Fetal facepalm

The ten dumbest things said in defense of abortion

The past few years haven’t been great for abortion. More and more people are calling themselves pro-life, including more young Americans than ever before. Pro-life laws are being passed in record numbers each year. While it would be foolish to say that pro-lifers are winning the war on abortion, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that we’re making progress — and that has the pro-aborts panicking. Some pretty crazy statements are being made in their desperate attempt to keep abortion on demand legal at any time, for any reason. Some are flat-out ridiculous, some are insulting, and others chilling. These are ten of the dumbest things said in defense of abortion.

10. Women shouldn’t have to choose between their cell phones and birth control.

In a stunning display of entitlement, students at the University of New Mexico got upset because the school would no longer be subsidizing birth control. While pro-aborts often try to give sad, sad stories about women who need birth control out of medical necessity, or need abortion because they will DIE without it, the truth is, it’s often merely a matter of convenience. The reason women should get free birth control? Because otherwise, students might be forced to choose between their birth control and… their cell phones! Or their gym memberships! Oh, cruel world! It is just an unthinkable notion that a college student be forced to work out for free at the icky gym on campus, or go with a cheaper cell phone model — or, even worse, pay for the ultra-cheap generic brand birth control at Wal-Mart. Worst of all is the notion that they might be forced to abstain from sex, since they can’t afford birth control and aren’t ready for a baby. Because in the pro-abort world, women are merely animals, incapable of controlling their sexual urges, right?

9. Pro-lifers need a lesson on the birds and the bees.

Nancy Pelosi makes her first appearance on our list, where she responded to laws limiting (but not outlawing) abortions in North Carolina and Texas by saying that pro-life politicians needed “a lesson on the birds and the bees”. Because the only people who understand sex and pregnancy are the pro-aborts, right? Unfortunately, that has turned out to be less and less true over the years. Pro-lifers have embryology on their side, as well as the science of pregnancy and fetal development. Meanwhile, pro-aborts just try to insist that a baby is just a clump of tissues, or that fetal pain laws are dumb because fetal pain doesn’t exist, or that there are no adverse risks that come with abortion. It doesn’t matter that the science isn’t on their side — they’ll still keep claiming, like Nancy Pelosi did, that it’s pro-lifers who are the idiots in need of educating.

3d-ultrasound-fetus-baby38. Women should go into debt to have an abortion.

Abortions are often expensive, costing thousands of dollars when late-term. Ripping babies into pieces is hard work, after all. But this can mean finding the money for the abortion is difficult for some women. Thankfully, pro-aborts like Leela Yellesetty are here to help! What does she do when women are struggling to afford an abortion? Why, help put them into debt, of course! Yellesetty bragged about how she would talk women into taking about payday loans with interest rates over 300%, pawning their valuables, and putting the money for their procedure onto already maxed-out credit cards. Who cares that these women will be breaking their backs to pay off a $3,000 abortion funded by a payday loan with a 322% interest rate? The abortionist got their money, and that’s all that matters.

7. White people are trying to eliminate abortion to “build up the race”.

Pro-lifers have long since spoken out about the overwhelming number of black babies that are aborted. We speak out against the fact that black babies are being aborted at higher rates than other babies, or that many abortion clinics intentionally target minority neighborhoods. And why is this? According to CBS analyst Nancy Giles, this is all because white pro-lifers want to build up the white race. Yep, that’s right. Our dastardly plan is to build up the white race by opposing abortions of black babies, therefore leading to… erm… the births of more black babies. Makes perfect sense.

6. Men don’t deserve to have a voice on abortion.

According to many pro-aborts, men shouldn’t be allowed to talk about abortion, at all (unless they’re for abortion, in which case it’s totally cool). This is because men can’t get pregnant, so as one pro-abortion blogger said, male voices should be silenced in the abortion discussion. Nevermind that the baby is half the father’s. Men need to just shut up about abortion! And meanwhile, anyone who isn’t black can’t speak about slavery, and anyone who isn’t Jewish can’t talk about the Holocaust. Right? It’s the same logic, after all.

5. You’re only a person if you can play tennis.

A few years ago, Choice USA released a video about pregnancy that was just hilarious. To show how ridiculous the idea of a fetus being a person is, a pregnant woman is told that she has to play doubles tennis instead of singles, must pay for two tickets to see a movie instead of one, and must split a bill between two people three ways — because her unborn child is a person. Get it?? Because everyone knows that a person is defined by what they can or cannot do. In a wheelchair and can’t play tennis? Well, clearly this means you aren’t a person worthy of life.

4. As a Catholic, abortion is sacred ground.

Nancy Pelosi makes her second appearance on our list, where she talks about her wackadoodle version of the Catholic faith. Pelosi defended not only abortions, but late-term abortions, by saying that as a practicing Catholic, keeping late-term abortions legal was sacred ground. Abortion may be a sacrament for pro-aborts, but in the actual Catholic church, protecting all human life is what’s actual sacred ground. Pelosi’s fight to keep abortion legal goes against Catholic teachings, and pretending she’s a pro-abortion warrior because she’s a Catholic does nothing more than make a mockery of the Church.

3. Women who don’t support abortion are men with breasts.

It’s not unusual to hear a pro-abortion feminist say that women can’t be feminists unless they support abortion. Unless you fall in lockstep with their abortion worship, you can’t be a part of their club. But they also insist that they’re pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Actually exercise a choice they don’t agree with, though, and they’ll turn on you before you can blink. Case in point: Pennsylvania State Representative Babette Josephs, who smeared pro-life women by calling them men with breasts. Because you can’t be a real woman unless you’re willing to advocate for the brutal murder of your unborn child!

2. Women would be nothing without abortion.

Carly Manes is 19-years-old, and defines herself as an abortion activist. She’s able to do all kinds of cool stuff, and so are other women. Why? Because of abortion! According to Manes, it is only because abortion is legal that women are able to devote their energy to do things like go to school, work as an activist, be an athlete, or decide to be vegetarians (like Manes!). Women owe everything to abortion. Without the ability to kill our unborn children, women would be able to accomplish nothing. Girl power!

1. Abortion takes a life, but it’s a life worth sacrificing.

Salon blogger Mary Elizabeth Williams takes the number one spot on our list, with easily the most chilling statement. According to Williams, abortion is taking a life — but that’s OK because it is a life worth sacrificing. Williams claims that an unborn child is a life, just not one worth as much a mother’s feeling that a pregnancy is inconvenient. For Williams, some lives simply have more worth than others, with the “others” being disposable. It takes a truly depraved mind to argue that it’s acceptable to take a life merely because that person isn’t worthy of life.

  • blair miller

    Also here ‘s another one, my body , my life and my choice argument. Which is also dumb do to the fact, that the fetus isn’t the women body, or her life.

    • Alex Hunter

      They’re connected by an umbilical cord and the baby eats what it’s mother eats. Also take into account that the mother makes all the baby’s life decisions up until it’s 18.

      • guest

        Funny how though a mother makes most of her child’s life decisions until he or she is 18, it’s not legal for her to kill him or her for most of it.

        • Mamabear

          Anyone who believe a mother makes most of her child’s life decisions until he/she is 18 either has never raised teenagers or is delusional.
          Anyone who thinks a connection through the umbilical cord makes baby part of mother’s body has never been kicked from inside for 9 months either.
          Trust me, children have minds of their own. From before birth!

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Guest, believe it or not, I actually was debating a pro-abort and HE said, yes they do! He said that children are the property of their parents and the parents have a right to kill them up to the age of 18. He was NOT kidding. And, he does have a daughter. That is, of course, where abortion leads, and is the reason that some countries allow “abortion” up to the age of 2 years, and it has been proposed in this country as well. (By a close friend of the Abortion President.) After all, a 2 year old is not fully developed either – that’s the argument.

          • That is the next thing along the ‘slippery slope’ – if we can kill babies in the womb until term then why can’t we kill them an hour after birth? Two hours? Two days? Two months? Two years? Where does it end…

        • kathykattenburg

          But it IS legal for her to tell her child that he or she is stupid, worthless, ugly, and will never amount to anything. That’s legal.

          • No that would be verbal abuse and is a form of child abuse.

          • Kathleen Burke

            Much better to dismember them than to have their feelings hurt.

          • kathykattenburg

            Is that what you think it is? Hurting their feelings?

          • Kathleen Burke

            I was physically and sexually abused-I’d rather be alive with those terrible memories than to have been discarded like yesterday’s garbage.

          • kathykattenburg

            Well, unlike the “pro-lifers” I’ve communicated with here, I respect where you’re coming from and can understand why you feel the way you do. I would only point out that not everyone with your set of experiences would feel the same way.

          • Kathleen Burke

            Have you asked them all? I’m guessing not. There was a time where I was suicidal and I would’ve said I wished I had been aborted, but that was a temporary feeling–death is rather permanent. A lot of people are born into horrible situations, that’s no reason to deny them the opportunity to experience joy and love on their own terms.

          • kathykattenburg

            Have *you* asked them all? Silly, Kathleen. Really.

            There was an article just a few months ago by a woman who was horribly abused throughout her childhood and who said she wished her mother had had an abortion, for her mother’s sake, not for her own. She said she was happily married now with a child of her own, and was glad she was alive, but if her mother had had an abortion, she (her mother) would have had a chance at a better life, and she (the daughter) would never have known the difference. After the article appeared, she was harshly criticized. No one could understand how or why on earth she could reach those conclusions. But I can. Not because my childhood was like hers, or yours, but because I understand that people come to their beliefs, attitudes, and values at least partly through their own unique set of experiences.

          • Kathleen Burke

            I’m sure a lot of slave owners had really tough lives after slavery was outlawed, I’ve heard that some plantation owners even killed themselves. How terrible of Abraham Lincoln to free those slaves, and how selfish of those silly slaves to want freedom! I mean who are we to judge how they come to their beliefs, attitudes and values?

          • kathykattenburg

            LOL, Kathleen. Well, I thought it might be interesting and possibly productive to have a conversation, but I can see you’re more motivated right now to engage in a monologue rather than respond to what I actually have said to you. And that’s your right. I just don’t think you need me to do it.

            Take care.

          • Kathleen Burke

            There can be no dialogue about when it’s justifiable to violate human rights.

          • kathykattenburg

            No dialogue, no change or progress. But have it your way. Just one question, though: How do you feel about the former C.I.A. “enhanced interrogation” program?

          • Kathleen Burke

            It’s never ok to deny another person their human rights, and no social progress can be achieved by denying the humanity of another-was the holocaust “social progress?” Torture is still torture even when you call it enhanced interrogation.

          • kathykattenburg

            Thank you, Kathleen. I appreciate both your answering my question, *and* your consistency.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            She just answered it. She doesn’t like it.

          • Kathleen Burke

            Now I’d like to ask a question: why do we insist upon due process rights for men who admittedly stone rape victims, shoot girls who want to attend school, or blow up innocent civilians with bombs but not for unborn children whose only crime is having sexually irresponsible parents?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            In the wonderful world of psychology: self-destructive impulses, explicit or implied, even indirect ones, are a mental disorder, caused by awful logic, extreme bad luck, and/or inability to control emotion.

      • musiciangirl591

        how is that part of a woman’s body? what if the baby is a boy? the last time i checked (i’m a woman) i don’t have a penis…

        • Mamabear

          Cancer is a “clump of cells,” part of the Woman’s body gone out of control. It is directly connected to her blood supply, even using that blood supply to metastasize. It is a parasite that spreads throughout the body, feeding on and destroying parts and organs of the body. But it will never develop into a new and independent human life.
          A fetus grows only in a specific place. The cells grow according to a set purpose. It rarely causes death or permanent damage to other organs, and only does so when the normal process clearly goes very wrong. And then, the fetus exits the woman’s body.
          Even if you refuse to accept that a fetus is a baby, that it is already a human life, it is clearly not a parasite or a clump of cells.

          • Griffonn

            Ever notice that most of the social dysfunction in the U.S. is directly related to inappropriately placed/blurred/violated boundaries?

            Science is capable of categorizing things quite accurately. We can tell what is part of a woman’s body vs. what is actually a separate body that just happens to be lodged within the woman – the separate body has distinct DNA.

            Although how the body just happened to be lodged within the woman is another place where the boundaries get confused: a lot of people seem to believe that the child just crawled up into that woman for no better reason than a desire to be parasitic or something….

      • Basset_Hound

        Ummm…Alex, do you have any children? I did NOT make all my daughter’s decisions until she turned 18. I gradually turned over a larger share of that responsibility over to her as she grew older, as long as she continued to behave in a responsible way.

    • fenaray

      I think that is the perfect argument. Why should you get to choose whether or not I give birth?

      • Mary Lee

        Why do you get to choose to have your own baby dismembered? Give me a break.

        • fenaray

          Terminating a pregnancy isn’t the same as dismembering a baby, no matter how badly you wish it to be so.

          • Mary Lee

            Uh, yes it is. Terminating a pregnancy is only a euphemism for dismembering a baby. And “wish” it to be so? I think you have it backwards. I don’t wish babies to be dismembered at all. It is not convenient for me to admit to the truth, but your view is scientifically and logically incorrect, no matter how much YOU “wish” it to be so. Get a biology book and get out of here.

          • fenaray

            You “wish” for abortion to be “murder.” It’s not.

          • Mary Lee

            I “wish” for abortion to be murder? What the WHAT? I don’t WISH anything. It IS murder. I think Cassy should add all of your comments to “Dumbest things said in defense of abortion.” Abortion IS murder. It is the deliberate, premeditated killing of an innocent human being, in an unusually brutal manner. If you don’t want to admit it’s murder (which it is), at least admit that it is a form of homicide. It is the killing of a baby. (Yes. These are babies.) You’re a joke.

          • fenaray

            Funny, I have managed to state my opinions without resorting to name-calling. You’re very rude.

          • Justin

            Give me a break.

          • fiona64

            Abortion IS murder.

            Nope. Murder is the unlawful (illegal) taking of a person’s life with malice aforethought. As abortion is legal, it cannot simultaneously be illegal. So, your canard fails, prima facie, without ever having to touch the fact that a fetus is not a person.

            I’m sorry you missed so many days of elementary biology, since you cannot understand the difference between an embryo and an infant. However, it seems to be a common affliction amongst anti-choicers. One begins to wonder if the whole lot of you were homeschooled.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Murder isn’t unlawful taking of a person’s life with malice aforethought.

            It’s intentionally taking the life of someone who wasn’t deliberately threatening you, legal or not.

            The Holocaust was legal, that doesn’t make it right.

            Abortion is murder, of the most cold-blooded kind, because the unborn child can’t do or say anything for itself, and doesn’t deserve to die.

          • KarenC

            murder is defined as ” the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law” ie “to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.” You can place abortion next to murder and both words are basically synonyms.

          • fenaray

            Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). A person who commits murder is called a murderer.[1]

          • Mary Lee

            Planning to have your own baby ripped to pieces while he or she screams ….that seems like “malice aforethought.” It’s really YOU who WISHES that our unborn children are NOT children, and therefore, their killing is justifiable. They are human beings, and no, their killing is not justifiable.

          • fenaray

            The embryo doesn’t scream, little overly dramatic there.

          • Mary Lee

            Yes. They scream. They cry and scream and try to get away from the abortionist’s tools. Ever watch an abortion? Go ahead.

            They scream.

          • fenaray

            Well Clarice, I guess you win.

          • Mary Lee

            Yeah, that’s hilarious.

          • fenaray

            Yeah, it made me smile. Have a nice day.

          • Mary Lee

            Yeah, I’m glad that dismembering and incinerating little baby boys and girls makes you happy. Take care.

          • Alex Hunter

            If they screamed they’d drown from swallowing all that amniotic fluid

          • Erin Locke

            I’m sorry? Please study a little more biology. Number one. A baby in the womb does not breath, as of yet.
            Number two, just in case you were wondering about number one, you do not have to breath to scream. Voices are created by the vibrations in your voice-box, the air amplifies.
            Number three, since the baby LIVES in the fluid, then it is prudent to believe that it cannot drown from it.
            Number four, since the baby gets all its oxygen from the cord, then it cannot lose any supply from opening its mouth.

          • Alex Hunter

            So despite living like a fish, unborn babies are still considered human because they look like them?

          • They don’t live “like fish” – the amniotic fluid is developing their lungs. Do some research and don’t make snarky comments.

            The unborn baby is a human from conception. If you think an unborn baby is not human then what do you think it is? It is a tiny developing human just like a newborn is a little developing human and a toddler is a small developing human etc…

          • Lea C.

            So what kind of unborn baby is it? Dolphin? Kudu? Panda?

          • DS

            Youtube: The Silent Scream.

          • fiona64

            So, you believe a fake? Wow …

          • DS

            Its actual. Your lie of “its fake” repeated enough times won’t change the truth.

          • DS

            Come on Fiona, I am waiting 5 days now for you to prove it wrong.

          • They can’t drown in their own amniotic fluid. And actually they do breathe the amniotic fluid – it is part of their lung development. Babies in the womb also yawn, suck their thumb/fingers, have hiccups etc.

          • Ella Warnock

            If the oxygen supplied by the mother is interrupted or discontinued, the baby can indeed drown in amniotic fluid.

          • Mary Lee

            And? What is your point? If you refuse to feed your newborn, they will die of starvation. Dependency does not negate individuality. At no point is the baby ever part of the woman’s body.

          • Ella Warnock

            It’s pretty clear. A couple of people said there’s no way babies can drown in amniotic fluid. I pointed out that wasn’t true. Pretty simple, really.

          • diane

            Actually, a baby breathes in amniotic fluid. This is how they exercise their lungs and prepare them to breathe oxygen upon birth.

          • princessjasmine45

            I’m going to give you another pass on that one.. and chalk it up to a joke in very poor humor…
            I refuse to believe ANYONE is THIS ignorant

          • fenaray

            Kinda what I was thinking.

          • Mary Lee

            Which proves that you have no knowledge or understanding of biology at all.

          • fenaray

            Oh yes, that definitely proves it. Since I said “kinda” what I was thinking maybe it only “kinda” proves it. For someone who is so very busy with your profession and family and all you certainly seem to have plenty of time to type insults.

          • fiona64

            Pro-tip: “The Silent Scream” isn’t real.

          • Mary Lee

            Pro-tip: I didn’t even mention the Silent Scream. I wasn’t even TALKING about the Silent Scream.

          • fiona64

            Of course you weren’t …

            Yes. They scream. They cry and scream and try to get away from the abortionist’s tools. Ever watch an abortion? Go ahead.

            Your words, Mary Lee …

            And no, embryos don’t “cry and scream and try to get away.”

          • DS

            Prove otherwise…like all the other pro-aborts who have tried and failed before you.

          • Angel

            And you would know this how?

          • Mecz

            The most important fact is, the embryo, by nature, is a human life. Dismembering is not the only way to abort the unborn. You have suction aspiration, dilation and currettage, dilation evacuation (here they use forceps to twist and break the bones of the unborn at 18 weeks), salt poisoning, prostaglandin chemical abortion, hysterotomy or caesarean section (done at six months, they enter the womb through the abdomen to cut the umbilical cord, cutting off their oxygen supply to leave the baby suffocating. Sometimes they may remove the baby alive and leave him or her in a corner to die.) Then you have partial birth abortion. Here, the abortionist has to deliver the baby’s entire body, except for the head. The abortionist will jam scissors into the 7 month old to make an opening in their skull to use a suction catheter to remove the brain, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. Did you know that in some states it is legal to abort a 40 week old baby? It is really sad. Worse is when the fetus (when a fetus is born he or she is called a premature baby) survives an abortion. Because the abortionist may not tell the mother, throw the premature baby in a bin, and is left to die. Some mothers do see their baby born alive and no one tends to give medical attention to save the dying baby or the frightened mother when she calls for help.

          • KCalvo

            Yes they do. Have you ever heard of the video “the silent scream”. I’m starting to think that your “arguments” are intended to provoke a disagreement because it is evident that you have no clue in what you are saying.

          • Mamabear

            I believe that pro-life people use a moral definition and pro-abortion people use a legal definition of murder. The moral definition presupposes there is a natural moral law which is permanent, whether it is based on God, philosophy, logic, etc. It is often religious, but even many atheists believe there is some kind of universal standard for right and wrong. Whereas, the legal definition is based on laws enacted by governments and can be changed by governments.
            What’s the difference? Many things can be and are immoral, but law only punishes those things that are against the law of the land.
            In Nazi Germany, it was legal to kill Jews, Gypsies, political prisoners, disabled, and numerous others in concentration camps. But, I believe most of us would agree that that was murder from the moral standpoint.

          • kathykattenburg

            Fetuses don’t scream.

          • Mecz

            Kathy, at about 2 months a human life is considered a Fetus, which is Latin for “Little one”. Based on scientific evidence we do know that they feel pain.

          • Erin Locke

            That is amazing about the Latin! Thank you for giving me some food for thought.

          • musiciangirl591

            you learn a new thing everyday :)

          • kathykattenburg

            No, I’m sorry. There is no scientific consensus on when a fetus starts feeling pain, or even that they do at all. So we don’t “know” that.

          • Mecz

            Kathy, whether you believe it or not, the fact still remains that the fetus is a human life. Abortion is the termination of a human life. It isn’t right. It just isn’t right to end a human life.

          • fenaray

            I think sometimes it IS right to end a human life.

          • fenaray

            Even insects have the pain gene.

          • fiona64

            Not at 8 weeks, they don’t. The myelin sheath isn’t complete until well into the third trimester, and that must happen for pain to be experienced.

            Also, fetus does not mean what you claim. Its root is Latinate Middle English for “offspring.”

            fe·tus (fts)

            n. pl. fe·tus·es

            1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

            2.
            In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after
            conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier
            embryo.

            [Middle English, from Latin ftus, offspring; see dh(i)- in Indo-European roots.]

          • Mecz

            Fiona64, I never stated that at 8 weeks they feel pain. I stated that at that age they are named “fetus.” There has been evidence and scientists do believe they feel pain at 20 weeks. They may even feel pain at 12 weeks, too. But it does not change the fact that it is ending a human life. There is no justification for ending an unborn baby’s life when we have means to take treat both the mother and the baby. Killing the innocent and making it easier to mislead the public by dehumanizing them is not the solution. Also, I understand it means “offspring.” But, “Offspring” is equivalent to “Young One”. Reread the second definition of offspring. “the unborn young”.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, actually, you did say that at 8 weeks a fetus feels pain: Kathy, at a little over 2 months a human life is considered a Fetus,
            which is Latin for “Little One”. Based on scientific evidence we do know
            that they feel pain.

            No pregnant woman needs to “justify” her reproductive decisions to some stranger, in any event.

          • Mecz

            No, fiona64, I didn’t. My comment was poorly structured, and I wasn’t directing it towards you. I was letting someone else know when a baby is given the term “fetus.” And proving that it is in fact a human life. The person also made a general statement that a fetus cannot feel pain. So I made a general statement that a fetus does in fact feel pain. A fetus can also be a baby at 20 weeks. So you are aware that a premature baby was called a fetus when he or she was inside the womb. I don’t know why, but this person’s comment got deleted.

            A women can “justify” her reproductive decisions any time she wants. But she cannot justify her decision to end a human life. A baby is not a uterus. There is a difference.

          • A.Pres

            There is a video called “Silent Scream” in which a physician shows the fetus screaming in an ultrasound around 12 weeks gestation. That’s fairly solid scientific proof.

          • kathykattenburg

            No, it’s not. Making an assumption that fetal facial expressions or movements are deliberate and in response to objective external stimuli rather than just being reflexive movements does not constitute scientific proof of anything.

