes of life too. Completely sad I know, but that's the choice they were given because they were granted a life that was supported by a stable foundation up until the point that they were pushed out into the world to fulfill the rest of their lives.

I know I sound completely inhumane but let me ask you guys this...

How can you give two licks about abortion and whether it's right or wrong when the majority of us don't even give the same two licks about poor and starving people in other countries???

You don't even think about it when you throw half a plate of food away because you're full. Well, guess what?! I don't think about it when that abortion is going on right now while I'm typing this very response. It happens one way or another whether you're pro- or anti-abortion. And whether that abortion takes place with the assistance of a medical professional or the girl by herself eventually throwing that newborn into a dumpster, the truth is pointblank--some life shouldn't be.

Back to the starving people in other countries. Let me guess...that costs money too. Money that we shouldn't spend on anybody but ourselves. Our own nation. Oh, but wait? Isn't that selfish as well? Why spend money, government money at that, on keeping poor and starving people alive when we can spend the same amount of money toward eliminating unplanned pregnancy births--whether it be at the time the fetus is in the body or well before hand. The latter being much harder to regulate.

We could pull a 'One Child Per Household' regulation like China. Guy gets girl pregnant and the ol' vas deferens gets the snip. My dad did it after he had me. And I know you can get it seamed back together nowadays but it would be against the law. This is all theoretical and unlikely to happen unless government does one day turn totally into '1984'. But imagine, life WOULD be sacred. There would be less of a chance involving the risk of terminating your life because of stupidity or raw decisions whether you knew what you were doing or not.

And last but not least--abortion is population control. Just like natural death, although premature, this stalls us in our attempts to overflow the world. The world as we know it is becoming corrupted because of all the life that exists on it now. We can't environmentally protect the world with the population we have now. If that population keeps exponentially exploding then I can't wait to not know--because of my natural death--what the world will look and act like in 100 or 200 years.

That is all.

I'm torn when it comes to the subject of euthanasia, my grandmother requires 24 hour care and has been in a nurisng home for 17 years, and while she's still breathing she's not living, her only interaction with people his having a nurse or aide, come in to turn her every couple of hours to reduce/prevent bed sores. She can do nothing for herself and she hasn't reconigized anyone for at least the past 10 years. I often pray that there was some way to end her suffering.

For those that keep saying that some lives should not be or it's better for the baby to be aborted or it's better for society if the baby is aborted; who are we to decide? Is this like the Tom Cruise movie "Minority Report?" Are we going to try to decide who will become a criminal or a drain on society so we'll prevent it before it happens by preventing them. And yes, I know that's not the exact plot of "Minority Report", but you get my meaning.

What if instead of aborting we could also make that decision later in life. What if someone came to your door and said, "We've decided that your 6 year-old child will be a drain on society so we're going to terminate them now." How would you feel.

Again, if a girl's in the back seat with a guy and gets pregnant but doesn't want to raise the baby, why not put it up for adoption. I've known nice couples who tried desperately and couldn't have children and have adopted. It hurts them to see someone not appreciate the sanctity of life and abort a baby or throw it into a dumpster etc.

But I doubt that the anti-abortion and the pro-choice people will ever see the other side.

For those that keep saying that some lives should not be or it's better for the baby to be aborted or it's better for society if the baby is aborted; who are we to decide?


We're the people that live with the consequences of the decision. Why take the decision OUT of our hands?

About all I want to say is that on a regular basis, in the midst of hard fought custody battles, it is brought up that one or the other parent wanted the child to be aborted. Before the baby gets here, not wanting a child really means little in terms of whether she will be neglected or unloved. What matters more are the circumstances of the household at the time of the birth. By that, I mean that nearly all the couples I see who originally considered abortion, even fought for it, adore their child. They are the exact people who think they aren't ready for a baby because they ARE thnking about it. The fact is, there is usually no rational basis to have a child if you start adding up the costs and the aggravation. But when the child gets here, the emotions kick in and, usually, even the ones who didn't think it was a good idea fall in love.

Alternatively, if you have a household where the members really aren't thinking too much and they assume a baby would be jolly keen and maybe even save the marriage or love them (when no one else does), you could very well end up with a neglected child who isn't a little baby doll you can put on the shelf when you get tired of it.

My point is that there is no way to tell, in advance, if a child will be abused or neglected based upon the concerns or misgivings of a normal parent. Likewise, enthusiasm for an upcoming birth is nice, but certainly no guarantee.

The fact is, the vast majority of abused children were planned.

... It hurts them to see someone not appreciate the sanctity
of life and abort a baby or throw it into a dumpster etc.

But I doubt that the anti-abortion and the pro-choice people will ever see the
other side.

Whether you are pro abortion or pro life doesn't matter. Where does the sanctity
of life come into the picture?

We're the people that live with the consequences of the decision. Why take the decision OUT of our hands?

Doesn't the baby suffer the consequences of the decision as well?

Doesn't the baby suffer the consequences of the decision as well?

On behalf of the leftists on this forum, will you PLEASE stop using reason and
stick to emotions?

It's hard enough for them to grasp reality let alone anything that requires
thought.

Get a grip and FEEL the problems of the USA.