          • DS

            Like I told you above, many choicer groups have replicated the situation to make counter-videos, but guess what? They have similar if not same results. Admit it Kathy, abortion is murder.

          • It’s a silent scream. Google “Silent Scream” and watch a video of an abortion showing the baby trying to escape the abortionists “tools”…

          • DS

            Youtube: The Silent Scream.

            Much maligned, but no pro-abort group can disprove it, though many have tried in their business.

          • fiona64

            Planning to have your own baby ripped to pieces while he or she screams

            Embryos lack the capacity to scream … to say nothing of the oxygen.

            Really, the histrionics that the anti-choice employ are kind of amusing.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            The histrionics of the pro-death would be too if they weren’t trying to destroy innocent people. Unfortunately, their histrionics are just that, treating their own sons and daughters in an irresponsible, cavalier manner (that’s a compliment), and rationalizing it with…complaining about men who treat their own sons and daughters in an irresponsible, cavalier manner. If they can’t see the hypocrisy of victimizing themselves to justify murder, it’s no more.

            The pro-lifers aren’t just attracting attention. They think that the pro-deathers’ proposed solution is wrong, have every single piece of science and abstract reasoning to back it up (I dare you pro-deathers to prove that fetuses aren’t unique humans), and even have proposed a safe alternative: adoption. Those who support child sacrifice to the implied/unnoticed goddess of feminism are only making excuses.

          • kathykattenburg

            Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is lawful. It’s not murder.

          • Erin Locke

            So… If fratricide was legal in the eyes of men, then it wouldn’t be murder? I mean, after all, the more people you kill the more resources you have for yourself. If the world was overcrowded, and the government decided to make the current version of murder a little more lax, would that be right?
            No; because murder cannot be defined by men. Men have no definite morals with which to stand on, because in a world of chance, anything goes as long as it causes the odds to swing in your favor. All good, my friend, comes from God.

          • fenaray

            Which god?

          • Angel

            you’re taking a life when you have an abortion, therefor it is MURDER

          • kathykattenburg

            You’re taking a life when you execute someone, therefore it’s murder. You’re taking a life when you kill people in war, therefore it’s murder.

          • DS

            Fair public trial, right to legal counsel, jury by one’s peers, sentence by a judge, right to appeal sentence for 20+ years, non-cruel or unusual means of execution. Yeah, that’s not equatable to what an unborn child in America today receives in abortion.

            And “war”? That would be the use of military force in combat against a likewise armed adversary. Hmm…that doesn’t sound like the unborn’s plight to me Kathy!

            Are you done BSing yourself? You are going to lose these arguments. Abortion can never withstand frank discussion.

          • Lea C.

            And yet you argue to kill innocent children.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Uh, you do realize this is completely incompatible with your above claim that it can’t be murder if it’s legal, right?

          • kathykattenburg

            I was not endorsing that view, I was applying what Angel wrote directly above my reply to other lawful forms of killing that are actually not considered murder by many if not most “pro-lifers.”

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            We only execute people who have committed awful murders, and we only fight wars to make sure bad people don’t get powerful.

          • fenaray

            er, no, it’s a termination.

          • Mary Lee

            What do you think “termination” MEANS? “Terminal” illness means that it is fatal. Termination means “the end.” It is the ending of a life. All pregnancies “terminate” because it is not a permanent condition. “Termination” is a euphemism. That is the basis of any pro-abortion argument: euphemisms and obfuscation.

          • A.Pres

            It was once legal to kill black people. The entire point of the pro-life message is that history is repeating itself and calling the murder of innocent human’s “legal” once again.

          • kathykattenburg

            “It was once legal to kill black people.”

            LOL. It still is.

          • JDC

            Citation needed.

          • Debby

            This comment is being reported.

          • Ella Warnock

            She probably meant that it’s apparently okay to murder young black kids like Trayvon, since Zimmerman got away with it. If I were a black youngster, I’d certainly steer clear of that killer who’s walking free.

          • Mary Lee
          • Ella Warnock

            That’s actually kind of funny, Mary Lee. I didn’t peg you for having much of a sense of humor.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Zimmerman shot him in self-defense, and a lawyer proved it before a judge, and a jury agreed. Is self-defense a crime? Zimmerman was put into hiding, and he came out to save four people. That a crime too?

          • fenaray

            Yep, Georgie got away with murder.

          • musiciangirl591

            it was self defense, are you a racist?

          • Tulip

            If the courts sentence an innocent man to death because they believed he had committed a crime, sure, that execution is lawful, but is it just?
            Just because it´s in the law doesn´t make it right.

          • kathykattenburg

            Just because you believe something is wrong doesn’t mean there should be a law against it.

          • A.Pres

            Ethics dear, not beliefs.

          • Ryan Barnett

            Are you serious about that? Using your logic then slavery, jim crow laws, segregation, discrimination, nazism, communism, dictators, despots, regimes and all other forms of evil past and present all should have been left alone and not resolved? Wow! Some world that would have been.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            No, the fact that it kills someone means there should be a law against it. If you’re gonna play with serious philosophical and legal distinctions, you really must familiarize yourself with them.

          • kathykattenburg

            And I happen to strongly oppose both the death penalty and war, and I believe the death penalty should be illegal. War is a bit more complicated, you can’t really pass a law against it, but it should be almost impossible for a nation to go to war without incurring serious significant penalties from the international community. However, having said that, I know that the death penalty and war are not considered murder. For me personally and morally, they are murder, but they’re not murder in any legal sense.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            The death penalty and war save people. The death penalty saves innocent, law-abiding citizens from notorious murderers and war saves people from evil regimes.

          • kathykattenburg

            Both of those statement are patently untrue. What IS true is that legal abortion has saved the lives of millions of women. That’s a fact.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Nope. Not when they’re only killing it because it’s inconvenient. Pregnancy is not a disease, get that through your head please.

            And both those statements are very true. The alternative to killing habitual murderers is releasing them so they can keep killing. The alternative to invading Germany or Iraq to oust Hitler or Hussein is letting them make people’s lives miserable.

          • kathykattenburg

            “Not when they’re only killing it when it’s inconvenient.”

            This begs the question. Women don’t have abortions because pregnancy is inconvenient.

            But when it comes to capital punishment and war, suddenly you think your claims about why it’s good are perfectly valid, even though you deny that women’s explanations for why they have abortions are valid. In point of fact, Andrew, the death penalty does nothing to prevent crime — in fact, some people think it’s an incentive. Have you ever heard of suicide by cop? People who feel they have absolutely nothing to lose, that they’re already as good as dead inside, are not going to be deterred by the death penalty. And this is not even to mention the fact that innocent people can be put to death, and the death penalty is permanent. You love to say that a woman’s circumstances can always change, but abortion is permanent. Somehow when it comes to execution, that’s not a concern for you.

            As for war, it’s about money and/or power, or revenge. It’s not about saving lives. It’s obscene to say that a practice that kills millions of innocent people is moral because it saves lives. It’s an obscene lie. War never solves the problem that was nominally the reason for it. If it solves anything at all, it always creates more problems than it solves — problems that always lead to the next war. That’s the story of the entire 20th century. Starting with WWI, every single war led directly to the next one.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Yes. Yes they do. That’s the only reason they have abortions, besides eugenics, rape, and ectopic pregnancies. The fact that you think that pregnancy is a disease is disturbing.

            Yes, the death penalty does deter crime. It makes criminals think twice before going on a murder rampage. And I agree, mentally ill people do it anyway. That’s both a cause and an effect of their mental illness. Sane people obey laws partly from disliking punishment. And yes! I have no scruples about sticking a needle in someone who’s, say, killed his mother and dozens of elementary school students, or perhaps someone who’s committed a string of gruesome murders. They’re guilty of murder. Period. We can’t trust them to stop doing it if we let them live. How do you justify releasing murderers? Do you say instead that Adam Ranza did a lot of really late-term abortions?

            As for war, it hasn’t always been about getting rid of dictators, but that’s how it’s usually used nowadays. I agree, if a war was started that could be proven to be motivated by greed or whatever, I wouldn’t support it. But taking Hussein down? Fine by me. He was a bad guy, and everyone knew it. Saying otherwise is deluding yourself.

          • kathykattenburg

            “Yes. Yes they do. That’s the only reason they have abortions, besides
            eugenics, rape, and ectopic pregnancies.”

            Obviously, this is nonsense, even more so because you have absolutely no way to support your argument, just your own beliefs.

            There’s no logic or consistency in your position on abortion vs. capital punishment and war. Somehow your claims about why abortion is bad are perfectly valid, even though you can’t support them, while my claims about why war and capital punishment are bad you just dismiss.

            “The fact that you think that pregnancy is a disease is disturbing.”

            I don’t think pregnancy is a disease. I think pregnancy is pregnancy. It’s a physical, biological event that affects a woman’s health. You think pregnancy is just a baby in a box. You sit a baby in a box, that’s not going to affect the box in any way. You put a baby in a woman’s uterus, that’s not going to affect the woman’s physical existence in any way. It has nothing to do with her health. A fetus growing into a baby inside a woman’s uterus, attached to the woman’s body by a cord, it’s just sitting there, waiting to be removed from the box after nine months. How could pregnancy possibly have anything to do with a woman’s health? It’s not like the fetus interacts with her body, or anything like that. It’s just sitting there, inside one of the woman’s organs, minding its own business, waiting for a passerby to take it out of the box. I don’t even know why a doctor would have to do that at all, pregnancy is not a disease. You go to a doctor when you’re sick, right? Why would a pregnant woman need to see doctors? She’s not sick, she doesn’t have a disease. She just has a baby growing inside her and when it’s time, the baby will pop up out of the box, just like bread in a toaster!

            “How do you justify releasing murderers?”

            How do I justify releasing murderers? Where did you get *that* from?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I wish it were my own personal beliefs. But no, sorry to burst your ignorant bubble, but unless both mother and child are threatened by the pregnancy, there is no valid excuse, and only one rationalization: inconvenience.

            The excuses, one by one:
            1. “I can’t afford a kid!” Why did you have sex?
            2. “It was rape!” So you’re not getting the police to kill the rapist? Guess who else sacrificed children instead of bad adults? Ancient people who thought the Earth was flat!
            3. “It was likely to develop [insert inherited disorder here]!” Do you have something against handicapped people?

            4. “It was an ectopic pregnancy!” I feel your pain. There was nothing else you could have done except risk two lives. Of course, I read on a science website (can’t remember which one) that many forms of ectopic pregnancy are preventable. Be careful, please.

            Abortion=murdering an innocent, helpless, dependent child because it’s inconvenient.
            Death Penalty=punishing someone for killing too many people.
            War=the reason you can still even spout your garbage. Good for national defense against foreign bad guys, and taking their power away, and rescuing their victims. Sometimes happens whether we like it or not, or is the only path left, so we’d better be ready for it. Thank a soldier for your ability to call him a killer.

            Do you see the pattern? Those that are completely innocent live. Those that are irredeemably guilty die. Some who are neither completely innocent nor completely guilty risk their lives for your safety and freedom.

            And finally, in a state where the death penalty is legal, the killer will be sentenced thus. He keeps appealing, however, and at each turn, the court’s options are kill him or release him. Because of the way courts are structured there is no middle ground in a criminal case between punishment or acquittal. You oppose the death penalty, which means you support releasing criminals. How do you justify that?

          • kathykattenburg

            “Death Penalty=punishing someone for killing too many people.”

            Death Penalty = state-sanctioned murder (morally).

            “Thank a soldier for your ability to call him a killer.”

            I didn’t call a soldier a killer.

            “Do you see the pattern? Those that are completely innocent live.”

            What do you mean by “completely innocent”? Many death row prisoners have been found innocent of the crime they would have been executed for, *outside of the appeals process,* solely because anti-death penalty law school students and their professors dug into the case on their own and found exculpatory information.

            “Those that are irredeemably guilty die.”

            Again, given that many individuals sentenced to death have had their sentences overturned, not because of anything in the system, but only because others outside the system proved on their own time that the conviction was wrongful, it’s logical and reasonable to assume that at least some innocent people have been put to death because they weren’t lucky enough to have their cases picked up by The Innocence Project.

            “He keeps appealing, however, and at each turn, the court’s options are
            kill him or release him. Because of the way courts are structured there
            is no middle ground in a criminal case between punishment or acquittal.
            You oppose the death penalty, which means you support releasing
            criminals. How do you justify that?”

            You are a bit confused. If an individual sentenced to death has his conviction overturned on appeal, that means the courts have found that he was *wrongfully* convicted in the first place, which of course means he’s released.

            If an individual is convicted of a capital crime and all his appeals fail, then there IS an alternative to the death penalty other than releasing him.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Abortion=state-sanctioned murder. Death penalty=punishing people who have been proven with forensics to be killers who deserve to die.

            You said war is murder, which is much the same thing as calling a soldier a killer.

            Name one innocent person who was executed. And prove he was innocent, too.

            You’re confused too. If someone who really is a killer gets released, he’ll just start killing again.

            And the idea of an appellate court is acquit charges and release defendant or stick to original punishment, which sometimes is the death penalty. Can you do us both a favor and read the Constitution?

          • Mary Lee

            No, it saved the LIFESTYLES of millions of women. Surely you must know the difference.

            And what about the women who died from legal abortions? Pro-aborts just don’t care about them at all.

          • kathykattenburg

            I do know the difference between a woman’s lifestyle and a woman’s life, just as I know the difference between a woman’s (or a man’s) lifestyle and that woman’s (or man’s) sexual orientation.

            First, I’d like to see some examples of women who actually did die having legal abortions that were done by qualified, certified, licensed medical professionals.

            Second, assuming there are any, show me evidence that they died FROM the abortion in and of itself, as opposed to something that was done wrong in the medical procedure or some unrelated factor. You DO know that people die or are maimed for life all the time by unquestionably competent, licensed, experienced medical professionals in reputable hospitals, and no one suggests that whatever medical or surgical procedure they were having should be banned, correct?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You realize that in the case of some unrelated factor or human error occurred in the abortion, then if they hadn’t tried to have the abortion, they would have probably lived longer, even if pregnant for a few months?

            I’m going to say this next argument with an assumption of evolution. You realize that millions of years of humans reproducing means that the stages of pregnancy and the process of birth are genetically programmed into us as normal? The woman may not have planned the child, but the body begins preparations upon conception.

            Abortion is a trauma. After a miscarriage or abortion, the woman’s body has to readjust itself, after wasting all that time planning for a child. The woman may not have planned the child, but the body begins preparations upon conception. The unconscious part of the mind, also genetically programmed to regard live birth as normal (and having prepared itself for reproduction), must also deal with the abortion or miscarriage.

            It’s easier with a miscarriage because miscarriages are accidents. Abortions are deliberate, which means the body and the unconscious think the woman got attacked by a predator, and they go into trauma mode. Shock, then dissociation, then the woman seems OK for a while, then she may begin to relive it, then she’ll seem less happy and should at this point receive treatment.

            The younger the woman, the worse, because younger people are more fragile and unstable and illogical (me included). The older you get, the better about these things your mind gets. A woman in her forties is less easily traumatized than a woman in her teens (the teenager hasn’t lived long enough yet to have seen, heard, or done everything). But the mind still treats it as a trauma. No person is free from being traumatized by something labelled “threat” by his/her body and unconscious.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            As an afterthought, here is an address to a page about some psychological effects of abortion:

          • kathykattenburg

            It’s not clickable, Andrew. But really, Andrew. I’ve had two abortions myself, and since they were over 20 years ago, I’ve had plenty of time to develop these negative psychological effects. I’ve never regretted those abortions. So who do you think I’m going to trust or believe more on a matter like this? The fantasies of an anti-abortion site? Or my own lived experience?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Type it in the address box. http://www.afterabortion.org/2011/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-psychological-complications-related-to-abortion/

            Regretting abortions is conscious and deliberate and therefore not necessarily genetically programmed. And afterabortion.org isn’t anti-abortion, it’s a resource for post-abortion issues. If it were anti-abortion, good.

          • kathykattenburg

            Okay, I looked at the site. It IS anti-abortion, Andrew. I mean, it’s clearly, obviously, indisputably anti-abortion. So be happy.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            So you have more sympathy for unrepentant murderers, torturers, and rapists than you do for an innocent unborn human being. Gotcha.

          • patriciacarrasco

            pro-choicers nearly always have this view to protect the guilty while killing the innocent. why? its absurd

          • fiona64

            Feti lack the capacity for either guilt or innocence. You merely project innocence onto them.

          • musiciangirl591

            just because its legal doesn’t make it right, everything hitler did at the time in germany was legal #justsaying

          • fenaray

            You need to brush up on your history.

          • musiciangirl591

            you have other information?

          • johno

            I wonder if Dr. Gosnell should be let out of jail if George Zimmerman should be in Jail? Same under the law?

          • Lea C.

            Everything Hitler did was “lawful”.

          • johno

            Dr. Gosnell should be out of jail then.

          • dan

            your pretty much a moron…thats right i said it, im an atheist, and pro life…so by your idiotic logic if the government says that blacks or gays or jews arent fully human then its ok to kill them…becauuse its legal….forget about the ethical implications or the morality of killing those you arbitrarily decide are not worthy. you effing retard.

          • kathykattenburg

            No, but it might be okay to hold them in prison camps without legal rights and torture them indefinitely.

          • johno

            North Korea comes to mind. Abortion and random killing in camps/gulags. It’s a utopia for killers.

          • Ryan Barnett

            Fenaray in regards to your above statement. You nailed it! Abortion is legalized murder! Before 1973 it was illegal to obtain an abortion precisely because it was murder! And murder is in most cases outside abortion exactly that- murder! After 1973 however it become legal to kill a child in the womb. You cant really say that is false because you would be denying historical facts in addition to your continued denial of science and logic.

          • fenaray

            Science and logic, good point. Science shows us that a fetus 12 weeks or younger generally can’t survive outside the mother’s womb. Logic tells me that a woman should be in control of the choices made with regard to her body, her reproductive system and any fetus occupying her uterus. However, to you that is not logic. Apparently you believe that those choices should not be left to the woman. Logic tells me that current law in the US doesn’t comport to your view of logic.

          • patriciacarrasco

            that is not “logic” that is rationalization of ur selfish acts.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Logic tells me that current law in the US needs to change.

          • Ryan Barnett

            The point you made about a fetus 12 weeks or younger not being able to survive outside the mother’s womb an irrelevant to be frank. The reason why is because we are not talking about a baby outside the womb but one that is being attacked inside it. So I do pardon you for your erroneous tangent. In regards to logic, you nailed it! A choice made in regard to HER body, not the body of another person! Thank you for being straightforward on that one. I do appreciate it! Do we leave criminals the choice to cause mayhem? To murder, rape, rob, and burglarize homes? No we punish them! Logic does not change simply because laws do.

          • Me

            Actually, it became legal in a few states a couple of years before that.

          • johno

            Dr. Gosnell should not be in jail then.

          • fenaray

            Hm, reading comprehension seems to be an issue. I posited that you wish the two (termination of pregnancy and dismembering a baby) to be equal and the same, synonymous – they aren’t.

          • Mary Lee

            My reading comprehension? Nope, it’s very good, actually. Your understanding of biology is nil, though, evidently.

          • fenaray

            That’s the second time you’ve mentioned that and I have no idea what you are talking about. A fetus isn’t a “baby,” it’s not my definition, ask a lawyer.

          • Mary Lee

            A fetus IS a baby, according to DOCTORS AND EMBRYOLOGISTS. Ask a lawyer? Like, when the Supreme Court said black people weren’t really “people”….? Yeah, sorry, if it has to do with biology, I’m not gonna…ask a lawyer. (See pro-choice figures like Mary Elizabeth Williams–in the article, above, which you clearly didn’t even read!–and Peter Singer, and Naomi Wolf….many have already admitted that yes, these are babies.)

          • fenaray

            Ah well, thank goodness our country’s laws aren’t dictated by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Abortion should be legal, safe and on demand. Thank goodness our founders established separation of church and state. Thank goodness the US is finally raising its standards to include full rights for women and autonomy over our bodies and reproductive systems. My rights shouldn’t be infringed by your religious beliefs.

          • Mary Lee

            I’m a secular pro-lifer.

            You were saying?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Mary, please understand that feneray does not gather her truths based on facts: she gathers her truths based on language. She believes that her language is what makes something true or false, not facts which correspond with reality. So, she can ignore the realities of basic biology, videos of abortion (The Silent Scream, etc), sworn testimonies, Gosnell, etc, so long as she uses cute language and slogans to make herself feel better about supporting the Abortion Holocaust. Notice too how she changed “legal, safe, and rare” into “legal, safe, and on demand.” This was because, even in the “language is truth” mind, she somehow knows it’s not rare. But, she has clearly read the Planned Murder-In-the-Hood “bible” to some degree, so let’s give her some credit for being true to her “religion.”

          • kathykattenburg

            You’re deceiving yourself if you call yourself secular AND support making abortion illegal. Identifying yourself as pro-life or anti-abortion is NOT the same thing as supporting laws that criminalize abortion. There are many people who think abortion is morally wrong and would never have one, but also believe they don’t have the right to impose that value on anyone else.

          • That makes a much sense as saying you believe it’s not OK to drive under the influence and you would never do it but you don’t feel you have the right to impose that belief on someone else! Or you wouldn’t murder someone but that’s your belief and you wouldn’t want to force that on someone else! Hello?! All our laws are based on a moral value and are imposed upon people who don’t necessarily agree – such as drunk drivers, serial killers, rapists etc…

          • Tulip

            or to say, I wouldn´t abuse a child, but if someone else wants to, well, it´s their choice….I can´t impose on them.

          • patriciacarrasco

            unfortunately this is whats imposed on young people today the “live and let live who cares if its wrong if it makes u happy” mantra! no type of logic, morals…anything. this must be the last generation truly

          • johno

            Look at Anthony Wiener’s sexting lady. Ms. Leathers. She is getting 5 minutes of fame and now is a porn star. Oh, well.

          • Ryan Barnett

            “There are many people who think abortion is morally wrong and would never have one, but also believe they don’t have the right to impose that value on anyone else.” Kathy your own statement reminds me of the time we had slavery. Using the same kind of logic its no wonder it took hundreds of years to abolish it. I hope it wont take that long to abolish abortion however. It is the greater travesty.

          • princessjasmine45

            There are also many people who feel pedophila is wrong and would never engage in such behavior… but far be it from them (including me) to impose such values on the poor pedophiles..
            same logic.

          • Mary Lee

            Also, there are many atheist and agnostic pro-lifers, so…there’s the door.

          • kathykattenburg

            I’ve never met one or heard or read one.

          • Basset_Hound

            Conservative commentator S.E. Cupp is a pro-life atheist. So is Nat Hentoff, who founded the uber-liberal Village Voice.

          • Mary Lee

            I am an agnostic pro-lifer. I have a spiritual side, and feel a particular affinity for Judaism. I am not sure what is out there, have an inkling that we have souls, I support gay rights, all kinds of things that break the stereotype that pro-aborts hold about the pro-life community. Sometimes I don’t answer posts here, because my answer would include an incredible amount of notations, because to prove that abortion is wrong–beyond a doubt–takes much time and energy. The argument must be laid down in steps, the way one would make a layer cake. I have not the energy to do this, partly because my job is demanding, and partly because I have been taking care of my family. But every single argument by every pro-abort is shallow, unsupportable, often euphemistic, and unbelievably myopic.

          • fenaray

            Then you probably know that Judaism doesn’t oppose abortion.

          • Mary Lee

            There are pro-life Jews. http://jewishprolifefoundation.org/Jewish_Pro-Life_Foundation/Welcome.html

            I have also met Episcopalians who are pro-life, and atheists, and Buddhists, and, as we said, Wiccans. There are Catholics who claim to support abortion. People are not consistent, not anywhere.

            And I didn’t say I was Jewish. I said I feel an affinity towards Judaism. And, to be honest, I don’t understand how any thinking person who believes in a God believes that God would ever support the killing of an unborn child. If we agnostics and atheists find the taking of these babies’ lives indefensible, how in the world could one believe that God would support or look past these killings?

          • Basset_Hound

            And, as you have mentioned often, incredibly self centered.

          • Tulip

            you have now, her name´s Mary Lee.

          • Mary Lee

            Nat Hentoff, Kathryn Reed, Norah Vincent, Judith Ferris, Doris Gordon, Kelsey Hazzard, and…oh someone named Christopher Hitchens.

          • fenaray

            Pro-birth is more accurate. Many here seem to support the death penalty, wouldn’t jesus have a problem with that?

          • Mary Lee

            You just keep coming up with silly slogans and watchwords and attacks. Pro-birth? Yes, we are pro-birth. Birth is good. Some are anti-death penalty and some are not. Some are vegetarians (I am a pescatarian). Some are not. Evidently, those who support abortion are anti-birth. Or they are only pro-birth “when they feel like it” (using Conor’s words). Pro-aborts view their own unborn children as their enemies. It is very, very warped.

          • Liam Phoenix

            ^ Pro-life pagan :)

          • Lea C.

            Thank you! All life is sacred.

          • fenaray

            even cockroaches, lol.

          • musiciangirl591

            i’ve met some pro-life atheists, agnostics, wiccans

          • Mary Lee

            I get a HUGE kick out of pro-life wiccans! (I say that with affection.) They are so earth-mothery, I love it! They celebrate everything.

          • musiciangirl591

            anyone who stands up for the sanctity of human life is awesome in my book (i’m pro-life Christian (catholic))

          • johno

            Cool!

          • kathykattenburg

            Right on, feneray.

          • Angel

            Kind of hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person

          • fenaray

            Yes, or an intelligent debate with a zealot.

          • Mary Lee

            You are as much a zealot as anyone on this board.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Mary, once again I applaud your tenacity in sticking through this monster of a thread. The fools really outdid themselves, and you’re dispatching them sublimely.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I second that, Mary – good show! Keep fighting the good fight!

          • Mary Lee

            Thank you Calvin! Pro-aborts are exhausting, aren’t they? The level of ignorance is staggering.

            But sometimes trying to get through to them, sparring with them, it seems ridiculous, like fencing with a paraplegic.

          • JDC

            Honestly, I think some of these people are under the impressive that “zealot” is just a generic insult for people they don’t like. The same thing goes for “ignorant”.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Well, nobody wants to be considered either, do they?

          • Mary Lee

            Hey, I don’t mind being called a zealot, since I have a lot of zeal for this issue. I believe in the strength of women, and our resourcefulness, and I believe in the beauty of life, and the beauty and dignity of our unborn children. If that makes me a zealot, then, hell yeah, I’m a zealot. If that makes me “anti-choice” then, by golly, I’m “anti-choice.” They can call me anything they want. I will not stop trying to protect both women and babies.

          • Mary Lee

            Oh, also “hateful.” They like to use that word when someone disagrees with them. Dissenting opinion (even opinion that is based on facts) is “hate.”

          • Tulip

            safe… like gosnell, and the other 40 clinics that have closed this year because they couldn´t uphold safety regulations?

          • Shana Ussery Rockwell

            Curious, Fenaray, have you had one of these “legal, safe and on demand” procedures you boldly support? The argument becomes that much more convincing when you are one of the two that walked into a doctors office and lived to tell about it without emotional and psychological and in some cases medical trauma. I have yet to meet one woman or teenager who has not carried a deep seeded regret and unshakeable guilt over such a procedure. Yes, a person has the freedom of choice to do as he or she wishes. People choose everyday to do things that harm themselves, as well as others around them. Read the other day that a mother choose to get high with her boyfriend, she passed out and her boyfriend raped her 12 year old daughter. That mother, when told of the incident, choose not to believe her daughter. As a result the daughter committed suicide. Upon the autopsy report it was discovered the girl was truthful and she was violated. That mother made another choice, she choose to commit suicide as well. You are probably wondering what any of this has to do with abortion, right? Well lets put aside for a moment the argument about it coming down to a woman’s right to do with her body as she chooses because well, a woman can’t be told what to do with her body – it is her body. But as you know, as I know, and as anyone who has done life and have had experiences, good and bad alike, know there are consequences to all decisions we make – the one I shared above is an unfolding of one decision effecting another, which affected another and lives where changed because of one singular bad decision. The claim with pro-abortion is that it is nothing more than a procedure. It isn’t murder and a fetus isn’t a human and so there is no right to life case. In the end though, words pale in comparison to experience – the post abortion life after death reality is that a woman just committed an act of crime against her child that she otherwise believed was nothing more than just a fetus that had no right to life but then something happened, something she was not told would happen, something she did not expect to happen, something she was not prepared to have happened – revelation caught up to her and she realized that she was lied to and she bought it hook, line and sinker and what she has been left with in exchange for her legal, safe and on demand procedure is a lifetime of guilt and un-forgiveness. Yes, it boils down to choice and the sad thing here is that no one considers the weight of that and what a burden it can carry once the hammer has been dropped. My heart goes out to all the women who have been left with a deed that can not be undone and do not know how to move past that. Scores of women regret that decision and are scarred – does that not even figure in? Does anyone even care? Or are they just considered a casualty of war? I feel for the woman, period, pre and especially post abortion. What a decision. What a decision to have to be ladened with. I should know…I was at such a difficult crossroad, had many restless nights and long days filled with tears and anxiety but in the end I choose his life over mine and I am so glad I did.

          • fenaray

            I am happy that your choice was right for you. My choices have been right for me as well.

          • Ryan Barnett

            fenaray you claim that your rights should not be infringed by other’s beliefs? Are you and all pro abortion people for that matter infringing upon another’s right to life by your beliefs? You know the 9th 10th and 14th amendments actually make a case protecting a babie’s right to life? Most evidently the 9th amendment by far makes a clear cut rule that abortion is without a doubt unconstitutional. The 9th amendment states:
            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
            In other words if abortion is a “certain right” then it is denying the right retained by the baby. I bet you did not know that. Oh but whats the Constitution anyway pro abortion people say? Its just a living breathing document after all. You are entirely inconsistent and dishonest if you claim such.

          • Mary Lee

            And they are imposing THEIR morality and THEIR beliefs not only on us, but on their own babies. They impose their own morality on their children to a fatal degree.

          • fenaray

            The rights of the pregnant woman trump any rights of the unborn embryo. I think that’s probably protected by the constitution.

          • Mary Lee

            The right to live trumps all other rights. No one has the right to kill someone because that individual’s existence somehow annoys or inconveniences them.

            Killing any human being is horrible enough; for a mother to have her own child killed, to deny the most basic right to her own son or daughter, that should be unimaginable. You keep saying ’embryo’ because it makes your conscience (for lack of a better word) feel ‘less guilty.’ Abortions are committed on little babies. We know about fetal development now. We know what they look like, with their little arms and hands and eyes and legs.

            I’m sure telling yourself that abortion is “the right choice for me” makes you feel better. I’m also sure that Betty Broderick felt better after she shot her ex-husband and his new trophy wife. And I’ll tell you, I sometimes even FEEL for Betty Broderick and what she went through, to some extent. But what she did…..is not excusable. Abortion is not “self-defense.” Your own son or daughter is not an invader, an enemy, a stranger. Your own choices led to his or her existence. They deserve to live, and hopefully, to know the love of a mother. These are intrinsic rights that every human being deserves, and nobody, especially one’s own mother, has the right to destroy them.

          • eric

            @fenaray…..good gracious”…ëstablished Church and State?”‘ HEH?????SHOW ME ANY DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY OUR FOREFATHERS ABOUT SEP. OF CHURCH AND STATE…….IT WAS A SENTENCE IN A LETTER NOT A FORMAL DOCUMENT LIKE THE CONSTITUTION OR BILL OF RIGHTS from Thomas Jefferson to a church in MA about the state staying out of Church’s business……you pro aborts’ time is up and we are taking our country back……

          • Lea C.

            How safe is abortion for the dead child?

          • kayuarjo

            That’s right! poor baby can’t stand a chance, mother, so call doctor and nurses against the baby, he is definitely treated worse than a serial killer.

          • Katrina Scott

            So, I’m wondering if you’ve taken the time to actually look up what abortion is really about. Since I’m sure everyone here can agree we don’t want anything to do with your vagina, please get over that particular train of thought.
            I would recommend you look up groups such as:
            Feminists for Life
            New Wave Feminists
            Atheists and Agnostics for Life
            Lesbians for Life
            Democrats for Life
            Liberals for Life
            These groups are clearly not driven by any one particular religious, political or demographic stigma you may wish to place on them in order to put all Pro Life people into a convenient box. They are groups of various multi cultural, political and ethical backgrounds, most of whom are educated and intelligent people, who realize that abortion is an infringement upon human life.
            How does any one of us have any rights whatsoever if our most basic right (which is simply the right to be alive) is taken from us at any time another entity chooses to have it taken?
            Do what you will with YOUR body, with YOUR healthcare and YOUR vagina. Just please stop using verbal eloquence to mask what abortion actually is: stripping the right to live from another uniquely individual human being.

          • musiciangirl591

            i’m a member of FFL actually :)

          • Mary Lee

            Me too!

          • Mary Lee

            Yeah, tell all the women that miscarried their babies, that they didn’t lose their babies. http://liveactionnews.org/my-so-called-spontaneous-abortion/

            Go back to your cave.

          • Mamabear

            Actually, if you check the laws, an unborn child can inherit from a deceased father. If the wife is pregnant, final distribution of the children’s portion of the estate must wait until after the birth. If your will states so much to each grandchild and a daughter or daughter-in-law is pregnant, that unborn baby is a legal heir.
            Social Security survivor benefits also recognize the rights of a child born up to 9 months after the father’s death.
            If the father is military and killed in action, his unborn child gets the same benefits until 18 as already born children.
            These laws were all on the books prior to our ability to ultrasound and do other prenatal testing, so the child actually has to be born to collect, and due to once high infant mortality rates in some state the child must survive a certain number of hours or days, but they do indeed recognize that an unborn child is indeed a legitimate heir. And is that really all that different from heirs that have to meet other age stipulations to actually collect, such as being inheritances that cannot be collected until age 21?

          • fenaray

            You contradict yourself. You say an unborn child can inherit but I think that is incorrect. The unborn child has a claim, that claim can’t be recognized until the unborn child is born. The child must be “born” in order to receive those rights. You can’t assign a social security number to an unborn child. You can’t claim an unborn child on your taxes.

          • Mecz

            fenaray, it may not be a full grown baby, but it remains a human life from the very beginning. A fetus now has his or her vital organs formed, has arms and legs, and each minute the fetus brain develops 250,000 new neurons and can move his or her muscles.

          • eric

            @fenaray: so lawyers decide life now? well, I guess we don’t need science or God to tell us anything then….We have lawyers to replace both. Actually 9 un-elected officials(SCOTUS) in Roe V. Wade told us that…BUT since you mentioned lawyers, go ahead and get ready because over turning Roe.V. Wade is coming with introduction of “Life at Conception Act” by Sen. Rand Paul
            Whereas: Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it could not resolve “the difficult question of when life begins” – and on the basis of this unresolved question, declared a new “right to abortion” based on a “right of privacy”; and
            Whereas: The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny
            to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law”;and
            Whereas: In Roe, the Supreme Court admitted: “If . . . personhood [for the unborn] is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment…”
            (Roe v. Wade [410 US 113 at 156-7]); and
            Whereas: Science is clear that human life begins at conception when a new human being is formed;and
            Whereas: The American people oppose abortion-on-demand and want innocent human life to be protected especially when it is most defenseless; and
            Whereas: It belongs to Congress to resolve the question the Supreme Court said IT cannot resolve; and
            Whereas: A Life at Conception Act, by declaring that unborn children are persons legally entitled to constitutional protection, will rescue millions of unborn children from dying by abortion-on-demand;—-Sen. Rand Paul……

          • fenaray

            I look forward to it. There’s no way in hell that asinine “personhood” movement is going anywhere. Feel free to hold your breath. Rand Paul, good one, roflmfao.

          • Lea C.

            Fetus is a stage of HUMAN development. It is a person, with it’s own blood type and DNA. Zygote, infant, teen, fetus, adult. It’s just the stage of LIFE the HUMAN is in.

          • kate

            A woman becomes pregnant with a baby, which goes through several stages of development (ie. zygote, fetus) but will still be a baby – you guessed it – human. A woman can never be pregnant with a kangaroo or a bear or a dolphin or anything other than a human. You can call it whatever you want but it will still turn out to be one thing. Human. By any law – secular and religious – killing another human being is wrong and illegal. Plain and simple.

          • fenaray

            Er, no, killing the embryo is legal and so is killing prisoners who have been sentenced to death. Killing human beings, in certain legal contexts is legal.

          • johno

            Guess North Korea is utopia for killing, Born and unborn not a problem. China tends to kill unborn “females”. They choose to only have males and 1 child. It’s legal. The real question “Is this right?”.

          • kathykattenburg

            This is why calling the contents of a pregnant woman’s womb a “baby” is so problematic. It’s not a baby, at least not in the sense that a newborn is a baby. It’s a fetus, or an embryo, or a fertilized egg. And there’s only ONE stage of pregnancy at which a fetus even HAS limbs to dismember. Fertilized eggs don’t have limbs. Neither do zygotes or embryos. For the entire first trimester of pregnancy, there simply ARE no “limbs” to dismember when a woman has an abortion.

          • A.Pres

            They may not have what we define as fully formed “limbs”, but “limbs” are a prerequisite for dismembering a human. You can still dismember a quadriplegic person with no limbs and 6-week old pre-born humans can still have its lungs, stomach, ears, eyes, heart, lips…. etc. dismembered…. all the while having active, sentient brain waves.

          • JesusLovesAll

            This is what most people are deciding not to understand. When anti-abortionists say things like “Dismembering”, they seem to think that abortions are done during the 9th month of pregnancy, which is an absurd though. Believing terminating a pregnancy is murder is as crazy as saying all men are guilty of genocide because of the 5,000,000 potential infants that were killed. in the process, or that Vagina’s are guilty of murder for killing potential infants. or that a women is a murderer for not fertilizing her egg and letting it die. See, it’s all complete absurdity.

          • johno

            Dr. Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” had dismembered feet in jars. I understand that. He kept the aborted fetus’s feet. Is this not crazy?

          • patriciacarrasco

            u need a SPERM to make a child, an egg by itself not being fertilized and being disposed of thru a period is not murder, simple biology

          • fiona64

            Um, Patricia? Estimates are that about half of concepti (which means the ovum has been fertilized) exit during menses without ever implanting. Do you mourn every time you get a period, just in case there’s a tiny “person” in there?

          • You *really* need to check out the facts of embryology:
            http://bird.cac.med.kyoto-u.ac.jp/html/human_development_e.html
            The child clearly has limbs by 8 weeks. There really are no “stages” of pregnancy unless you are referring to trimesters? And obviously well before 2nd trimester begins (13 weeks) the child has clearly identifiable limbs so that makes 2+ of the 3 “stages”. You should also read up on how abortion is performed at the various gestational ages. Here is how Planned Parenthood explains: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures-4359.asp

          • kathykattenburg

            I’ve had two abortions, and I’ve seen what came out. It did not look like a baby.

          • Do you want us to congratulate you for your “choice”? I feel that deep down you are still trying to reconcile your choice.

            Of course what “came out” during abortion didn’t look like a baby. Does anything you put in a blender look the same afterward? The suction essentially liquifies everything if it is a really early suction abortion. Later on in pregnancy (D&C abortion) the abortionist/staff have to “reassemble” the baby’s body on the tray to make sure they got all the body parts. Abortion workers leave the industry because they can no longer *rationalize* what they are doing – hard to tell yourself it’s not a baby when you have to put baby parts together like a jigsaw puzzle every day…

          • A.Pres

            This very fact is probably the reason your heart is so hardened to all the logical and ethical arguments presented here. You don’t need (or deserve) any cruel statements directed your way, the mind has a way of punishing itself for these things, but I sincerely hope you have given yourself time to grieve.

            It’s not a stretch to surmise that your statements are made out of justification for your anguish over your decision. Perhaps it might be time to consider that you’re emotionally invested in the issue to a point at which it has skewed your judgement? Have you ever thought “what if I gave them a chance to live?” “what if a wonderful adoptive family had a chance to love them?”

            I’m sorry for the your loss. I hope you get all the compassion you need directed towards you that wasn’t directed towards your children.

          • fenaray

            Doesn’t sound like your sorry with that backhanded “compassion” comment. Hypocrite.

          • Ieva

            I am very sorry for you. I see now why you are doing what you are doing. You are broken and you do not know it.
            I will pray for you.

          • fenaray

            That should help.

          • KCalvo

            Of course its not going to look like a baby. Thats because it wasn’t at the stage where it begins to like one. Its called developmental stages.

          • fenaray

            Wow Kathy, that takes guts! I admire your naked honesty. You cannot win with this group, I now see why so many refuse to engage with them. Their way is the only “right” way.

          • How do you think “terminating a pregnancy” works? You become a mother once you become pregnant. “Terminating your pregnancy” doesn’t make you not a mother, it makes you the mother of a dead baby. Ask any woman who regrets having an abortion or any woman who has miscarried.

          • kathykattenburg

            Wow. You are so wrong. Giving birth to a baby does NOT make you a mother, except in the narrowest biological sense. Loving a child and raising a child makes you a mother, if you’re female, and a father, if you’re male.

          • Nope. Not wrong. Pregnancy makes a woman a mother. Raising a child makes you a Mom or Dad.

          • Mary Lee

            Oh, Michele, I love this! Yes!!!!

          • kathykattenburg

            What about a woman who regrets having a baby? Or who regrets giving up a baby for adoption? Is she a mother?

          • Yes, a mother is a woman who has been pregnant…
            Safe Haven laws are specifically for women who *regret* having a baby. Open adoption and another option that allows the mother to have another family care for her baby until she can care for him/her are wonderful life-giving choices too.

          • KCalvo

            Yes she is still a mother. She and her child share the same DNA. The definition of a mother according to the dictionary is

            a. A female person who is pregnant with or gives birth to a child.
            b. A female person whose egg unites with a sperm, resulting in the conception of a child.
            c. A woman who adopts a child.
            d. A woman who raises a child.

            You can erase or try to erase the fact that you were ever pregnant but that does not mean that you weren’t and still aren’t a mother. You just become the mother of a dead baby when you have an abortion.

          • fenaray

            Yes, she’s just a bad mother.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            The ultimate Bad Mother is one who kills her kids deliberately but not out of anger or similar. Abortion to a T.

          • Doctor T

            Terminating a pregnancy has several forms: You can such the brain out of the living fetus (Latin for “the little one”), or you can rip in into pieces. You can also pull it out and cut it apart outside of the womb (just don’t get caught!). You can also burn the fetus using poison. In any way, Abortion is a safe and legal way to end pregnancy and is rarely a problem for the mother, as long as you don’t think scientifically what you do to the kid (oh, sorry, the fetus, as this here is just a clump of cells: http://www.amightywind.com/abortionf/abortion05.jpg

          • A.Pres

            Burning, dismembering, and suffocating are all methods used to abort babies. If you deny this, then I’m not sure you know what an abortion actually is.

            When the baby is developing inside a womb, you must either deprive it of oxygen (suffocation), cut apart the body to remove it in pieces (dismemberment), dissolve the body with a salt solution (chemical burning) or induce birth so it dies of starvation, suffocation or other unfortunate, unnaturally-induced death caused by lack of medical care or nourishment.

            Just as an example:
            Considering I am merely a larger, older, less dependent version (a larger clump of cells, if you will) than an aborted girl, I think it is unfair to brutally murder her with any of the methods mentioned above.
            Size, dependance, or age should never determine someone’s right to life (we call that discrimination) or we’d have to get rid of disabled people, dependent children, accident victims, the mentally ill and elderly people.

          • kathykattenburg

            Wow. You’d almost think from this that a woman’s life matters less than the life of a fetus in the woman’s womb. Oh wait. It does.

          • A.Pres

            A woman’s comfort, inconvenience or other fear-derived reasons should never be more important than any other person’s life and rights. Justifying dismemberment (or any other methods of murder listed above) because a female thinks she’s better than the person she created is ridiculous.

            I would never expect someone to be tortured & killed so I could have sex. How would that be fair/justifiable/right or resemble any other ethical precept we base lawfulness on?

          • Both lives are equally valued. That is why we who are pro-life want to help the woman make a life-giving choice for her baby. Her baby deserves to live just as much as she does.

          • A.Pres

            What logical explanation or ethical precept do you have that supports this?

            Truly, that statement seems to be emotionally created because we understand adults. Have you ever tried to imagine yourself as a pre-born person? Very early on, they are sentient with brain activity, just like you or I. We are merely larger & older, which doesn’t make us more worthy of life… just EQUALLY worthy of life.

            It’s not longer “survival of the fittest.” We don’t just kill people when it sounds good. It’s a world of progressiveness, compassion, coexistence & equality for all. There is no need to deny a child it’s right to life when there are equally do-able alternatives that aren’t fatal for anyone.

            Adoption, anyone?

          • fenaray

            I’ll pass, thanks.

          • fenaray

            Apparently, glad my mom taught me better. Oh, and if my mom had aborted me (because I know it’s coming) I wouldn’t be here and none of this would matter. Talk about a dumb question……

          • steveschenectady

            Terminating a pregnancy is exactly the same as dismembering a baby (usually after the Saline solution burns the baby to death) – That is how the baby is removed in most cases dismemberment through Suction.

          • DS

            Do your research. It is the same. Right now the law has arbitrarily decided the womb is a magical “no human rights allowed” zone, where science has long ago figured out fetal development is indeed a human child…ya know, kinda how nature intended. Research fetal development while you research abortion methods. Then we will see if you can keep BSing yourself that it’s just a “pregnancy”. History will see you as being as correct as a world-is-flat advocate, but on a subject of far greater human cost.

            “A person is a person, not matter how small.” – Dr. Suess

          • Lea C.

            How else do you think the pregnancy is terminated? That’s exactly what abortion is- dismembering of the baby in the womb.

          • Maere

            It is, actually…

            At 5 weeks (the moment most people find out they are pregnant because that’s when most peoples HCG levels are high enough to detect a pregnancy) the heart is already beating. People who get abortions do it after 5 weeks too, thus baby is still alive!

            I also have facts- I had a D&C (the same operation as most abortions) when my child’s heart stopped beating at 8 weeks and I could SEE the HUMAN inside me with scans (dead yes, but HUMAN). The doctors explained to me the procedure- they would be sucking everything out of my womb through a tube. So tiny of a tube that my baby would be torn apart going through it.

            My baby was dead and it was STILL traumatic for me to lose them that way!

        • kathykattenburg

          Why do *you* get to choose to force another woman to allow a baby inside her womb to damage or destroy her health?

          • A.Pres

            Pregnancy isn’t a disease and in less than 1% does it cause any life-threatening illnesses. The psychological arguments are non-applicable because everything from a career to school to weight management (aka the normal human condition) can cause adverse psychological effects.

          • kathykattenburg

            Yes, and as we all know, a woman’s life, dreams, choices, future, and emotional well-being are worth little, and certainly much less than the lives, dreams, choices, future, and emotional well-being of men are worth. No one would dream of forcing a man to give up his future and all his dreams and possibilities because he made a mistake.

          • A.Pres

            Sounds like feminist brainwashing to me. I never even mentioned that I (or any other pre-born advocate) wanted to take anybody’s dreams away… that was your own mind & rhetoric that created that scenario. My actual point was that absolutely any situation in life (the entire human condition) could cause adverse psychological effects, so using it as a tool for justification to kill a person is ethically absurd.

            Besides, as an intelligent woman who doesn’t regurgitate the “I’m the poor, defenseless, underprivileged gender” nonsense, I can say with certainty that my dreams are worth the same as any man’s, but neither of our dreams are worth more than someone’s life.

            How is it that you think you are able to have your dreams, choices & well-being?? We must have the Right to Life before we get any of those things. By denying a child (which are often female) their right to life, you are also denying them well-being, choices, happiness, a future, living their dreams etc. Saying that you promote “dreams” by stealing a child’s future us backwards. If you believed in a progressive society then you should advocate coexistence, co-happiness & equality for ALL (not just equality when it’s convenient.) By denying abortion, you aren’t taking away anything meaningful. The root of all abortions is fear & we should be working to eliminate the fear instead of unnecessarily attacking the integrity of the female body & denying the rights of the child.

            Even as a married woman, I don’t want children, but I would never kill a child because I chose to have sex. Adoption is the compassionate, loving option. I know families who have waited 2+ years to adopt to no avail. Someone is always available to love a child, even if you don’t have the resources or love to spare.

          • fiona64

            I know families who have waited 2+ years to adopt to no avail. Someone
            is always available to love a child, even if you don’t have the
            resources or love to spare.

            I’m sorry, but you are being dishonest. There are more than 100K children currently available for adoption in this country, according to the latest AFCARS report. I find it unbelievable that some family is waiting 2+ years to adopt when all of these children are available … or that “someone is always available to love a child” given the statistical reality.

            Oh, wait. You probably mean that you know families who have waited 2+ years to adopt a perfectly healthy Caucasian male newborn.

            That’s really not the same thing, you know.

          • johno

            Most Caucasian males adopted in U.S. were from Russia. Putin has made a law that ALL western countries that doesn’t agree with male+female marriages will not leave his country. What that has to do with abortion I don’t know.

          • DS

            Russia’s atrociously high abortion rate that’s putting their ethnicity in danger of vanishing by the end of this century.

          • A.Pres

            Isn’t the rate of abortions in Russia like… 5-7 per woman!?! Insanity!! They also have extremely high murder/incarceration rates. Not surprising though… considering how little human rights seems to mean there.

          • A.Pres

            Yes, I stand by that statement, as it is NOT dishonest. “Someone IS always available to love a child!”

            I do not however, disagree with that AFCARS statistic.

            One of the main reasons there are children and parents waiting to connect through adoption is because the adoption process is long, rigorous, and discouraging to new parents. It needs heavy reform.

            The parents I know waiting for children do Not have any racial/gender preference, but have had many birth mother’s change their minds, experience “hiccups” in the system, and unrealistic expectations made of them. It’s quite emotionally draining when it should be rewarding. There is also still a bias and ridiculous restrictions on same-sex couples that want to adopt which is very sad for both parties (couple and children.)

            With the abolishment of unnecessary abortions (non-medically necessary ones) the adoption process will surely see an increase in resources for the necessary reform to occur.

            Another thought – parental education, benefits, and support for children with health concerns would also be helpful in giving “hard to place” children the loving homes they deserve.

          • DS

            So in the face of losing an argument you are resorting to groundless accusations of racism? BWAHAHAHAHA You really are a liberal. That’s the most ridiculous attempt to gain moral superiority, especially when you are gleeful about millions of aborted children. Or should I call you the ultimate hypocrite?

          • Valde

            I know families who have waited 2+ years to adopt to no avail

            Black babies cost 18k whereas your average white or hispanic baby costs 30k-40k (and up)

            Black babies are so much more affordable because people are not adopting them in great enough numbers.

            if there was such a waiting list for adoptable babies, agencies would NOT have to lower the price of black babies in order to get people to adopt them.

          • KCalvo

            You are right kathy. A dream is worth fulfilling if a life is to be sacrificed.

          • Mary Lee

            You mean: “A woman’s lifeSTYLE, dreams, choices…”….Because that’s what abortion-on-demand is about. It is not about health, it is not about the woman’s life, it is about LIFESTYLES.

            Abortions are 100% fatal for the baby. Abortion is the only so-called “medical” procedure in which the goal is TO KILL ANOTHER BEING. There is no other medical procedure which “success” means a unique individual–someone’s son, daughter, brother, sister, perhaps a novelist, or a basketball player, or a painter, or a therapist–is killed, is pureed and thrown in a biohazard bag.

            Pro-lifers are not making women “less than” men. Pro-lifers believe women are equal to men, and that the ability to have a baby is something HEALTHY and GOOD and should be respected. Abortion is an insult to pregnancy, to women, to children, and it says that men shouldn’t step up their game. It says, “Men get to be selfish and destructive, therefore women should stoop to that level.” Abortion is ANTI-FEMINIST. Abortion degrades women, babies, and you know what? I don’t need a damn “surgical procedure” (and one that kills my own child) to be equal to men. I am already equal. My crisis pregnancy ended with a healthy, happy baby who is now a tween. My “plans” were changed, it was not what I envisioned. But her right to live trumps the right for me to [insert superficial achievement here]. I didn’t “choose” to “not abort” her, the way I didn’t “choose” to NOT slam my car into the man who cut me off on the freeway. The ability to choose something is not the same as the right to do something. We always have the ability to choose things.

            My daughter came into existence because of my choices. The right to not be brutally killed trumps all other rights. Yes, it was a shock. Yes, it was not planned. Our unborn babies do not need our permission to exist. They do not need to fill out an application, or schedule an appointment. They are doing what all unborn babies should do, and they look like what all unborn baby persons should look like, and we have no right to tear them apart because their mere existence isn’t what WE wanted.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Take your whiny, dishonest sexism-trolling somewhere else. We believe that men and women BOTH have responsibility for the new lives they create. We apply our views of sexual responsibility to BOTH sexes. But pro-lifers aren’t the ones who gave pregnancy to women. Nobody’s arguing to give men a similar right to kill their sons and daughters (if they were, you can be sure we’d be right there calling them out too).

          • kathykattenburg

            “We apply our views of sexual responsibility to BOTH sexes.”

            No, you don’t. Unequivocally, you do not. I haven’t seen any “pro-lifers” telling men that they are sluts and should keep their pants on. You do not apply your views of sexual responsibility to BOTH sexes. You don’t.

            “But pro-lifers aren’t the ones who gave pregnancy to women.”

            No, men are. Literally. Physically, biologically, men are the ones who “put” a baby in a woman’s womb. A woman does not make herself pregnant.

            “Nobody’s arguing to give men a similar right to kill their sons and
            daughters (if they were, you can be sure we’d be right there calling
            them out too).”

            Oh, please. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. I’ve seen plenty of commentary here about how evil contraception is, how it’s hurt women and destroyed sexual morals, etc., etc., etc., but I have yet to see one “pro-lifer” anywhere make those same claims about Viagra.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            A. You haven’t looked for conservatives telling men to keep their legs together.

            B. No, biology gave pregnancy to women.

            C. Nope. If men could get pregnant, most men would be pro-life, just in the same way most women in the real world are pro-life. If both sexes could get pregnant and abortion was a “sacrament,” the human race would be about over in a few generations.

          • kathykattenburg

            I haven’t looked for conservatives telling women to keep their legs together, they just pop up in front of me all the time. I don’t go looking for them. Trust me, I’ve had these arguments too many times, I would know if any conservative had ever responded to pro-choicers by saying men should keep their pants on. It doesn’t happen.

            “Biology gave pregnancy to women.”

            Okay, so let’s sterilize all the men and see if biology can still get women pregnant.

            “Most women are pro-life.”

            That’s as simplistic as if I said most women are pro-choice. It’s more complicated than that.

            War, disease, poverty, and despair have taken more lives than abortion has, in human history. Yet somehow the human race is still here.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I’ve been saying all along that men should abstain. If stupid women should not have sex and no woman should have sex unless she means to reproduce, that entails the same thing for men. Also, have you ever seen a devout Christian male in a locker room or dressing room with an immature teenage boy? This kind of conversation happens with guys more frequently than you think.

            Men give pregnancies to women, biology gives pregnancy to women. Nobody has been using bad spelling. And biology probably could get women pregnant anyway in a situation of sterile men. I thought you believed in evolution.

            And it may be more complicated than that, but I’m being hard pressed to take a break from this debate to do other things, so I can’t really talk about complications. That’s the best way I could put it. I believe another person posted a comment with exact statistics.

            War, disease, poverty, and despair also have been legal longer than abortion. I was telling you the results of your hypothetical world of pregnant men who like abortion. Men are less responsible than women, so yup, the human race would be about over in a few generations.

          • Julie Horsford Butler

            American war dead since the Revolution in 1776 = 1.7 million. American legal abortions since 1973 = 56 million. You have no idea HOW many babies have been lost to abortion in human history because there is no record of it. But just in the late 20th century it has surpassed all the wars since the birth of Christ,

          • Ryan Barnett

            Also Julie do not forget the unknown number of chemical abortions via the use of abortificients which prevent the newly conceived human life from implanting in the woman’s lining of the utereus thereby causing death.

          • Sean Goerling

            As for your first point, every time there’s a famous sex scandal why are “progressives” the ones saying that conservatives should stop bothering people (including men) about their sex lives?

            *cough* Bill Clinton

            *cough* John Edwards

            *cough* Anthony Weiner

            “Okay, so let’s sterilize all the men and see if biology can still get women pregnant.”

            Like if rapes were stopped and women all stopped having sex, you mean?

            “War, disease, poverty, and despair have taken more lives than abortion has, in human history.”

            And Pro-lifers are fighting them also. Isn’t it funny: All the money spent on abortions would make a pretty fair dent in the size of the problems disease, poverty, and despair cause. Or are you trying to justify one evil by saying that greater evils exist? That would be a little bit like saying that killing a child is okay because wars “have taken more lives than abortion has, in human history. Yet somehow the human race is still here.”

          • patriciacarrasco

            2 wrongs dont make a right. just cuz war, poverty etc. kills human beings, it doesnt make abortion any less horrible at all or legitimate. abortion has been a “baby holocaust” like i heard it somewhere recently

          • DS

            “War, disease, poverty, and despair have taken more lives than abortion
            has, in human history. Yet somehow the human race is still here.”

            And those are ALL evils we as a civilized species strive, however difficultly, to rid the world of. War, disease, poverty, despair are bad and it is ironic that you lumped abortion intogether with them. By implication you are agreeing abortion is coequal in its infliction of human suffering. So do you want to keep it around out of callous indifference or because you are just evil?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Regarding what you’ve seen or haven’t seen: either you don’t get out much, or you’re lying. The ONLY possible way someone could sincerely get that impression is if they’re fixating on responses to women *who want to kill their baby*, in which case it would take a normal, sensible person about five seconds to use some basic reasoning and understand that if it was a man asking for the same power, we’d be giving those men the same response.

            “No, men are.”

            Cute, but (assuming you’ve still got a smidgen of rationality amidst your sexist hysteria) you know what I meant. It’s biology, not some evil right-wing, patriarchal conspiracy, that made women the child-bearing sex. And foot-stamping doesn’t exactly help dispel the impression that your insistence on the unconditional power to butcher your offspring is driven by your fury at Mother Nature for being so mean to you.

            “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”

            I applaud your ability to blindly parrot slogans that feed your anti-male prejudices on cue. But that’s all it is – not thought, not understanding, not substance. The only men to whom abortion would ever be a sacrament are the pigs who love it for letting them get away with using women for cheap sex then ditching them.

            And your whining about Viagra is just sheer stupidity, desperately flailing for whatever imaginary case of hypocrisy you can find. 1.) Viagra doesn’t kill a baby. 2.) Pro-lifers aren’t promoting Viagra or calling for government to subsidize it. 3.) Your word on what commentary you have & haven’t seen about Viagra doesn’t mean much. 4.) Enhancing sexual performance has nothing to do with thwarting sex’s potential for procreation. 5.) It was the Republicans who wanted an amendment to ensure that ObamaCare wouldn’t cover Viagra for convicted sex offenders, and the Democrats shot it down.

          • Ella Warnock

            And thus Kathy’s point is illustrated beautifully.

          • DS

            Well said!!!!

          • Foster

            Wow, a little bitter, aye? No wait, that was a huge understatement! Let me ask you a simple and serious question. How was your relationship with your father? Hopefully good, but the odds are you’ve been hurt by the men in your life and I would seriously like apologize for the way our gender has fallen short in supporting women. However, blaming men to justify taking an unborn baby’s life is simply WRONG!

          • Sean Goerling

            First off, you’re misplacing a lot of responsibility in your argument that “Physically, biologically, men are the ones who “put” a baby in a woman’s womb”. Men are only half of the equation. About 95% of the time the SEX that the woman in question engaged in which got her pregnant was consensual. Arguing “oh, but we used protection and didn’t MEAN for it to happen does not change the fact that they willingly committed the deed that caused the pregnancy to happen. BOTH parents are responsible for the life, health and safety of a new human being.

            You say: “Nobody’s arguing to give men a similar right to kill their sons and daughters (if they were, you can be sure we’d be right there calling them out too).” Have you heard of the “Bro-choice” movement? It’s made up of men saying that women should get to have abortions because it makes THEIR (the “bros”) lives easier. Funny, I’ve seen a lot of “pro-choice” writings saying that it’s good and that men should join it. What?!? What happened to “men shouldn’t have any say on abortions”? Does that only apply if they disagree with you?

            Lastly, the counterfactual fallacy that is your conclusion: “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” My response: and if pigs had fairy wings, we’d all be starving for bacon. A hypothetical statement: “If event X did happen, then event Y would have happened,” based only on speculation. As both statements are unfalsifiable, neither are true. And I’ve already seen “pro-choice” writings that bemoan how it’s misogynistic to say that abortions are only for women since transgenderd men can also be pregnant (since they are still technically, biologically female).

          • johno

            Anthony Wiener is what you would call a MALE SLUT because he sext his Penis to women he didn’t know. Rep. Sanford, Sen. VItter, Eliot Spitzer, Mayor Filner, Sen. Hatfield, Sen. Craig, Governor Patterson, Sen. Corzine. etc etc. Plenty of MALE SLUTS (Republican, Democratic , Independent, whatever). No, Males have no higher morality when it comes to sexuality. Again, I have more respect for atheists that have a moral compass than all the above “god fearing” men. LOL!

          • kap65

            Actually, many people I do know say that men should keep their pants on. Self-control is something both sexes need. And if men were the ones who got pregnant, I certainly would still fight against abortion, as would everyone I know in the movement.
            NO parent should be allowed to legally kill his/her child t any age. Period.

          • Al

            “Men and women BOTH have responsibility for the new life they create”?
            But different amounts of responsibility, evidently. Men can walk away. At any point, without a seconds notice, a man can (and they do, frequently) say “I don’t want a child” and walk away. They’ve reassured the woman they’ll be there, they’ve told her not to have an abortion or go for adoption because they’ll raise their child together and then he can just walk away. I’m pretty sure a woman would get into serious legal trouble if she just left her child somewhere and walked away. The man doesn’t have to see his child, he doesn’t have to care for them at all. He has helped to create this life, he was a CRUCIAL part in creating this life, but he is not tied down. He only has a child if he wants one.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Nope. Us conservatives think that a guy who doesn’t take care of his own is an irresponsible d—head. In fact, the only people who are OK with that are immature lowlives. Even most liberals are smarter than to condone it.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Way to completely miss the point.

            Yes, human biology makes reproduction a lopsided deal for women, giving them a full slate of physical hardships while making it far easier for men to reject their responsibilities to her and to their kids. But notice the “human biology” part? No person, or group, or shadowy patriarchal anti-abortion conspiracy, MADE it that way.

            Crackpots like Kathy represent an aspect of modern liberal feminism that is deeply psychologically unhealthy. They’re so obsessed with their rage and resentment that nature didn’t distribute the reproductive burden more equitably that they desperately need to attribute this “original sin” to somebody they can take it out on.

            News flash: that some men are cads isn’t the fault of those of us who aren’t. And your complaints about “walking away from” and not having to “see” or “care for” his kids ring hollow for the simple, unavoidable fact that your solution is to let Mom KILL those kids to level the playing field.

            That is what is so contemptible and so insincere about the cult that’s inherited the feminist label: for all their self-righteous complaining about heartless men shirking their responsibilities, their solution isn’t to challenge men to be better, or to prepare the next generation of women to avoid the creeps. Instead, their solution is to bring women down to the very same level of heartless, narcissistic irresponsibility as the men they condemn.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            It’s depressing to see how few of you even try to process opposing arguments objectively, rather than filtering them through your demented ideological prejudices.

            First, your rant about men’s *ability* to abandon has nothing to do with what I said, which was about the *moral* standards we hold people to. Yes, it’s a disgrace that men are cads, but that’s not the fault of those of us who aren’t.

            Second, the stench of hypocrisy in your words is so thick you could cut it with a knife. You pompously bleat about how horrible it is for a man to ditch his kids, to not see or care for them. And what’s your solution? To let mom KILL those very same kids whose welfare you pretend to be outraged for.

            Ultimately, that’s what’s so foul about modern liberal feminism: you posture like you’re warring against the worst of men, but you fight not to make the bad ones better and enforce their responsibilities, or to teach the next generation of women to better avoid the creeps. No, your “noble, egalitarian” solution is to bring womankind DOWN to their level, by promoting that they be every bit as callous and narcissistic through abortion.

          • Sean Goerling

            “No one would dream of forcing a man to give up his future and all his dreams and possibilities because he made a mistake.”

            Bull. Men are being forced to give up their future and all their possibilities because they made a mistake every single day. You just aren’t seeing them, so believe that they must not exist.

          • kathykattenburg

            Are they being forced to loan the use of their body parts to others?

          • Sean Goerling

            Do you mean like how the now pregnant mother forced her conceived-but-not-yet-born son or daughter to share the use of hers until born? He or she were NOT given the choice to be conceived or not. So how is it their fault?

          • patriciacarrasco

            do u have children? im sure if u actually wanted ur child, u wouldnt think that child was “loaning” ur body for 9 months? but i have no doubt that u wouldnt hesitate to snuff out his or her life if u didnt want ur child….please regroup and step back because ur losing ur logic and heart more and more each day clinging to this false ideology called feminism. google: henry makow for the truth on feminism, it has overstayed its welcome at least in this country

          • DS

            Kathy, just stop. Be angry at men all you want. But 99.99% of men have done you no wrong, so quit trying to make this someone else’s responsibility. YOU are ultimately the one who must answer for your children.

          • fiona64

            Pregnancy may not be a disease, but it is not a state of wellness. Even relatively uncomplicated pregnancies cause permanent change to a woman’s body. Forensic anthropologists can tell by looking at skeletal remains how many times a woman has been pregnant due to striations on the pubic symphysis … just to name one example.

          • Valde

            40% of pregnancies have serious complications.

            15% have life threatening complications

            Source: World Health Organization

            Normal, frequent
            or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

            exhaustion (weariness
            common from first weeks)

            altered appetite
            and senses of taste and smell

            nausea and vomiting
            (50% of women, first trimester)

            heartburn and indigestion

            constipation

            weight gain

            dizziness and light-headedness

            bloating, swelling,
            fluid retention

            hemmorhoids

            abdominal cramps

            yeast infections

            congested, bloody
            nose

            acne and mild skin
            disorders

            skin discoloration
            (chloasma, face and abdomen)

            mild to severe backache
            and strain

            increased headaches

            difficulty sleeping,
            and discomfort while sleeping

            increased urination
            and incontinence

            bleeding gums

            pica

            breast pain and
            discharge

            swelling of joints,
            leg cramps, joint pain

            difficulty sitting,
            standing in later pregnancy

            inability to take
            regular medications

            shortness of breath

            higher blood pressure

            hair loss

            tendency to anemia

            curtailment of ability
            to participate in some sports and activities

            infection
            including from serious and potentially fatal disease

            (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with
            non-pregnant women, and
            are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

            extreme pain on
            delivery

            hormonal mood changes,
            including normal post-partum depression

            continued post-partum
            exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section
            — major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
            fully recover)

            Normal, expectable,
            or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

            stretch marks (worse
            in younger women)

            loose skin

            permanent weight
            gain or redistribution

            abdominal and vaginal
            muscle weakness

            pelvic floor disorder
            (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers
            and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal
            incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life — aka prolapsed utuerus,
            the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)

            changes to breasts

            varicose veins

            scarring from episiotomy
            or c-section

            other permanent
            aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed
            by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

            increased proclivity
            for hemmorhoids

            loss of dental and
            bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

            higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

            newer research indicates
            microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and
            mother (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

            Occasional complications
            and side effects:

            complications of episiotomy

            spousal/partner
            abuse

            hyperemesis gravidarum

            temporary and permanent
            injury to back

            severe
            scarring
            requiring later surgery
            (especially after additional pregnancies)

            dropped (prolapsed)
            uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
            pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
            and enterocele)

            pre-eclampsia
            (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated
            with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

            eclampsia (convulsions,
            coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

            gestational diabetes

            placenta previa

            anemia (which
            can be life-threatening)

            thrombocytopenic
            purpura

            severe cramping

            embolism
            (blood clots)

            medical disability
            requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
            many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
            or baby)

            diastasis recti,
            also torn abdominal muscles

            mitral valve stenosis
            (most common cardiac complication)

            serious infection
            and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

            hormonal imbalance

            ectopic pregnancy
            (risk of death)

            broken bones (ribcage,
            “tail bone”)

            hemorrhage
            and

            numerous other complications
            of delivery

            refractory gastroesophageal
            reflux disease

            aggravation of pre-pregnancy
            diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5%
            of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment
            prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

            severe post-partum
            depression and psychosis

            research now indicates
            a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments,
            including “egg harvesting” from infertile women and donors

            research also now
            indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity
            in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

            research also indicates
            a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary
            and cardiovascular disease

            Less common (but
            serious) complications:

            peripartum cardiomyopathy

            cardiopulmonary
            arrest

            magnesium toxicity

            severe hypoxemia/acidosis

            massive embolism

            increased intracranial
            pressure, brainstem infarction

            molar pregnancy,
            gestational trophoblastic disease
            (like a pregnancy-induced
            cancer)

            malignant arrhythmia

            circulatory collapse

            placental abruption

            obstetric fistula

            More
            permanent side effects:

            future infertility

            permanent disability

            death.

          • A.Pres

            Obviously, when it comes to a life or death situation then a doctor and a mother can make the decision on whom they wish to save. No one is arguing that point. The baby’s life is equal to the mother’s, not more or less important.

            As for your others in the (obnoxiously) long list, they are either:

            a) a common symptom (50%+) and are all something you can contract/exhibit with or without pregnancy
            b) extremely rare symptoms you listed happen in less than 1% of the population

            Besides…

            c) abortions statistically cause more issues with infertility than previous pregnancies
            d) pregnancy is a natural part of a woman’s fertility cycle and has potential complications (just like a menstrual cycle or … anything else in LIFE.)
            e) There is an increase in breast cancer and STDs with abortions that is significantly higher than those without (the more abortions, the higher the risk.)
            f) statistics are starting to reflect that the amount of stress put on the mother greatly increases her amount of complications. Home birthing (aka – a comfortable environment) tend to have less pain/complications etc. This is exactly why we need to start eliminating the fear associated with pregnancy, support mother’s, offer support groups, and give REAL options to mother’s that don’t include making her a mom to a dead baby and suffering from debilitating regret/depression.
            g) While it can be noticed that post partum depression can be observed after pregnancy, it’s much more likely to have long lasting depression or suicide as a result of an abortion.

            And obviously, you can die of an abortion too.

            Abortion is the cheap, dirty, unregulated horror that gives money to abortionists who destroy women’s lives.

            Why are we all so adamant in giving sub-standard options to women? Women need to be informed, their fears consoled, and their needs heard/met. They need real support and ultrasounds so they can see & connect with the life inside of them. Just like any other relationship therapy, there are certainly going to be situations where women have a hard time emotionally, but society’s answer to this should is compassion, education and a strong commitment to helping them coexist with their child until another option is safely possible.

            Pregnancy is completely doable, natural and non-invasive way for a mother & child to coexist peacefully. If one preaches peace, then we must protect both the mother & child’s peace, health & well-being. Period.

          • Valde

            c though g – citation needed

            most of that bullshit has been debunked

          • A woman having a baby is the most natural thing on earth! How else would new people get here?! No one can predict early in pregnancy any aspect of how things will progress. Pregnancy does not “damage or destroy health”, in fact it factors in lowering risk for breast cancer and other cancers “fed” by female hormones. OB Physicians will tell you that no woman ever “needs” an abortion for her “health” – all that is needed is for the woman to deliver her baby, even if it’s a few weeks early, the baby will be fine and so will the woman. Convenience/Fear etc are no reason – there IS NO REASON for a woman to kill her baby!

          • kathykattenburg

            Tell that to the hundreds of women who died in childbirth every single year in this country. And there were many more before Roe v. Wade made abortion illegal. You’re not only unkind, you’re ignorant, and that’s the worst combination.

          • A.Pres

            Ireland (where abortion is illegal) has a significantly lower maternal death rate than the US which is one of the only places that offers “abortion on demand” with limited restrictions. Most developed European countries (also with lower maternal mortality rates) have many, many more restrictions on abortion than the US as well.

            So your theory and calling people “ignorant” is really not at all justified.

            Also, Roe v Wade was in the 70’s and a plethora of improvements to maternal health care have been made in the last 40 years.

            Besides, nobody said that they want women to die or be seriously injured by birth. The movement is about protecting women AND children by letting the government know that they need to stop using abortion as a scapegoat when refusing to provide women with REAL health improvements, maternity care, prenatal care & easy access to child care for career-minded women.

            Abortion is just a poor, unregulated, deadly, fear-mongering & cruel excuse for health care that says
            “women aren’t worth making real advancements for,”
            “human life is disposable when we say so,”
            and “we should feed women’s fear of their bodies and fear of societies judgement so they feel like abortion is their best (often only) choice.”

            The word “choice” doesn’t sound so pretty when it’s included in a truthful sentence. That word is 100% marketing.

          • kathykattenburg

            Pardon me while I choke. The United States does not offer “abortion on demand” with “limited restrictions.” Abortion today, while still technically legal, is surrounded and hemmed in by so many restrictions and obstacles, of an endless variety, that the legal right really exists in name only.

          • A.Pres

            Care to share these “nameless” obstacles?

          • fiona64

            — Additional ultrasounds that are medically unnecessary

            — 72-hour waiting periods
            — Watching a webinar on adoption
            — Being told medically inaccurate information, like that abortion has a link to breast cancer
            — “Sidewalk Counselors”
            — Abortion restrictions at 20 weeks … which is the earliest that the majority of fetal anomalies can be detected

            I could go on, but I think that’s a more than adequate list from which to begin.

          • A.Pres

            Those aren’t “barriers,” anymore than inspecting a restaurant is a “barrier.” Public health regulations are made so the practice (restaurant, abortion clinic or whatever) is safe for the public. The things you mentioned are all reasonable requirements. There should be many more regulations if abortion clinics are to be made safe and clean for women … and abortion clinics shouldn’t exist if we aim for the safety of pre-born children.

            Also, regarding [2] of your reasons:

            > Killing an “imperfect” person because of “anomalies” is unacceptable anyway. Dismemberment, starvation, post-birth neglect, chemical burning (and other cruel means of abortion) are much more inhumane than being born “imperfect” or with complications and receiving proper medical care.

            > Abortion is being medically linked to breast cancer in the same way that miscarriages are and it makes complete sense. It’s still not linked, due to “reporting bias” so it could be plausible to say either way.

            Info from ACS and Susan B Komen Research:

            “A woman’s risk for some types of breast cancer is related to hormone levels in the body. Breast cells normally grow and divide in response to hormones like estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin. Levels of these hormones change throughout a woman’s life, but they typically change a lot during pregnancy. When a woman is pregnant, her body gets ready for breast-feeding by altering the levels of these hormones. This causes changes in the breast tissue. ….. Miscarriage, elective abortion, still-birth can interrupt these natural breast tissue processes… Some case-controlled studies have suggested abortion may increase the risk of breast cancer and it’s difficult to determine how much because of reporting bias. “

          • DS

            Do some research on international abortion laws. Compared to the rest of the developed world, the US really is among the “wild west” places where abortion is sadly a largely unregulated industry with very limited court interjection. And it IS an industry, make no mistake. A multi-billion dollar one I might add.

            Yes, the US, sadly has “abortion on demand” meaning you don’t need a reason to seek one, just you want one. Because. Just go to a clinic, swipe your master card or visa, and some M.D. will do unspeakably cruel things to the unborn child and thus preserve your lifestyle at the expense of your unborn child’s very life, and no one questions it. Its monstrously as simple as that.

            So whats your idea of “on demand”?

            The “limited restrictions” has to do with how the US leaves much abortion law up to the states. States have wildly different laws. The only abortion method every outlawed at the federal level was the ghastly “partial birth abortion” method Bill Clinton twice defended. But that’s really it. In most other countries abortion past the first trimester is prohibited and in most there are legal conditions and requirements that must be met to get one of any kind at all. There are no casual-Friday late-term abortions in Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Finland, or even Russia, for instance like we have here in the US. That’s the ultimate perversion of American freedom. We strip away the basic right to life best from those most vulnerable. All abortion is wrong but America excels at this great immorality.

            And do yourself a favor. With as open of a mind as you are capable of EDUCATE yourself on the abortion subject. Study it’s procedures, research fetal development. Look at the real motives behind

          • Ryan Barnett

            Interesting how “progress” has taken us back to legal barbarism. Even the Aztec’s were not as brutal as we are to a baby in the womb today. And the Aztec’s were extremely brutal to their victims. They ripped their hearts out on a sacrificial table and then threw the body down the pyramid!

          • johno

            Ireland has abortion now for suicidal ideation. The law was passed by the Irish Dail. Will be signed by Prime Minister Enda Kenny. It isn’t yet abortion on demand but I believe the Fine Gael, Labour, and some minor left parties are looking to have U.S. and U.K. laws. The Irish laws, however, have to go to referendum first. So, abortion on demand may not happen. I believe the Fianna Fail party is the only Pro-Life party. However, there is dissent in that party as well.

          • A.Pres

            Thank you for that detailed info. I hope Ireland stays abortion-free (other than when medically necessary) for as long as possible.

          • Ieva

            Tell that to the THOUSANDS of unborn children who are brutally slaughtered every year in the name of “choice.”

          • kathykattenburg

            The fact that you can call unborn babies “children” and equate their lives to the life of a woman, is horrifying. Not surprising, though.

          • If unborn babies are not children then what are they? Puppies? They are human beings that have yet to be born and may/may not be able to survive outside the womb.

          • steveschenectady

            The Unborn are children, if you understand the facts on fetal development. The biggest deterrent to Abortion is Educating the Mother on the fetal development of their “unborn child” through Sonograms etc. My sisters baby was only 1 lb. when he was born. Now he’s a healthy 11 year old.

          • DS

            Good. Reveal what abortion really is by education. Expose that evil to the light of day for all to see and it will dissolve. Abortion cannot withstand frank discussion. Damn them with the truth.

          • Ieva

            So what? Children’s lives are worth less than the life of an adult? Oh, and you called the unborn “babies,” so yes, you admit that they are a person. So in your eyes, a baby’s life is not worth anything, the same way a slave’s life was considered to be less than a white man’s? So I, a fifteen year old girl, am worth less than my older brother, who is eighteen? Because of age? You are literally saying that some people are worth less than others because of their age and state of development. Is my younger sister’s life worth less than my own? Because she hasn’t gone through puberty? After all, puberty is the final state of development. Does age and development really determine personhood? What is truly horrifying is that I have to ask this question.

          • patriciacarrasco

            the mind of a person who is in spiritual darkness and has lost logic, morality bounds is truly frightening, yes. and were surrounded by them. only God can shine a light into their hearts

          • KCalvo

            The dictionary states that an unborn infant; a fetus is a child. PLEASE read, do your homework it is very beneficial! On another note, as a women who has stated that she has had 2 abortions, I hope you have reached all the goals for which you’ve sacrificed the lives of your children.

          • Mary Lee

            Their lives ARE equal to the women’s. Women have the right to exist, we do not have the right to be dismembered. Our human babies in utero also have the right to exist. These rights are not diametrically opposed, they are intrinsically linked. The pro-abortion argument is “Might makes right, and women are supreme and infallible.” This should give you pause, especially as pro-aborts criticize religious pro-lifers for believing in God, or papal infallibility. Pro-aborts believe all the choices women make are right, and that the choice to have one’s own son or daughter killed and thrown out like garbage is a right. Women are strong. We can have babies AND fulfill our dreams. We don’t need to kill our children to do that. The fact that we refuse to demand to be treated equally (by supporting abortion) means that we are somehow “less equal” than men. To support abortion is anti-feminist. It is anti-woman, anti-baby, anti-life, anti-science, anti-instinct, anti-anything good in this world. It is destructive, bloody, and no good can truly come from it. It leaves quite a wake. I am already equal; I will not have my liberty built on the blood and bones of our dead sons and daughters.

          • fiona64

            Their lives ARE equal to the women’s.

            The moment you afford equal rights to a fetus, you have, of necessity, abrogated the rights of the pregnant woman. In effect, you have enslaved her to the contents of her uterus. I am amazed that you do not understand this.

            We don’t need to kill our children to do that.

            If you know of anyone who has killed a child, contact your local law enforcement agency.

          • johno

            Should Dr. Gosnell be let out of jail? He did what the law of Pennsylvania allowed from 1973-2011? He would be considered a very good abortion doctor. Very efficient at what he did. What is interesting about him is that he had white women upstairs and black women downstairs. He was also a well-respected african-american doctor in the community serving mostly minority women. If the reason he’s in jail is because of Ms. Mongar there are other “male” abortion doctors that had women like Ms. Mongar and they are still allowed to do abortions. Snipping he and his staff did was done to pre-born late-term and those babies that were aborted but somehow survived. I’m not sure the jury put him totally in jail for the snipping or Ms. Mongar but he’s not the only one that does this. Other examples are well documented like Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Morbelli, Ms. Lauren Hope Smith.etc. So, if these doctors are out of jail so should Dr. Gosnell. He followed the law. Right?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            But one’s local law enforcement agency can’t bust abortion clinics yet.

            And the moment you afford inferior rights to a fetus, you have, of necessity, abrogated the rights of an innocent, dependent, helpless living being with its own unique human DNA that can’t speak for itself. Whereas if a woman gets pregnant from irresponsible sex, she is neither innocent nor dependent nor helpless.

          • Women dying in childbirth is quite rare and is certainly the exception. I am not unkind nor am I ignorant. Thank you for your *compassion*… You really need to compare apples to apples and not to oranges.

          • JesusLovesAll

            So when i crack an egg i’m aborting a chicklet?
            By cutting a bean’s root it dies, that’s the abortion i’m talking about, not late term, after a mother has had the thing for 2 months, live with it. before that it’s just a tiny, bean, that takes the unnoticeable slide of a scalpel to sever. You people who think abortion is going in with a pair of garden sheers and just choping up a 8 pound infant disgust me, that’s a human life, have some respect.

          • JesusLovesAll

            For more scale, because i believe you all just happen to be too narrow minded to grasp things without reiteration. I want you to grab a lima bean, set it at the end of a piece of yarn. Now, go grab a chicken from the super market and lay it out next to the bean. Next i want you to murder the chicken, take a cleaver and cut it into pieces. Next, i want you to abort the bean. Take some scissors, cut the yarn, and then throw the bean into the trash can.
            God bless and goodnight.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Please change your username: you have no right to speak on the side of death and use the name of Jesus (“the way, the truth, the life”) in your username. You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • patriciacarrasco

            it always starts off like u say but when u justify that u open up all doors to all kinds of cruelty. idk if u heard that now people wanna justify murdering their kids after birth AKA “post-birth abortion”. and it all started off w/ killing the baby when it was too small for some people to not think much of it. abortion cannot be subjective just like other sins. God’s word is absolute and not changeable like human beings are. If He says, “Thou shalt not murder” He means it! Not just “Thou shalt not murder after a certain point only”, thats where people start pushing the envelope

          • DS

            A person is a person, no matter how small.

          • fiona64

            You really should credit Dr. Seuss when you quote him …

          • DS

            lol, and apparently he knows more about valuing human life than you.

            Glad you recognized it. I take it you have kids of your own?

          • Mary Lee

            No…since the egg wasn’t fertilized. Just like an ovum isn’t a person, and a sperm isn’t a person. There is a difference between human life (part of one’s own body, like the ovum, or sperm, the skin cells, etc.), and a separate and new human being (which happens when sperm fertilizes the ovum. By the time a woman takes a pregnancy test, fingernails have begun to form on the baby’s little hands. Their hearts flicker like lights on the ultrasound. There is NO difference between butchering an “8 pound infant” and burning/pureeing/dismembering an unborn child. The only thing different is the means, and perhaps the size of the child, but your argument could be continued to say that the killing of an 8 pound infant isn’t the same thing as the dismemberment of an adult human being. Killing is killing. If there is a heartbeat (and unique DNA, and fingerprints), then there is life. The DNA is critical here….because we use DNA in forensic science to identify victims and perpetrators. DNA is unique; it will never be replicated again. Think of all the unique persons who have been thrown into the garbage in the name of “choice.”

          • JesusLovesAll

            Fingernails are visible at 6 weeks, as well as heartbeat, at that poitn it almost has a spine, no limbs, only microscopic buds. I want you to go grab a piece of yarn and a lima bean. set the yarn onto the lima bean, cut the yarn, and throw the bean into the garbage, congratulations you have just aborted a lima bean. it’s the same as a fertilized embryo.

            Killing an 8lb infant is exactly the same as killing an adult human being, you read my posts right?

            Think of all the unique persons who died because we wanted to make everyone follow the pope. think of the unique children who grow up crappy lives because their parents work 25 hour days to put a slight roof over their head, now think of all the unique children who grow up in a stable household because their parents didn’t have a child at 20-25, and instead got a decent education and started a career. It sickens me that no one is even thinking of the children here.

          • fiona64

            Not as rare as you think. I’ve posted a link above.

          • AllNatural

            Did you know that you’re here because your mother gave birth to you?

          • patriciacarrasco

            do u know that if u have an abortion ur more likely to develop breast cancer?

          • fiona64

            Do you know that this is a big fat lie? http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

            Quote: The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most
            challenging aspects of studies of people and how those studies do or do
            not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion
            generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the
            most common cancer in women aside from skin cancer; and breast cancer is
            the second leading cancer killer in women. Still, the public is not
            well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does
            not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of
            breast cancer or any other type of cancer.

          • Ryan Barnett

            Yes kathy killing people is unkind and not following science is ignorant. I am glad you have come to the correct conclusion without you realizing it. :) But there is a cure for certain. Follow science and logic and reason and you will be good to go.

          • fiona64

            Pregnancy does not “damage or destroy health”

            Yes, actually, it can and does. Here in the US, we have one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world (we’re #50; Greece is #1 in terms of keeping women alive during pregnancy). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/maternal-mortality-rate-infographic_n_1827427.html

            You guys always claim “science is on your side,” but you don’t appear to read much.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            That doesn’t make pregnancy complications less rare. You can have a rare occurrence that is more frequent in some places than it is in others. Evolution dictates that if pregnancy complications were common as of currently, the human race would be facing near-extinction instead of overpopulation.

          • choices?

            Didn’t the choice to allow a baby inside her womb come when she had sex?

          • fiona64

            Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy.

            But thanks for proving that it isn’t really about the fetus at all with the anti-choice; it’s always about punishing women for daring to have sex without wanting to have a child.

            Pro-tip: all forms of contraception, including surgical sterilization, can and do fail.

          • princessjasmine45

            Actually, it iS about the child. Everyone who engages in conventional sex knows that it could result in a child. Having that knowledge and doing it anyway.. is consent. You can stomp your feet and scream all you want that it’s not… but you’re wrong.

            Failed birth control is not an excuse to take a human life. There are few justifications for it.

            There is NO shame is having sex for pleasure. There IS shame in taking a human life for no good reason. (Including the death penalty)
            You see the difference?
            It’s really quite simple.
            I don’t know why force-Deathers don’t understand that.

            Pro Life tip to Force-Deathers: There’s more than one way to have sex.
            Just because pro aborts are so narrow in their sexual activity and don’t know their own bodies doesn’t mean you can take it out on the new life that is created.

            If you people are SO interested in actually preventing pregnancy and you DARE to have sex without wanting to have a child, then perhaps you should know that there is more than one way to have sex.
            Honestly, you pro aborts are such prudes and so sexually limited..

            I mean from the way people write about how sex is so necessary and that all, one would think you people would realize that there is more than one way to have an orgasm.

            That IS the end one wants to achieve by HAVING sex, right?

            Do pro abort women even know their own bodies? Well, that IS truly shameful. I suggest masturbating more often. It’s very helpful in knowing your own body.

            Do they know when they are ovulating? My guess is: not as well as pro-life women.

            Some of the best orgasms EVER are from anal sex. No shame in that.

            Oral sex is fantastic too. Nope, shame in that.

            Lesbian sex in front of your partner while he masterbates . No shame in that one either.

            And really… is there ANYTHING that can compare to a manually stimulated female ejaculation? (there’s workshops for that.) Talk about intense pelvic movement. I think it inhumane to deny a women this experience. That’s should be taught in every University across the US.

            It’s not our problem you people lack sexual prowess. It’s our problem that if you want to take a life due to this lack. It’s not really about choice with the pro death camp. It’s about

            SO, tell me again how we want to shame women for daring to have sex for pleasure?

          • Roger Resler

            Utter nonsense. Consenting to sex is consenting to the risk of pregnancy. Also, this “punishing women” thing is absurd. Pro-lifers view pregnancy and new life as a blessing. You’re the ones who see human life in its earliest stages as a punishment.

          • princessjasmine45

            Like I said… Pro aborts are sexual prudes. They only know one way to have sex. I think that’s why they’re so angry all the time… sexual frustration has that effect on people.

          • Mary Lee

            “Consent to eat french fries is not consent to gain weight!”
            “Consent to drink a beer is not consent to get drunk!”

            Lame excuses, every single pro-abortion argument. Stupid.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Because the whole point of the law is to protect the innocent and defenseless from violence. And it’s really past time for you to hang up the “destroy her health” red herring. An honest pro-choicer would acknowledge that pro-lifers wouldn’t forbid abortion in genuinely life-threatening cases, and recognize that allowing abortion in such cases has no bearing on whether killing your son or daughter is permissible in other cases.

          • Rachel Rauwolf

            Kathy, babies are being killed. Let me say that again: babies are being killed. Do you really want to rationalize that?

        • jm

          The my body argument. 30 years ago was a great argument. We did not understand DNA. We know now it has it’s unique DNA. Therefore the developing baby is it’s own body. It may be attached to the mother but how come the baby does not have a fundamental right to be born? Besides women can have sex with whomever they want their body parts are theirs. But when a woman becomes pregnant there is now a separate being. Should we as a society not protect it? It cannot defend itself.

          • Mary Lee

            Well, the baby has his or her own body, period. The baby has his own head, arms, eyes, legs, heart…..These are not part of the mother’s body.

            One thing that makes me saddest is this hatred towards the unborn babies. It is so strange and very disturbing.

      • Basset_Hound

        Why should YOU get to choose if a child lives or dies?

        • fenaray

          Please pull out your dictionary and look up the word “child.”

          • Mary Lee

            You know that biology books and doctors (even pro-abortion doctors) call these “babies,” right?

          • fenaray

            An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, orgermination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks after the last menstrual period or LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus.

            A fetus /ˈfiːtəs/, also spelled foetus, fœtus, faetus, or fætus, is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth.
            In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization.[1][2]

          • Mary Lee

            Oh you can use Google and can cut and paste. You’re a genius. Yes, these are all true. I studied biology with one of the primary biologists in the country (at a school in the Boston area). I’m not sure how the labels “embryo” and “fetus” actually dehumanize these humans. These are stages of life. Life is a continuum. It begins at one point, and ends at another. These are our unborn children, at every single stage. And hey, by the time a woman pees on a stick, there are fingernails, so. You’re trying really hard prove that you’re right, but you’re just making a lot of noise and proving NOTHING. You cannot prove that these are not babies (because language is fluid, and a stage of life does not negate an individual’s humanity), because they ARE babies, as science and logic tell us. You have NOTHING. You have no argument. At all. You have no proof, you have no reason.

          • fenaray

            LOL, wow. That’s what I get for engaging with a zealot.

          • MlleVictoria

            I assume by “zealot” you’re implying a religious aspect to her beliefs, as I rarely if ever hear it used otherwise. Given that, I guess you missed the part where she said “I’m a secular pro-lifer.”

            If you’re using it in the way of “blindly devoted to beliefs,” well, here’s a mirror. The things you’ve said on this comment thread show that you’re willing to ignore well-established, respected science itself so long as it supports what you believe.

            Claims that abortion furthers women’s rights is one of the biggest anti-women lies ever told. Abortion allows TRUE discriminatory behavior and laws to go unchecked: women have their “choice,” so we don’t need to provide better accommodations at jobs and universities for pregnant women so that women who have children are not forced to chose between their careers/education and their chidren/families. I know you’re going to say something along the lines of “abortion gives then the choice to avoid that.” But that argument means “women only have rights if…”

            If that isn’t anti-woman, I don’t know what is.

          • fenaray

            Yeah, no. We have laws like Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, etc., etc. to protect against illegal discrimination. I don’t really care why a woman chooses to have an abortion, that’s not my business. It’s her individual choice. It’s simple really.

          • Mary Lee

            There is no “civil right” to dismember our own babies. I’m not trying to strip anyone of any rights. Why would I want to squelch my own rights? All you have are watchwords–you have no actual argument. We know what abortion is. We know what is done to the baby. We know that these are babies. Pro-lifers are not trying to “take away” civil rights–the right to kill another person DOES NOT EXIST. It never did.

          • fenaray

            The right to kill another person does exist, haven’t you ever heard of the death penalty?

          • Mary Lee

            I don’t support the death penalty.

          • fenaray

            I understand the difference between ending the life of an embryo and ending the life of a grown adult, and I also oppose the death penalty. However, I steadfastly stand by my belief that women should be in control of their reproductive choices, including abortion.

          • Marisa

            Abortion is not a reproductive choice; you have already chosen to engage in an activity that could lead to reproducing. Now all you are doing is choosing to get rid of the “product of conception”. We need to get back to people taking responsibility for their decisions.

          • fenaray

            Your statement isn’t true, abortion is indeed a reproductive choice. In fact, in the US and many, many advanced countries it is a woman’s right. This discussion has been useful to me in that it has strengthened my resolve to fight to keep this important right. It is astonishing to me how many people wish to dictate to others what they may do with their body.

          • Dissgruntled

            Advance barbarism maybe. I feel sorry for your blindness. I am a Christian Pro-life advocate. I believe in the right to life for all human beings. It’s really sad that you want to impose your “right” on helpless innocent children who didn’t choose to be born, but were forced to be conceived by their parents, who decide that instead of taking responsibility for their actions they can just flush their children down the toilet. And if you really cared about Women and women’s rights, you would want abortion to end. All abortion does is cover up the fact that people had sex, which enables sexual predators to continue raping their victims. Abortion enslaves women and makes them nothing but objects of sexual gratification.

          • Name the “many, many advanced countries” where abortion is a woman’s Right.

          • johno

            China. You have a “right” to 1 child. Of course the state will force you to abort all other pregnancy. North Korea just like killing live babies, unborn , adults. It’s the utopia for killing everybody. Oh, with one person Kim jung-un and his wife having the “right” not to be killed. Utopia, right!

          • kathykattenburg

            The best you can say about the above is that it’s a gross oversimplification. It pretends that there is only one explanation for why a woman would get pregnant and then choose an abortion. In fact, what you’ve said is SO oversimplified that it really approaches being flat-out untrue.

          • “…pretends there is only one explanation for why a woman would get pregnant and then choose an abortion.”

            And what would that reason/explanation be?

            If a woman is old enough/mature enough to have sex (as most are not – hence the problem) then once they choose to have sex they have chosen to take the chance of becoming pregnant. The ONLY way to have an unplanned pregnancy is by having sex! Simple as that! Don’t want to get pregnant then don’t have sex or at least not when there is any remote chance of conceiving! Oh my, you might have to abstain from sex…for about 3 days. But that’s why people like abortion. It’s their safety net so they can have sex without worry of becoming pregnant. Abortion is what proponents pose as the “easy was out” but that is not the case. It doesn’t make you un-pregnant it makes you the mother of a dead baby.

          • kathykattenburg

            Michele, first, do you believe that all problem pregnancies are unplanned? And second, do you believe that all women have regular, predictable menstrual cycles?

          • I don’t believe in a problem pregnancy, perhaps a pregnancy unwanted by the woman or unplanned but not “problem”. I have had an unplanned pregnancy but the thought of abortion never crossed my mind!

            No not all women have regular cycles. Regular as in calendar-wise. All women have “symptoms” of ovulation that can be observed by the woman herself so she knows when she is about to ovulate. Sympto-thermal method, Natural Family Planning use this method but it requires the woman to take note of her basal temp each morning, cervical mucus changes etc. Sure beats taking a carcinogenic drug every day!

          • kathykattenburg

            Amen.

          • kathykattenburg

            I think it’s much, much easier to love human life and hold it sacred when it’s a human life that does not exist in the world yet, that has never done anything, right or wrong, yet, that is completely powerless to do anything or act on the world in any way. It’s easy to love a human blank slate.

            It’s much harder to see the sacredness and the inherent dignity and worth of the humanity of someone who has lived for years and done good things and bad things. It’s much harder to feel, or see, that someone who has done terrible things, someone who is deeply flawed, and has made real mistakes, is also human, and that his or her human life is just as sacred.

            That’s why I have so little respect for the argument that unborn babies are “innocent human life” and thus it’s worse to deliberately take their lives than it is to deliberately take the life of anyone else. It’s easy to love and revere a human life that has done absolutely nothing, one way or the other. It’s hard to love and revere a human life that has actually… well, LIVED. So I think when you talk about unborn babies as “innocent human lives,” it really doesn’t mean much. What credit is it to you that you love and revere the life of someone who is innocent because they haven’t been born yet? How much more important and valuable — and how much *harder* is it, how more effort does it take, to respect ALL human life, and see it ALL as sacred, even after it’s been born and had a chance to make bad choices.

          • ALL LIFE is Sacred – ALL. Innocent life means has done no wrong and the reference was to the death penalty where the person has most definitely done something wrong. The unborn child has done nothing wrong.

          • kathykattenburg

            An unborn baby has “done no wrong” because it hasn’t had a chance to do anything wrong. Any human being out of the womb has done wrong to a greater or lesser extent, and the older human beings get, the more wrong acts they accumulate. So if you can only hold human life sacred that hasn’t done anything wrong, then your claims for the sanctity of human life mean nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing.

          • Wow. Really? To do wrong requires the ability to know right from wrong which children fully acquire by around 7-8 although they do start learning much earlier. The capacity or history of doing wrong (or not) has no bearing on the value of human life! (What about forgiveness??) ALL human life is sacred and valued. Once again, you were originally talking about the death penalty which is rare and is applied to someone who has definitely done an atrocious wrong and knows better! Their human life is still valuable which is why they are treated humanely. Some states choose to serve justice to said criminal (who has likely taken more than 1 life) by requiring them to give up their life.

            So… my claim for sanctity of human life stands

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            And you speak as someone who should know. You have done TREMENDOUS wrong by hiring assassins to murder your two precious babies. Kathy, when you wake up to what you did, please remember that Jesus can save you and forgive you even when you think you can’t forgive yourself. The suicide attempt rate among women who have had abortions is 77%, once they wake up to the fact of what they did. Please seek counseling. I’m praying for you.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            It hasn’t had a chance to do anything wrong (or right, for that matter), and you won’t let it have that chance?

          • kathykattenburg

            I’ve always believed that the reason for having a child is (or should be) because you want to raise a child, not because you want a child to have a chance to do right or wrong. If that were the reason, we could kill the kid as soon as it did something right or wrong.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I’m not making it about kids doing something right or wrong. It’s another reason abortion is wrong, along with all the others.

          • rcro

            I happen to believe all life is scared. But you’ll notice, we already have laws in place to protect people who have had the chance to live. Laws against murdering, drinking and driving, and all sorts already protect the people who’ve had the opportunity to live, regardless of whether or not they’ve made good life decisions. No such laws exist for those who haven’t, and that is where the fight lies

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            “It’s easy to love a human blank slate.” So why don’t you?

          • kathykattenburg

            I do. I just don’t believe that the statement “Human life is sacred” is more true for a blank slate than for a fully grown, deeply flawed human being.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You’re right, they’re both equally valued. The only humans that deserve to be killed are people who have committed awful murders and diabolical dictators.

            And if you love the human blank slate, why are you OK with it’s being killed?

          • kathykattenburg

            If we’re talking about an unborn baby, as opposed to a newborn, who is also a blank slate, it’s not about “being okay with its being killed,” it’s about not being okay with the state telling a woman that having a growing life inside her doesn’t have anything to do with her health or her human right to have control over her own bodily functions and processes.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Nobody said it didn’t have effects on her health, it’s Because of those effects on her health that it should live. Remember, your body and unconscious are both programmed to treat abortions and miscarriages as traumas, and to be accommodating to pregnancies and feel good about birth (after it, obviously).

            Of course there are unpleasant side effects. You’re not watching Doctor Who, for crying out loud. But are you really killing someone just because you think that irresponsible sex and not vomiting is worth more than bringing the next Einstein or Florence Nightingale (possibly) into the world? According to the American Pregnancy Association (website: http://www.americanpregnancy.org), morning sickness is caused by hormones, not the embryo or fetus, it’s only for the first trimester, and it’s a good thing because it means the placenta is developing well.

            And what’s the difference between a fetus and newborn? Age, that’s what. Liberals kill the unborn, endanger five-year-olds by not letting their teachers defend them, pervert them with sex ed, and won’t let retired people get all the healthcare they need. Liberals must think the world revolves around young adults having irresponsible sex.

          • kathykattenburg

            This can’t be a response to my most recent comment, unless you have bionic fingers. But I’ll respond.

            “Nobody said it didn’t have effects on her health, it’s Because of those
            effects on her health that it should live. Remember, your body and
            unconscious are both programmed to treat abortions and miscarriages as
            traumas, and to be accommodating to pregnancies and feel good about
            birth (after it, obviously).”

            Andrew, this is just sheer nonsense. It makes no sense. A woman should be forced to have a baby because it adversely affects her health? That makes no sense. And the bit about women being programmed to treat abortions and miscarriages as traumas, and to be “accommodating” to pregnancy and birth (whatever that even means) is just patronizing and dismissive of women as intelligent adult beings, and of pregnancy as an inherently health-related event. You appear to be saying that women’s bodies automatically welcome a pregnancy and treat it as something good for her that could never hurt her, and that’s like 19th century Victorian misogynistic nonsense.

            As for morning sickness and throwing up, I know of NO WOMAN who has ever or would ever end a pregnancy because she didn’t want to throw up. I mean, JESUS. That’s just more trivializing of the serious reasons women have for needing abortions. I’ll add that you might try getting pregnant yourself and actually experiencing what it feels like to throw up every day for weeks or months before you dismiss it as just a tiny little thing not worth a moment’s thought, but having said that it’s ridiculous to point to that as a reason any woman would have an abortion.

            I have to recharge my laptop. I don’t know what else to say to you, anyway.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I did not say a woman should be forced to have a baby because it adversely affects her health. I said that she has a moral obligation to have a live birth partly because she’s genetically programmed to get pregnant and give birth (the only biological difference between men and women).

            Abortion and miscarriages are traumas, as dictated by genetics and the collective unconscious. One’s an accident, the other’s induced. You know how your unconscious treats a thing that your DNA labels “trauma”? It puts you in shock, dissociates your conscious from it, and reintroduces it, piece by piece, slowly, until you’re depressed. Don’t want your body and mind to go into trauma mode? Don’t have an abortion. How is watching out for women’s psychological well-being sexist? I’m not saying that women exist for childbirth only. Again, does every liberal carry things to extremes?

            And I bring up morning sickness because guess what? There is are only 3 unpleasant things about pregnancies that are more common than ectopic pregnancies, and those are: morning sickness, Brixton Hicks contractions, and birth pains, and none of these will necessarily kill either mother or child.

          • kathykattenburg

            Andrew, I’m glad you’re only 20, because you scare the shit out of me, and the only thing that makes me less terrified at your totalitarian ideology is that you ARE only 20, and still finding yourself, and obviously needing to overcome some pretty nasty programming of your own. I wish you luck.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Nope. I found myself soon before or after I got out of high school. And I wasn’t programmed, the school I went to was (probably) secretly teaching KKK/Nazi propaganda (KKK’s and Nazi’s are registered Democrats or Independents, and none are Republicans). I used to be a liberal (except with abortion). I became a conservative out of my own free will, after realizing how full of barbarism, narcissism, and extremism the Democratic Party is.

            And who’s talking about totalitarianism? The person who supports gun control, unnecessary government programs, banning meat and soda, sending kids to crappy schools of one-sided indoctrination, banning and insulting religion, controlling news stations, getting endorsements from celebrities, raising taxes, and leaders committing adultery, that’s who.

            I support protecting the innocent, punishing killers, deposing tyrants, and responsible sex, and I use science, reason, and common sense to support my beliefs. Is there something wrong with responsibility, protecting innocents, and opposing bad guys?

            As far as me being disappointed in your ideology of egotism, government corruption, irresponsibility, and divisiveness, well, there’s no mitigating factors. You’re fricking 63. I’m only 20. You should be the one telling me these things, and be backing them up with not only science, reason, and common sense, but also the personal experience that I lack, which would greatly compliment my arguments which are already seemingly hard for you to refute (after all, we’ve been debating this long…).

          • kathykattenburg

            “And who’s talking about totalitarianism?”

            It’s not about issues. It’s not about your position on abortion or my position on government programs. It’s not about our opinions or beliefs. That’s not why I said your ideology is totalitarian. It’s about “some attitudes are correct or valid” and “some attitudes are incorrect/invalid,” and “we can’t sympathize with
            incorrect/invalid attitudes” and “although we can empathize with incorrect/invalid attitudes, we have to tell people when their attitudes are incorrect and invalid.” That’s straight out of the Stalinist playbook. It’s chilling. We have to help people with incorrect/invalid beliefs understand that their beliefs are incorrect and invalid. That’s about as totalitarian as it gets.

            “You should be the one telling me these things, and be backing them up
            with not only science, reason, and common sense, but also the personal
            experience that I lack, which would greatly compliment my arguments
            which are already seemingly hard for you to refute”

            Well, I gave you the personal experience that you lack, and you’re right that it should greatly complement your arguments, but it didn’t, did it? But that’s because you are in possession of “absolute truth” and you *know* which beliefs are correct and which are incorrect, so there’s actually no way my personal experience, or anyone’s personal experience, could complement your arguments if said personal experience is not in accordance with absolute truth and your knowledge of which attitudes are correct and which are not.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Totalitarianism: You have no room to talk. I get called totalitarian because I believe an unborn child has the right to live, our freedoms have a high but necessary cost, and murderers deserve to die. You clamor against that, and support gun control, big government, corrupt politicians, propagandized education and news and entertainment, high taxes, and banning meat and soda pop. According to your logic, slavery and dictators and rampant murder and terrorism is better than keeping bad guys off the streets and out of politics.

            Incorrect Attitudes: Everybody believes in the doctrine of objective value. It means what’s right is not relative, it’s dictated by higher forces/authorities than individuals, and that what’s not right is to be suppressed as much as possible. It’s out of Jesus’ book, Muhammad’s book, Buddha’s book, Confucius’ book, Lao-tzu’s book, and the Founding Fathers’ book.

            Stalin was a Marxist, so nope, not his book. Liberals are LaVeyans pretending otherwise, so it’s in your book too, you’re book’s just an anomaly. The people mentioned above would be pro-life activists (not all would particularly care for war or the death penalty).

            I don’t possess absolute truth, I don’t make it up. It exists apart from what you and I say and do about it. And your personal experiences are invalid because you think the solution for terminally ill children is to put them out of their misery before they have a chance to hope or get cured. Way to have compassion for terminally ill children. God forbid that you should fund scientific research.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            As an afterthought, they might be Gnostics instead of LaVeyans.

          • Technically the death penalty is not the “right to kill another person” – it’s the government administering the ultimate form of justice for a horrible crime committed

          • kathykattenburg

            And not just the death penalty. The right to kill another person in self-defense exists. A fetus is not a person, but it IS inside a woman’s body, which means that it does represent a threat, or a risk, to her life and/or health.

          • As I wrote above, the child does not represent a threat or risk to her life and/or health! It is a NATURAL part of a woman’s biology! Killing a woman’s unborn child is definitely not natural and is definitely far more of a risk than pregnancy.

          • kathykattenburg

            You’re wrong. And there’s no excuse for you to be this wrong. The risk to a woman from an early abortion is FAR lower than the risk from pregnancy. Even more so if the woman is a young girl. If you think full-term pregnancy and childbirth are less dangerous for a 12-year-old than for a 22-year-old, you are insanely uninformed.

          • No mention was made of ages by your original comment or mine. A 12 year old becoming pregnant is quite rare and we cannot use the rare exception as the rule. This isn’t about comparing safety between ages and I stand by my comment that abortion is always more dangerous than pregnancy because elective abortion is unnatural.

          • kathykattenburg

            “This isn’t about comparing safety between ages and I stand by my comment
            that abortion is always more dangerous than pregnancy because elective
            abortion is unnatural.”

            I don’t know what you mean by “elective” abortion. All abortion is a choice and should remain so. At any rate, abortion is not “unnatural” since it exists in nature. Women have been having abortions for all of human history. There has never been a time when abortion didn’t exist.

          • kirkensmall

            except when it didnt…? There are certainly things that have always existed, but not even the earth has been here for ever, so….that’s just a weird thing to say. Abortion isn’t omnipotent. I feel like you’re not fighting for a choice you’re fighting for one side and that IS abortion. I used to think pro choice was to choose life or death but you’re always only siding with death.

          • kirkensmall

            I don’t see being pro life as stripping someone of their civil rights (although, abortion strips an entire human of their rights as a human). I see being a woman as having something men can never have! Men will never be able to carry a child. That is my right and I take so much pride in that! I mean, I guess women’s rights have become this battle to become exactly like men…so, if that’s what you want. As women we have this amazing empowerment and why are we trying to take the one thing that makes us different and say it’s not our responsibility to protect??

          • AMEN! The Feminist movement has “sold the farm” and convinced so many that women need to abandon their amazing gift of childbearing!!

          • kathykattenburg

            “Life is a continuum. It begins at one point, and ends at another.”

            That is not a statement of biological or scientific fact. That is a statement of spiritual belief. You’re so used to living in a society that views the world through that particular spiritual lens that you think it’s a fact. But it’s not.

            Life has no beginning, and it has no end. That is also a statement of spiritual belief. And people who hold that belief have just as much right to use it as a yardstick for their life’s decisions as you do for yours.

          • kathykattenburg

            I tell my eight-year-old dog that he’s a sweet puppy. That doesn’t make him a puppy.

          • musiciangirl591

            you’re comparing human life to animals, it looks like you and peter singer would be good friends

          • Anon

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

            1 a : an unborn or recently born person

            Huh, the very first definition says “unborn”. Maybe I’m looking at the wrong dictionary?

          • kathykattenburg

            I don’t agree with that definition. If you haven’t been born, you’re not a person. Perhaps Merriam-Webster is written and edited by pro-birthers?

          • A.Pres

            Synonym for “child” is “offspring” or “progeny” or “result” – “A young human being below the age of full physical development.” Every pre-born human qualifies for the dictionary definition, and the biological one.

      • You choose to give birth when you have sex. As a woman you know the possibility of conceiving. If you don’t want to conceive then don’t have sex. No contraception is 100% besides abstaining during fertility – it’s not that difficult to pay attention to your own body to learn the 3 days you are most likely fertile and choose to not have sex on those days! Why should the innocent child have to sacrifice his/her life for your convenience?

        • kathykattenburg

          Mary Lee! Look over here! More “compassion by the truckload”!

      • Derenzopa

        So you are advocating the death penalty for people like me? My birth mother never wanted children, so when she became pregnant at 25 she decided to give me up for adoption. She got on with her life, and I was permitted to live mine. My parents finally had the child for whom they’d prayed and waited years. I now have two beautiful children who wouldn’t be here if she had decided to kill me. I was fortunate enough to be born 1 year and 1 day before the Roe v Wade decision; had I been conceived a year or so later, my children and I might not be here.

    • kathykattenburg

      “Which is also dumb do to the fact, that the fetus isn’t the women body, or her life.”

      Yes, it is. The fact you could write that sentence and not recognize how absurd it is, just floors me.

      • Mary Lee

        No, the baby is his or her own separate person, with his or her own bodily autonomy. The fact that you cannot see what has been proven by science, empirically (because ‘dependence’ does not negate the individual, nor does it make the baby ‘part’ of the woman, any more than parking a car in the garage makes it part of the garage), because you refuse to see it, is troubling, and should be, to anyone with an IQ higher than an eggplant’s.

      • Guest

        so if i have a baby, and its a boy, i have a penis, i don’t have a penis… :P

      • musiciangirl591

        what if the baby is a boy, i’m a woman, last time i checked i didn’t have a penis

    • Valde

      The fetus doesn’t create itself out of nothing.

      It literally builds it’s own body by taking nutrients from the mothers body.

      In fact, it even releases hormones that enable it to take more sugar from it’s cells in order to grow as big as it can.

  • Mary Lee

    Every pro-abortion argument is dumb. Every. Single. One. They are all slogans, and excuses, and all easily refutable.

    • Lisa O’B

      Go, Mary!

    • thinksyourarguementisdumb

      What about if the girl doesn’t want to have a baby, she’s not going to have the baby. Either it’s in a clinic or its behind it with a coat hanger, either way, that baby isn’t getting born. I’m pro choice, as I think it is both parents choice to decide what they believe is in best interest.

      • kathykattenburg

        Now, *there’s* a good point.

        • kainosktisis

          I’ve seen many men hurt & broken over this very thing. All it is is a powerplay, & one of playing “god” over people’s lives. It’s a very selfish & sociopathic one, too. It’s like I’ve said: some women lose their consciences in doing this, & they act as if in murdering for convenience & one-upping the man, they put their foot on the men’s necks. It’s no surprise when later on they find no men who’ll love them: they’ve also removed a chunk of their hearts to become whatever it is they allow themselves to be in the end.

      • And all those “clinics” are so much better than that back alley or coat hanger? We’ve learned how horrendous the conditions are in many, many “clinics” and yet pro-“choice” folks don’t want to support any legislation to require clinics to measure up to standards that any other “surgi-center” would have.

        I’m “pro-choice” too… I believe the parents should choose between keeping their baby and raising him/her or giving him/her up for adoption to one of many couples that are infertile and would love a newborn to adopt.

        • nptrgms20

          RATIONALIZATION…… a defense mechanism…and not supported by science or morality or God’s Word.

      • A.Pres

        Let’s just take a moment to break down this thought process used in this comment…

        When you use the word “parents” you must realize that the way you used it means — anybody who has sex that results in a pregnancy with a live child.

        These “specially endowed” “parents” (according to your statement) should now have the right to:

        > Decide whether their children are allowed to have rights

        > Let their “feelings” undermine all biological and scientific knowledge
        > Decide that it’s “in the best interest” of the child to die
        > Allow dismemberment, suffocation, chemically burning, or starvation because it’s in the child’s “best interest” to do so

        Oh yeah, that about sums it up, because while that sounds and looks exactly like horrific child abuse, the womb is the magical place that makes child abuse non-existent and legal for 9 months of everyone’s life. …I guess that makes more sense then making it illegal… because that would mean we’d be protecting women and children…. which is silly, right?

        I’m so happy we’ve decided to continue this illogical, fear-based train of thought. (not…)

        • DS

          VERY well said, A.Pres

        • you muderers

          Abortion is no different than Sandy Hook. A shot is a shot, no mater if it is a bullet or a bullet or a needle. if you cant take care of the child then give it to a foster program/orphanage for adoption for someone who can. that way it wont starve or have child abuse.

      • Ryan Barnett

        The thing that amazes me so much is the fact that the pro abortion crowd immediately jump to the final solution which is abortion. They never consider the option of adoption which allows a couple who actually wants to have a child but cant for whatever reason the great opportunity to raise and love a child. To me abortion is not a great right that should be celebrated as feminists always do, but a violent ravishing of a woman’s body and the deliberate and intentional dismemberment and killing of a innocent baby. Aborton is rape of the womb. And women do suffer from the results of it emotionally, psychologically, and physically with guilt, suicidal thoughts, depression, not eating, nightmares, and its a link to increased breast cancer for women. These are just a few examples I name. So it is the choice of the parents that is NOT a clear right that supersedes the right to life of the baby? All I can say to that is 9th amendment. Look it up and read it it states clearly that if abortion is deemed a “certain right” then it is in violation of denying rights retained by the baby, the newly developing person in the womb.

        • fenaray

          Always speaking in absolutes never gets us anywhere.

          • Mary Lee

            That statement is an “absolute.”

          • fenaray

            Irony, Mary, irony.

          • Mary Lee

            Yes, that is what I was pointing out. Pro-aborts believe that the right to abort one’s child is an absolute guaranteed right. It isn’t. The right to live (not just as one sees fit, but to live, period, to not be killed) is an absolute, and blatantly disregarded by the pro-abortion community.

          • Ryan Barnett

            First of all your statement simply proves my point that you do not use logic in a correct nor consistent manner. Your statement is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. Now, if it is true you would have to provide me countless examples of my apparent “speaking in absolutes” as you claim I have done. If you can not provide these numerous examples then your statement is indeed branded as a logical fallacy. Shall we continue or do you recant your statement?

        • Julie Horsford Butler

          Do you know why they refuse to choose adoption? Every single “pro-choice” person I’ve ever talked to who has chosen abortion (including myself) finally admitted that after carrying a child for 9 months they didn’t think they would be able to give the child up even though they knew they were not equipped to be a parent and adoption was in the best interest of the child. It’s pure selfishness, and I readily admit the error in my thinking back then. That is why I am pro-life today and volunteer at a local PRC and active in the pro-life movement here in Texas… so that my baby will not have died in vain.

          • taviliz

            God bless you Julie:) That is a beautiful thing to do! You are right on.

          • Mary Lee

            This broke my heart. Oh thank you, Julie.

          • patriciacarrasco

            thank the Lord He has opened up ur understanding and tenderized ur heart because u couldve easily become even more hard-hearted and continued to do more abortions…

          • ldolehide

            Julie, My twin grandchildren were adopted to a loving couple who now have 4 other adopted children. They are all my grandchildren as I treat them all the same loving way I do my biological twins. We have open unlimited contact with them and enjoy visiting the whole family. It works for us and could work for many because, if women only knew that when they place their child for adoption, openness is encouraged in the adoption world now

          • Margaret Welwood

            Yes, my daughter has applied to care for an abused, mentally challenged, possibly ASD little girl. I’ve never met this child and I feel like I love her already.

          • johno

            I’m sorry for your loss.

          • cbaloyi

            Good for you Julie, thank you for the courage to share your story. It’s quite an insight, and reminds me that we have to be careful not to get so high up on the soap box we forget the ones being affected most. I’ve been a school psychologist in local schools for 15 years, spent lots of time with middle and high schoolers, taught child development to pregnant teens and teen moms. I wish we could be more effective on the preventive end, keeping women from having to face the decision you had to make. Any insights on that? Anyone?

          • Margaret Welwood

            Get people like Julie to talk to them.

          • Margaret Welwood

            How beautiful! God bless you in your work for Him and for your little one.

        • fiona64

          They never consider the option of adoption which allows a couple who
          actually wants to have a child but cant for whatever reason the great
          opportunity to raise and love a child.

          Why aren’t all of these alleged couples adopting already? According to the most recent AFCARS statistics, there are more than 100K kids already available for adoption in this country.

          • DS

            Many people do adopt children.

            Or perhaps you can “woman-up” and be responsible for your own kids. I will never understand why you pro-aborts insist everyone else be responsible for alleviating you of your accountability.

          • Margaret Welwood

            I think it’s hard to adopt–lots of hurdles. I know three women who would like to adopt. One of them was a nurse. She’s probably “too old” now, but is a blessing to the little ones in her life.

      • Persona

        Well she could wear a condom or make her partner wear one. So simple,yet so hard to understand for you,pro-choice.

        • Al

          But no birth control is 100% effective. What about those who do use condoms or are on the pill and happen to be the small percentage that birth control doesn’t work for? They haven’t done anything wrong, they’ve used protection every time because they know they aren’t in a place in their lives where they can have a child but they are just the ‘unlucky’ ones. Should they not be able to choose what is the best for their lives, their futures?

          • Mary Lee

            Killing their own unborn babies is what is best? Really?

            It’s not a punishment, it is simply a result. It is nature. That is what happens. I can eat McDonald’s every day and exercise, and do what I can to not get fat and still enjoy fast food, but I’d have to be aware that my system may fail, because you cannot stop nature. I can’t get angry at my fat, because I put it there. Pregnancy is not a punishment. It is not a “consequence.” It is a natural result of sex. If birth control fails, then, no, the baby’s mother does not get to decide to puree/dismember the child because she doesn’t want him.

            And abortion says “You can’t have a baby, your life is over.” That’s BS. It is pure BS.

          • Al

            I am not ‘pro-abortion’, I am pro everybody getting to make an informed choice based on their own individual cases. It is a lot harder to complete higher education, get a good job that you enjoy and pays enough that you can live without struggling to pay the bills and enough that you still have money left over to treat yourself every once in a while if you have a child.

            Maybe I’m just biased because, around where I live, a lot of girls get pregnant young. I’m not condoning it and I’m not defending them, but 9 out of 10 of them are alone (because why would the father stick around if it threatens his future). They will not go to university, even though they are capable, because how can they afford to live while at university WITH a child? Get a part time job like most students? How can they pay childcare? The amount of hours they have to work to pay their rent and buy their own food let alone baby food and clothes and everything else a child needs adds up to far more than they can work without neglecting their studies. Most jobs now, at least where I’ve been looking, require good qualifications. Most young mothers I know couldn’t get these qualifications because they were spread too thin, they didn’t have enough hours in the day, they didn’t have enough energy or money or support.
            Maybe I just have quite a bitter perspective because of what I see every day, but I just think a woman should be able to choose between abortion, adoption and keeping the child based on her own circumstances, and she should be able to make her decision without fear of people judging her and her decision. A lot of the girls near me were pressured to keep their children and, now, girls are frowned upon if they bring up adoption because it means they aren’t ‘good enough’ to raise a baby. It’s ridiculous. Every situation is different and every woman is different and who are we – any of us – to say that they can’t do something or they will be judged negatively for trying to make such a hard decision to the best of their ability?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Actually I would suppose that being a parent who’s raising their kid would give them points with their job interviewers and similar. It takes a lot of responsibility to raise a kid and that’s what they’re looking for.

          • Al

            But that still doesn’t make up for the lack of essential qualifications. An interviewer may admire them for being a young, single parent but they will still choose the person who has the skills and grades they’re looking for. It’s not right, but that’s what happens 99% of the time.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Are you saying raising a kid makes you stupid and/or untalented? What if a mother does have the skills and grades they’re looking for?

          • Al

            No…I never said that at all. I said that, although being a parent gives you responsibility, if there is someone applying for the same job as this parent who has better skills, the employer isn’t going to choose the young parent because “they show they are responsible”. They will choose the person who has the skills to do the job.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            That doesn’t exclude the possibility of the parent having better skills. Being a successful parent, in fact, does require better skills at something, and there’s a great deal of overlap with many jobs. Your argument was on the (implied) premise that that doesn’t happen.

          • Mary Lee

            No, you are pro-abortion. If you believe in the right to choose abortion, then you are pro-abortion. The pro-abortion community tries to distance itself from the very thing they support, and believe is a right. If you believe there is nothing wrong with abortion, and that it is a right, then you should have no problem admitting that you are pro-abortion. I am anti-abortion. That is fair, because I am against abortion. I am not “anti-choice” because that doesn’t make sense. “To choose” in an active verb, and requires an object, something to be chosen. If one is “pro-choice” then one is using “choice” as a euphemism for “abortion.” The pro-abortion camp proves this time and time again. There is hue and cry when a woman with a “disabled” or “imperfect” baby chooses NOT to abort, and there is almost zero support for adoption. Abortion is the only thing that is really being discussed here. Not choices. The choice to abort. If one believes that abortion is an inherent right, then one is pro-abortion.

            Those who supported slavery who “pro-slavery,” not “pro-choice to own a slave.” The abolitionists were “anti-slavery.” I am an abortion abolitionist.

            Please own up to what you support. You support the killing of a human baby person in utero, for any reason his or her mother sees fit. Because, as you have also proven, might makes right, doesn’t it?

          • fiona64

            If you believe in the right to choose abortion, then you are
            pro-abortion. The pro-abortion community tries to distance itself from
            the very thing they support, the thing they believe is a right.

            Every pro-choice person I know, myself included, supports a woman’s right to make any number or choices: contraception use or non-use, gestation or termination, adoption or rearing alone or with a partner of one’s choice. I don’t know what is so hard to comprehend about that, but the anti-choicers never seem to grasp the simple fact.

            Why do you believe yourself better able to determine a woman’s circumstances than she, herself, is able to do?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            No circumstance justifies killing an innocent child, especially your own son or daughter. We don’t determine a woman’s circumstances, we promote personal responsibility in all circumstances–something that liberals can’t seem to comprehend.

          • kap65

            Why do you think we are anti-choice? Parenting is a choice. Adoption is a choice. You even acknowledge that in your statement.

            I am anti-abortion. Can you grasp that simple fact?

          • Mary Lee

            But this still begs the question. …. “How can they afford to….WITH a child…?” We ask that because we haven’t given women actual options. The pro-abortion community says “EITHER/OR.” There are two lives here. One is the mother–and we are using healthy women and healthy babies for this example, because “abortion on demand and without apology” is what is really at stake–and the other is the baby. The mother, a healthy woman, is given the idea that “she can’t afford” a baby. She “can’t” have a baby and also get a degree. (This is a crock, because I know many women who had babies at “inconvenient” times and still managed to become nurses, doctors, writers, etc.)….The liberal camp is constantly telling women they NEED abortion, otherwise they are slaves.

            But abortion KEEPS us enslaved. I know abstinence-only education is a point of contention, and I’m not sure it’s really effective, but not because abstinence itself isn’t effective (it is 100% effective for avoiding pregnancy), but because of how it’s presented. I understand the pro-abortion camp getting all huffy with religious arguments and saying, “Sex is normal and healthy, you guys are dorks.” But abstinence should be presented as a reasonable, wise decision, because sex is a big deal. Whether or not we like to admit it, IT IS. Yes, it’s fun. Yes, it’s awesome. Pro-lifers aren’t PURITANICAL. We don’t hate sex. We like it. But we also know that, hey, that’s where babies come from. We should be teaching our children that, like going to the bathroom, and eating, and sleeping, there are proper times for sex. What’s more natural–and, frankly, more necessary–for one’s sanity and health, than sleep, which is restorative? But we don’t go “Oh just sleep whenever you feel like it.” “Just pee whenever and wherever the mood strikes.” And we’ve become food fascists, too….Don’t eat carbs! Don’t eat this! Don’t smoke! Don’t do this, don’t do that! And yet the sexual impulse is somehow uncontrollable to pro-aborts.

            We need to teach our children about responsible sex. To say “Well, they’re going to do it ANYWAY” is, for one, completely false (there are many high schoolers and even college kids who are virgins, even NOW! TODAY!) and to basically say “You should be able to just enjoy sex, and if you get pregnant, then you can abort, because you’re ready for sex, but not a baby.” Nope. If you are ready to have sex, then you are ready for a baby. To say “consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy” is tantamount to saying “consent to eat McDonalds is not consent to gain weight.” It doesn’t make any sense. Yes, I can do what I can to avoid putting on weight, but, hey, I’m human. My body is gonna do the natural thing and, well, it is very possible I might find some pudge here and there. I PUT IT THERE.

            If girls are having sex and not using birth control, and are immature, and have no idea what they’re doing with their life, but hey, it feels good, and they want to enjoy themselves without having any accountability, that’s like handing them a credit card in their own name and having them spend money that isn’t their own, running up a huge debt and then saying “Well, you can just declare bankruptcy.” Abortion is an escape hatch to those who support it. But what IS abortion? What does it do? Is it healthy? No. Is it life-affirming? No. It is an act of destruction–a mother choosing to destroy the life of her own child–for no other reason that the fact that the child’s own life and own body is “inconvenient” to her.

            I know people who feel like they have to go to confession if they eat a cheeseburger, but abortion? They don’t bat an eyelash. “It’s our right,” they say. Our right to what? To kill in order to get what we think we’re entitled to? That’s not liberty. THAT IS CHAOS.

          • johno

            You should write for LiveActionnews!!!

          • Renato Santis

            The best of their future is what a mafia hit man has in his mind.

          • J.B.

            And that is exactly what abortionists are…legalized hit men whose targets are unborn children.
            The irony is that most every pro-abort would find it reprehensible for someone to take out a hit on a child, yet they are now calling for post birth abortions. But put that abortionist in a preschool and let him do his thing, and it’s suddenly unacceptable.
            I’ve often joked that if they want abortion legalized so badly, abortions should include post birth with no age restrictions. Meaning that if your parents decide they don’t want you anymore…at ANY AGE…they can simply abort you! I wonder how many pro-aborts would find that acceptable since these days, many are probably back at home or depending on their parents to help support them in some way. For some reason I have a feeling that they’d vehemently argue that that would be murder.
            The pro abort mentality is a spiritual/mental illness.

          • kainosktisis

            Thank you for bringing this to the forefront. I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again. The money used to pay for abortions is nothing more than blood money.

          • kainosktisis

            “They haven’t done anything wrong, they’ve used protection every time because they know they aren’t in a place in their lives where they can have a child but they are just the ‘unlucky’ ones.”

            By the time they’ve already decided to put their bodies in a position where they could potentially create another human being, yet know that not only they could possibly end up with an unplanned pregnancy–and still know that they are NOT in an ideal position to offer their best & the best conditions for that new person, don’t you think that puts sex & passion over not only their future child’s well-being, but their own as well? And not only that, they’ve already lost–mostly by failing themselves in allowing themselves to be convinced that they’d be the exception to such a condition…putting their dreams, goals, & future to the test in a way that has no honor, leads to shame, guilt, & disgrace. Last time I’d checked, couples that chose abortion hoping they’d remain together without a child found that the stats were against them: to the tune of some 70% that broke up after the abortion.

          • patriciacarrasco

            i think murdering ur own mutual child probably ruins a relationship dont it? how can really respect ur spouse after that, unconscioulsy i think u dont and cant

          • kainosktisis

            Yes, it can & does ruin many a relationship. Thankfully I’m not in that position. But I will say that abortion’s ripples can be felt long after the stone was initially throne to cause them in the first place. I’ve seen firsthand what it can do to a marriage–even when the husband is not the one from long ago involved in that unhappy event. It can affect a future marriage, but where both spouses were involved in it, I have also seen that those who work on the issues surrounding that event putting their trust in God are better equipped to move forward & past it. Will they ever forget it? No, but they can forgive each other, put their future together in God’s hands, & move forward. From my experience, I was not well equipped to voice my feelings in my youth, but I tried however imperfectly it was, & unfortunately denial & avoidance were the measures taken against me to keep me from bringing up the uncomfortable matter that sat before us like the elephant in the room.

          • patriciacarrasco

            well they should know the risk of having sex which is primarily for procreation, not pleasure. it gives pleasure so people would wanna do it and thats why were all here but…its just a fact of life: if u have sex theres always a chance u might get pregnant. thats like if u went bunjee-jumping and the thing broke…theres a risk and u must know it

          • kainosktisis

            Yes, but the young always believe it’ll happen to someone else–never to them, until that “Oops…” moment hits…& slaps us hard…

          • gypsieghostgirl

            So then those that birth control doesnt work and she becomes pregnant…ADOPTION!!!!

          • Al

            Ok, so that’s an option but in my country I wouldn’t trust the social services with any child, especially as they seem to be increasingly incapable of looking after and defending the children they are already responsible for.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Then personally hand-pick a couple to your standards.

          • John Q

            No form of birth control is 100%? I believe abstinence is. Well. 99.99999999999999999999%. Mary abstained before Jesus was born.

      • Lea C.

        You state being “Pro choice”- presumably for “women’s choice”. Why does the girl not yet born not get a choice? When does she get to choose?

      • me

        It isn’t right that a child has to be riped apart because you can’t keep your legs together.

        • fenaray

          Now we get down to the nitty gritty, your true colors are starting to show.

          • DS

            Right or wrong, the statement is true. Sex isn’t harmless. Our culture says it is, but the fact is it has severe consequences. People like you spend a life time fleeing from them, even if it involves snuffing out an unborn-child.

        • fiona64

          There it is … inevitable s!ut-shaming that reveals the real anti-choice belief system. It’s never about the fetus; it’s always about women daring to have sex without planning to procreate.

          • DS

            Sex isn’t without consequences, despite what MTV told you.

      • margiesindelar

        If she is pregnant, she already HAS a baby……how about we support them both?

        • Renato Santis

          Correct, That’s the thing: they already made their choice -wrong, but no one forced them to take it.
          It is call RESPONSIBILITY.
          Sell a house and “repent” two weeks later: is “in the best interest” the principle that commands?

      • Mary Lee

        Wow, what a clever username!

        Ah, yes, the great “they are going to do it anyway” argument. People are going to do a lot of things anyway. So? People are going to kill, steal, rape, lie, cheat, set things on fire. We should make all those things legal, too, no restrictions.

        Pro-aborts never address the actual issue. Their arguments beg the question(s) constantly. “Women are going to do it anyway.” Why? Why do women seek abortions? For economic reasons? Let’s fix that. Out of fear? Let’s fix that. They feel they have to choose between college and having a baby? Let’s fix that. Pro-lifers say “Let’s fix that. Let’s give women actual options.” PRCs (though many are religious, and I do not have a problem with that) offer women support–in every way–so that they don’t feel they “need” to have an abortion. Abortion is an act of desperation. It is the most self-loathing act a woman can choose. Pregnancy is not a disease. It does not need to be cured. I can understand if, thirty or forty years ago, some supported abortion because they didn’t really know what it was (because, in theory, we all support “choices” and “bodily autonomy”)….but now, we know that 1) pregnancy can be avoided and 2) at least 95% of all abortions are committed on HEALTHY MOTHERS with HEALTHY BABIES, for reasons of convenience/fear/desperation and 3) we know about fetal development, and that the z/e/f argument is a smoke screen to dehumanize an entire population of human beings. If our babies in utero are not “persons” (because “lawyers” say so), and only “potential” persons (which makes no sense), then, logically, they have to be an actual something. So tell me what that actual something is. Tell me what it is.

        You can’t. Because the actual something they are: persons. Little baby persons, with fingerprints and fingernails, eyelids, with their own blood type, even their own gender sometimes. They are not “potential” lives or “potential” persons any more than I am a “potential” person. I haven’t reached my own potential. I doubt I ever will. We are all growing and changing, because life is a continuum. It begins at one point, and ends at another. To say “Here is the magical, arbitrary marker when this so-called non person becomes a person” (and basing it on “where” or “how” he or she lives, or basing it on “what” he or she does, not what he or she IS) is like saying, “In the living room, you are not a person, but in the dining room, you are.” That is the pro-abort argument. “They are not babies, because killing babies is wrong, so therefore, abortion is not killing babies, because if it means that they are babies, abortion would be wrong.” It is a mobius strip of false logic and self-deception. Kathy, and Fenaray, and all the pro-aborts who come here spouting nonsense…..They NEED abortion to be okay, because if they have chosen it, and it is empirically wrong, that would mean they have chosen something terrible and that would cause them guilt.

        We do not like to admit if we ran a stoplight, or ate those extra M&Ms (*ahem* nothing, shut up), so of course, those who defend abortion are wearing an emotional and rational armor so impenetrable, they will use all their energy and time to defend it. It cannot be defended. The interesting part is the pro-life community is merciful–yes, Kathy, compassionate–and welcomes those whose hearts have changed, with open arms and with great affection.

        There is no argument for abortion that renders it indubitably justifiable, because no such argument exists. Abortion can never be justified. That is why all pro-abortion arguments are based in sophistry, solipsism, relativism, and have more holes than a sieve.

        • Lighttoghetto

          Holy cow I love this answer so much it nearly made me cry. Thank you so much for putting it so eloquently.

        • fenaray

          Good words!

        • RAH

          Well said Mary!!

        • jim crumley

          abortion makes about as much sense as saying ” it’s OK to kill a child up to age five, if they are not wanted or needed”

          • patriciacarrasco

            trust me this will be the future of abortion, the next step

        • Kevin S

          Fantastic answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • patriciacarrasco

          girl u need a blog!!!

        • ldolehide

          Excellent response Mary Lee!!! I might add that life does not end because there is an afterlife and who in the pro abort world thinks about the soul? If people don’t believe in an afterlife then there is no worry on earth if they murder innocent children because there will be no eternal, damning consequences. For those of us taking the extra precautions of living a loving life for all people, hopefully, will be rewarded for all eternity!

        • johno

          Wow! Amazing answer.

        • fiona64

          we know about fetal development, and that the z/e/f argument is a smoke
          screen to dehumanize an entire population of human beings.

          No, it’s using actual scientific terminology — the same terms physicians use — instead of emotional histrionics. It’s knowing that a blastocyst is not not an infant. But rock on with your bad selves; after all, histrionics and shaming are all you have …

          • Mary Lee

            When I was pregnant with my, ehm, blastocyst, the doctor called it “baby.” She said “There’s the baby’s heart.” She said, “The baby is a blastocyst right now.” She still called my baby….baby. Because my daughter was, and is, my baby. (The doctor was Jewish, and I’m not sure of her stance on “choice” or whatever you guys want to call it today.) The stage of life doesn’t negate the baby’s humanity, or gender. Just like when I was a toddler, I was a toddler, and a child, and a girl. But rock on, indeed, with your blinders on and your fingers in your ears.

          • fiona64

            She used layman’s terms with you, but I guarantee that if you look at your medical records, the word “baby” appears exactly *nowhere.*

          • johno

            So when you had an ultra-sound did you see your blastocyst?

          • Mary Lee

            I did! The doctor said, “See that flicker? That’s baby’s heart!” I will never forget it. Her heart flickered like a light! And then I heard SWOOSHSWOOSHSWOOSH. She was only eight weeks along. I loved her immediately. I called her my Little Bean. (I believe Paul Ryan and his wife gave their baby the same nickname!)

          • johno

            Cool! Awesome!

          • cbaloyi

            Why is there always an attempt to separate science and morality as if they were unrelated? It is embryological research by physicians that has provided evidence that fuels the arguments against abortion. Btw, do you realize that you wrote, “a blastocyst is not not an infant,” meaning that it is an infant? A Freudian slip, perhaps? Either way, you did not say that a blastocyst is not human or alive. Should human life be so casually destroyed? As for shaming, shame is an emotion, and according to my psychologist training individuals are responsible for their own emotions. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why you are feeling ashamed.

          • Victoria

            Yes well it is scientific terminology, but that doesn’t mean you are not referring to a baby…. synonyms deary. People really have no concept of language some times. I despair of the joke of the education system sometimes.

          • Sean Goerling

            “Actual scientific terminology” or not doesn’t change the facts about the “blastocyst”. He or she is a living, human being.

            Dictionary.com defines a “being” as “something that exists.” A blastocyst exists, therefore it is a being.

            Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:
            -Organization (i.e. cells)
            -Metabolism
            -Growth

            -Adaptation
            -Response to stimuli

            -Reproduction (or potential to)
            A blastocyst exhibits all of these traits. Therefore a blastocyst is living being.

            Any human living being with homo sapien DNA is a human. A blastocyst has human DNA. Therefore a blastocyst is a living human being.

            The term “blastocyst” does not mean that the being in question is not a human. It simple is a name given to humans at one stage of development.

            And I wasn’t aware of any rule or law saying that only “pro-choice” abortion apologists were allowed to have “emotional histrionics.”

            Lastly, you say that “a blastocyst is not an infant.” Well according to Dictionary.com again, “infant is defined as “anything in the first stage of existence or progress.” Since I’ve shown that a “blastocyst” exists and it is growing in its mother’s womb, it’s an infant. Another definition is “a child during the earliest period of its life, especially before he or she can walk; baby.” Since a “blastocyst” is VERY young and I’ve already shown how a “blastocyst is alive, it is again an infant.

            Can’t get much more scientific than that, fiona64.

          • Sean Goerling

            ” It’s knowing that a blastocyst is not an infant.”

            Then what IS a blastocyst?

            Hmmm…

            Well, the term “blastocyst simply describes a stage of development in mammals. Google defines it as “a mammalian blastula in which some differentiation of cells has occurred.” So not ALL blastocysts apply to the discussion here. However, in the case of HUMAN blastocysts:

            Because the father and mother are human, they will pass along chromosomes with half of human DNA. At the moment of conception, the two chromosomes join leaving the blastocyst with human DNA. Well, if the blastocyst has human DNA, then the blastocyst is a human being. From the moment of conception has two chromosomes, XY or XX, so this is either a male or female human being. Searching Google for “define infant” returns: ‘a very young child or baby.” Now, blastocysts form about 5 days after conception, ergo a blastocyst is VERY young. Google’s definition for baby also uses the term “child”, which Google defines as “A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.” As I have already shown that a blastocyst is a (very) young male or female “human being below the age of puberty”. Ergo a blastocyst with human parents is an infant.

            It’s scientific fact. Deal with it.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            a blastocyst isn’t an infant any more than a infant is an adult, however these are stages in life, not life-altering stages. It is the same individual at different stages of development

        • cbaloyi

          Few people leave me speechless, but you have come really close. I can only add that emotional and rational armor notwithstanding, many who describe themselves as pro-abortion still experience guilt and depression after having/supporting an abortion. I’ve heard this point made and evidence given primarily in “religious” (I prefer calling it “faith”) environments (a Christian radio program, e.g.). I haven’t seen the point made recently, even in pro-life literature. Perhaps the reason is that now there is so much other overwhelming evidence available that intelligent people don’t need to find out after the fact. I ditto all the comments about the eloquence of your argument. You’ve got me looking up words, girl!

        • DS

          Well said Mary!!! Slam Dunk!!!!

      • Rachael_Jean

        The baby a woman carries will be born one way or another, either alive or.dead. Choosing abortion doesn’t stop you from giving birth to a baby, you are just now choosing to give birth to a dead baby instead.

        • kainosktisis

          EXACTLY!!! Most on the pro-abortion side think that abortion once done is done: no consequences. They don’t realize that they’ve already set something in motion that can’t be UNdone. Abortion is forever…& it’s choosing death over life.

          Choose life. Choose love.

        • patriciacarrasco

          yeah they dont understand that once u become pregnant u will always and forever be a mother even if u killed ur baby

      • Craig Schwarzbek

        If she doesn’t want to have a baby she shouldn’t be commiting the act that causes pregnancy. That would be 100%. Or she could use birthcontrol. which is 99% effective. The choice should be made before she gets pregnant.

        • kainosktisis

          In my view, the best thing that a young woman could ever do is to value & love herself so much that she doesn’t listen to voices that tell her she can’t be loved if she doesn’t have sex, she can do sex & get away with it, & look to a future so bright “she’s gotta wear shades”. I believe that it’s only when our daughters are raised knowing they’re loved, valued,& validated for who they are–not by their vaginas / what they do for us–will they evade the sex route to disaster.

      • Maxbps8

        Adding to A. Pres’ excellent analysis of your statement: You start from a completely false and HUGE assumption – that all women will STILL have an abortion. Given the real knowledge of their circumstance, most women will choose to what is right for them, their child, and our society = have the child and put him/her up for adoption.

        But the biggest shift in our culture will be more and more people actually taking RESPONSIBILITY for their actions and CHOOSING birth-control and/or abstinence.

        Regardless, your logic is seriously flawed: People are going to do cocaine and heroine anyway, might as well make it legal. Clearly you agree w/ this as well since it is a mirror image of your logic.

        • fiona64

          Pro-tip: all forms of contraception, including surgical sterilization, have known failure rates.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            So why do pro-death ppl still have irresponsible sex again?

      • nptrgms20

        Abortion is Murder…it has always been MURDER. Pro-choice is just PRO-MURDER….and murder is evil.

      • Al Clerc

        But a man even if he is a husband is not given the right to say if he opposes the abortion. It is the woman’s exclusive right according to the pro-aborts.

      • jm

        I never understood that argument. If the woman was nine months pregnant she has the baby and decides throw it in a dumpster or kills the baby. She is charged with murder. It is seen as horrible act. But If mother does the same thing when she is 12 weeks and gets a “coat hanger abortions” She is a victim. Please explain the difference.

        • Mary Lee

          The difference, to them, is conditional. “It doesn’t look like a baby” or “it doesn’t [insert activity here]”…..I will not use the pronoun “it” when speaking of an unborn child, I always say “he or she.” Because they are little boys and girls. But, the pro-abortion argument is about “feelings” and functionalism. “It can’t do math, it’s not a person.” “It can’t ride a unicycle, it’s not a person.” They will not admit to what the unborn ARE: persons. Human persons.

      • NewMexicoGlo

        People like you are the ones that really need to sit in on some of those abortion procedures! Do you really understand what it is that is being done to both the baby and the mother during the abortion procedure? Or is it all about the convenience of not having to suffer the “punishment of having a child,” as our current president commented? Not only does abortion kill a wonderfully made, unique individual, it also scars the woman who has the abortion, frequently for life. In some cases the guilt, depression and shame from having the abortion are just too much for the woman and then she chooses suicide. Does this sound convenient to you, or humane? Abortion was created and conceived in the pits of Hell, no doubt about it. What sick and demented mind other than one that was controlled by demonic influences – or just plain old evil for you non-believers – would dream up such a hateful and barbaric way to steal a life before it even had a chance to begin?

        Something else to consider is that since the advent of legal abortion on demand and the subsequent slaughter of over 55 MILLION lives (this would make even Stalin proud!), there is a huge dearth of babies being placed up for adoption. There are thousands and thousands of couples who would be thrilled to adopt that baby that you think should be slaughtered like a steer at the slaughter house. People like you make me feel ill, and so very sad for the lack of conscience that so many seem to have anymore. I will pray that the Lord will open your eyes and change your heart!

        • Renato Santis

          Nai…. they just need to talk with their moms..that would be enough.

          • kainosktisis

            Uh, I did that, & her response long ago was, “If you decide to keep it, you’re on your own…” And that was that. That “pact of silence” she kept only served to distance us. I chose to deal with it over time. She’s conveniently in denial about it still…

      • Brutus

        I too agree with the do it anyway argument, as long as it also applies to smoking crack, prostitution, speeding, suicide, child abuse etc… And if both parents can’t agree, do we kill half the baby Solomon?

      • Peggy Diedrich

        There are many alternatives to turn to, besides abortion; many parents want to adapt, because they can’t have children for various reasons. You need to think about the baby in your womb; they have a “right to life”! If they’re “just a clamp of tissue”, then that’s what you are now, too!
        Remember, “without life, there is no ‘choice'”.

    • kathykattenburg

      Mary Lee, have you seen all the truckloads of compassion I’ve noted for you here?

      • Mary Lee

        Compassion doesn’t mean being sweetness and light all the time. I disagree with 100% of your posts, find your attitude to be embarrassingly misinformed, you rely on slogans, you have done nothing but mock people, and I might think you are a miserable person, but if you were hurt, or bleeding, or brokenhearted, I would do what I could to comfort you, because that is what we do to our fellow humans. You have a very sad, selfish worldview, and obviously are not aware of the nuances of the human condition or heart. I feel extremely sorry for you. You are obviously in great pain.

        • Conor

          In other words, “compassion is only for when I feel like it.” Classy.

          • Mary Lee

            No, that is not what I said.

            Compassion is not ‘niceness.’ I do not have to like someone to feel compassion for them.

          • kainosktisis

            You totally missed the mark on that one. Love is verb: it’s about doing–not merely feeling. If you’ve been married as long as I have, you’ll know that loving your spouse is about staying with them even when you don’t necessarily like the things they do. Compassion towards other human beings also deals w/ doing for our fellow human beings because it’s the right thing to do whether we feel like doing it or not.

          • Conor

            Yeah, what are you talking about? Here’s what Mary said:

            “Forums like this are not where the best of human nature is represented. Trying to find compassion in a forum–where the subject is heated, and everyone is in high dudgeon–is like trying to quench your thirst by swimming in the ocean.”

            She’s explicitly making excuses for the LACK of compassion in this discussion.

          • Mary Lee

            Excuses for lack of compassion? What the heck are you talking about? I’m not sure what you think I should do. Stroke Kathy’s ego? Hand all pro-aborts trophies? We are in a forum, in a debate. Go to any debate tournament and see how much “compassion” you’ll find while the teams present their arguments. Good grief almighty.

          • DS

            You can’t put words in someone’s mouth and then argue against those words.

    • Ryan Barnett

      I just want to say Mary that your arguements in support of life are perhaps the best I have ever seen! They are clearly well researched, well thought out, and well articulated. Maybe we can team up as I have some good arguments as well! :) Thanks for speaking out in defense of life!

      • musiciangirl591

        she’s secular pro-life too! so its science! :)

        • Mary Lee

          You made me LOL! for reals

          • musiciangirl591

            its the truth though :P

        • RMc

          Science and Christianity are both in support of the pro-life position. Either one can stand on its own in this debate (though I prefer to use both when possible).

          • musiciangirl591

            i support both :)

    • jim crumley

      abortion – murder – what’s the difference !!!!!

      • cbaloyi

        There’s no difference.

    • fiona64

      Because “it’s not a choice, it’s a baby” isn’t sloganeering?

      • DS

        sloganeering is all your side has beside one obsolete court ruling.

    • jon

      The arguments are not “pro-abortion”, they are pro-choice and/or pro women’s rights. Don’t twist words to support your agenda. No one is “pro-abortion” and everyone agrees that the numbers need to decrease, but please don’t call other people’s difficult decisions “dumb” when there is no possible way that you have walked in every person’s shoes.

      • DS

        Question for you: if its not actually a baby, then why does it matter to you if the numbers go down or not?

        Answer: the pro-abort crowd knows deep down it is a human child, but its an evil they keep swept under the rug as a means of getting their hook-up on and not stepping up to the consequences.

      • Mary Lee

        If you support abortion, then you are “pro-abortion.” It is not twisting of words. The fact that those who support abortion refuse to use the word is very telling.

        Whether I have walked in everyone’s shoes is moot. In 100% of abortions, a baby human being is killed. That is not okay.

  • Alex Hunter

    10. You could make that argument for anyone born after 1980 for any topic under the sun. Is wanting to savour youth before taking that final step into adulthood really such a selfish notion? When youth is gone, its gone for good. When a foetus is killed, another one can be conceived weeks later.
    Also take into account that head lice are killed for the crime of making kid’s heads itchy. Isn’t that a form of convenience?

    9. Science doesn’t take sides.

    8. One scam artist does not make the whole institution corrupt.

    7. I’ve never heard that one before. We all know that most American abortions are done for African Americans. Of course, the world is bigger than America.

    6. Men shouldn’t take a pro-life stance because they don’t have to worry about hours of pain that might injure or kill them. Also, I’m pro-choice not because I enjoy carnage, but because I know that a majority women will still choose life even with the option to abort.

    5. That was not the point of that video. The point was that if a foetus counts as a separate person, it should be treated as one and therefore pregnant women should have to pay extra for anything involving a head count i.e. tickets and reservations.

    4. To an atheist, nothing the Catholic Church says or does makes any sense.

    3. The point here is “Don’t like it? Don’t get one”

    2. In the 40+ years since abortion went mainstream, we’ve seen more and more women succeeding in industries that were previously male-oriented. Actresses are able to keep working well past 40. Plenty of small businesses that were founded by women are gaining momentum. Female managers are now a social norm. The biggest achievement of all? Britain and Australia have both had female Prime Ministers at some point.
    1. A foetus can’t acknowledge its own existence. It spends up to 9 months in a womb and doesn’t remember a second of it. That kind of life is different from someone who was already born and has had life experiences that can’t be replicated by any other person.
    Also remember that no-one chooses to be born because their mother was calling the shots, so how is not being born any less domineering than being born?

    • Guest

      When a fetus is killed it’s gone for good too, you callous ignoramus.

      • Alex Hunter

        Foetuses can be made. Personalities can’t.

        • Tell that to all the couples suffering with infertility!

          • Alex Hunter

            They can adopt.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            And mothers who don’t want their babies can put their babies up for adoption. Abortion is no longer necessary.

          • Alex Hunter

            Adoption is hardly necessary either when couples can choose surrogacy, fertility treatment or artificial insemination. These methods have much less red tape and can be completed in a smaller time frame

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            That just makes abortion less necessary.

          • Alex Hunter

            How?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You’re right, my mistake, abortion is already the most unnecessary thing in the world. You can’t get less necessary than that.

          • musiciangirl591

            all the babies that can be adopted are getting aborted though…

          • Alex Hunter

            But plenty of babies are being born through surrogacy.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Plenty? Name one that you know personally.

          • Alex Hunter

            Sofia Vergara is planning on using a surrogate.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Do you know her personally? Does one Colombian actress make it common?

          • Alex Hunter

            One famous figure is all it takes to start a trend

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            And everybody does everything this particular one does? And I thought you arguing about women who didn’t want pregnancies or newborns, surrogacy is for women who do!

      • kathykattenburg

        How in the hell do you know that? There ARE religious traditions that take a different view of the nature of life, and death, than Christianity does.

        • Because the DNA of that baby will never again be repeated. That baby was a “once-in-a-lifetime” combination of genetic code that will never occur again. Nothing to do with religion. Pure science.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          Because Guest didn’t say their soul or spirit is gone, genius.

    • Mary Lee

      Yeah, pro-lifers just “don’t like” abortion.*eye roll*

      Have you learned nothing in your trolling? It’s not about a preference. It is about the right to live. I might not like elective cosmetic surgery, but I’m not going to lecture anyone about not having it done and I’m not going to support laws that would prevent one from seeking it. Abortion is a crime against all humanity–babies, women, and men. It hurts ALL of us.

      • SSG, 82nd Airborne Ft Bragg NC

        OUCHIES, THE ABORTIONS ARE HURTING ME!!!! MAKE THEM STOP AUNTIE MARY LEE THEY ARE KILLING ME… oh wait, never mind that was just me losing my mind at your lack of logic and gross overexageration.
        So you would argue that anytime someone miscarries a fetus they are commiting a crime against all humanity? Why not just tie to a bed every child bearing women and have them become permanent incubators forever spawning more children. Or at least for 9 months limit a pregnant women’s movements for fear that it might cause a miscarry and ergo kill a person.

        Having a child is more than just one act of passion, Being fiscally able to care for a child is more reasonable then alternative criminal actives which while being legal doesn’t prevent those actions from happening, Children deaths, abuses, child trafficking, and abandonment. Even legal alternatives are a poor substitute for proper family planning. Adoption while legal leads to the largest community group of criminals and homeless individuals.

        Mary Lee you argue for removing a persons freedom without taking into consideration the possible repercussions of the actions you would endorse.

        What of in rapes cases. Please don’t tell me you believe in the whole “Legitimate rape causing a women’s body to produce anti pregnacies hormones”

        • Mary Lee

          Well, as a rape survivor, NO.

          My lack of logic? Your entire comment is utterly incoherent and there is no logic or accuracy to be found. Again, strawman arguments, and ad hominem attacks. *sigh* Pro-aborts are boring.

          • musiciangirl591

            yeah, i only mess with their heads when i’m bored

        • How sad that you discredit the 82nd by using them as your “id” and then you spout such nonsense.

          ABORTIONS are ELECTIVE! Someone makes the choice to intentionally kill the unborn child! MISCARRIAGES are NATURE, not elective. No one chooses to have a miscarriage!

          Everyone “of age” knows that even just one “act of passion” can conceive a child. With that knowledge both parties must acknowledge the possibility of pregnancy, no matter how remote. This is why common sense says that you don’t have sex with someone you aren’t willing to have a child with! The lack of morality is really the basic problem – so many people want to be able to have sex whenever and with whomever. The MAIN purpose of sex is procreation. Pleasure ensures that we humans keep making babies…

          Ask that rape “exception” question to a child born as a result of rape. Why should that child suffer death for the crime of his/her father? Pregnancy from rape is extremely rare and of those the ones who seek abortion are even more rare. Abortion doesn’t un-rape the woman. Having HER baby often heals the woman.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          Abortions are not the same as miscarriages. Miscarriages are accidents, abortions are intentional.

      • kathykattenburg

        And if someone disagrees with those last two sentences, too bad?

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          In a case of aborting a child conceived in rape, there are three parties: the rapist, the victim, and the child. Why do we kill the most innocent party of all in such a scenario?

    • Mamabear

      Unless you can prove that those women who succeeded had abortions, and you can’t, you cannot give abortion credit. Women’s success is based on better educational and career opportunities, not abortion. There are just too many successful pro-life women for abortion to get credit.

      • kathykattenburg

        Here is the one single central thing that makes your argument garbage. Pro-life women CHOOSE not to have an abortion. Of COURSE pro-life women who have had babies under difficult circumstances don’t feel less free. Because they aren’t! They made their own decision; it wasn’t made for them by the state and millions of strangers who don’t know them.

        • Yeah, because we silly pro-Life women CHOOSE to look beyond the here and now difficulties and see the potential of the future. And we value human life!

          You cannot say they made their own decision.. maybe they wanted to get an abortion but were “forced” to give birth… and then they were so glad someone cared enough to make them do the right thing!

          No “millions of strangers” take away the decision for a woman to have abortion. An abortion is a human atrocity that should never have been thought up.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          If disposing of your sons or daughters because they’ll hurt your professional future is legitimate, then why shouldn’t the same apply to a mother’s newborns? Toddlers? All Andrea Yates and Casey Anthony did was send their reproductive choices back for a refund.

    • Basset_Hound

      As for Point Number 2, It is an INSULT TO ME AS A WOMAN to imply that I can’t participate in society, have a career or get an education unless I have the “right” to treat my children like chattel and property.

      BTW, did you know that Margaret Thatcher had a FAMILY and still managed to become a member of Parliament! Did you know that many small businesses founded by women and gaining momentum were founded because a woman wanted a way to have an income that would be flexible enough to allow her to raise a family?

      As for Point Number 1, an infant or a toddler can’t “acknowledge its own existence”. A child under three doesn’t “remember a second” of his childhood, and “doesn’t have the life experiences that can’t be replicated by another person”. So according to your “logic”, it should be perfectly OK for a woman who may have enjoyed the attention she got during pregnancy to decide that this “mommy” thing isn’t all its cracked up to be and slam the little brat against the fireplace a couple of times. I mean, wouldn’t she be using her insight, and doing what’s best? She could even rationalize causing the infant’s death by saying, “he’ll grow up to have tremendous emotional problems”.

      • Mary Lee

        The pro-abortion stance is so anti-feminist it makes my head spin. The fact that so-called “feminists” believe this is a “right” is astounding. It is unbelievably backwards. I believe in equality…..I do not believe in SUPREMACY. They confuse equality with supremacy, liberty with license, rights with entitlements.

        • Basset_Hound

          It’s also amazing how antagonistic feminoids are towards women who actually WANT to stay home and care for their families. They claim to have such super brains, yet they seem to believe the size of their paychecks measures how creative and intelligent they are! Why does a “smart woman” have to be an engineer or a partner in a law firm? Why can’t a smart woman be a home room volunteer or a band mom? Why do we have to shred every aspect of our femininity…our desire to connect with a man on a deep, enduring basis…our desire to put our priorities in our relationships…in order to “fit in” and “participate in society.

          As for me, I am PROUD that I have a uterus and breasts.
          I am PROUD that I’ve carried life in my womb.
          I am PROUD of the influence I’ve had in the life of my daughter, and of the fact that I WALKED on a professional, high paying job to raise a family.

          I’M NOT EQUAL DAMMIT…I’M DIFFERENT AND PROUD TO BE DIFFERENT.

          • Griffonn

            I believe women are equal. I don’t believe you have to be same to be equal.

            It is just sheer covetousness – that is why feminism is so linked with marxism: because identity politics in general is all about fostering covetousness and jealousy. It has nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with being dissatisfied with what you’ve got, what your role is, and what is expected of you, and preferring what someone else has got, what their role is, and what is expected of them.

            (Which is also why discussions of rights and power always involve dissociating those rights and that power from the responsibilities and obligations that go with them. The right to serve in a combat unit wouldn’t be nearly so attractive to women if they felt women were at real risk of being equally drafted in time of war. The truth is that few women would want to serve in the military if they had their “automatic out” taken away from them – if they had to endure mandatory sterilization for the duration of their combat deployment)

          • Mary Lee

            *APPLAUDS* !!!!!

            Yes! THIS.

          • Mamabear

            Dear feminists, when you get a serious or terminal illness, your precious career will dump you, man or woman. Family, real friends (not mere coworkers), and your church will still be there for you. This does not by any means mean that you shouldn’t have a career. Just keep real priorities in focus.

          • Basset_Hound

            How many women who have spent 80 hour weeks at the office, climbing the corporate ladder, sacrificing relationships to get ahead have found themselves in their early 50’s forced out the door during a corporate downsizing and realizing that they’re too old to have children.

        • kathykattenburg

          The right for women to say what happens to their bodies is not supremacist. The right for women to make their own health care and medical decisions is not supremacist. The right for *anyone* to have veto power over decisions that affect their lives in the most personal and private way possible is not supremacist. If you don’t own your own body, no other freedom means shit. You’ve got nothing.

          • A real woman understands that her body is made to participate in creating a new human life and she rejoices in that! Once this new life exists then why not let nature follow it’s course? Why decide that your life is somehow more valuable than another – to the point that the other life must be sacrificed for your happiness (not even for your life)? Your child could find the cure for cancer or any other huge achievement…

          • kathykattenburg

            “A real woman understands that her body is made to participate in creating a new human life and she rejoices in that!”

            That’s really offensive. Every woman is a real woman, whether she has or wants a child or not, whether she wants to use her body to breed or not. And what about women who can’t have children? Do you even understand the pain your definition of a real woman would cause to a woman who was unable to have children? Really, you should try and consider the implications of your words before you write them.

            “Your child could find the cure for cancer or any other huge achievement…”

            Well, not if she gets pregnant before she’s old enough to do any of those things, and then comes to find out that somehow her human life no longer matters as much as it once did when she was inside her own mother’s womb. Each little girl’s life matters only until she reaches childbearing age.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Actually, nope, her life is always valuable. No pro-lifer advocates killing every woman who’s had an abortion. And if the hypothetical girl would keep her pants on and her legs together, she wouldn’t get pregnant before she could cure cancer.

            Also, one reason that women should take pride in giving birth is that men can’t give birth. And barrenness isn’t worthlessness, the hypothetical barren woman can still have a great influence on the world in other ways.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            The fetus is not your body. It has its own unique human DNA that is half derived from the father.

            And how is feminism about equality? Women are expected by feminism to be always good at both “girl things” and “boy things” perfectly. Men are under none of these pressures. With it comes the contradictory demand from feminists that women get special treatment that men are not entitled to (you can’t hit a girl!). If feminists were true to their word, they would promote neither special treatment nor extra pressures.

      • Alex Hunter

        On #2: Margaret Thatcher’s children were adults by the time she became PM. And getting ahead in business is still something that requires a lot of time and devotion – many women don’t even have time for husbands and boyfriends in the early stages – so saying that its a means to an end is still a moot point.
        On #1: Do you know any woman that would go through the agony of childbirth only to kill her offspring for a laugh? There have been reports of cases like that, sure, but those mothers were obviously mentally ill and shouldn’t be handed the biggest responsibility an adult can have.

        • Well, you just made our point for us! She raised he children to adults before becoming PM! So, taking time out from the “rat race” to raise a family doesn’t somehow disqualify you from making a significant difference if you decide to re-enter the “rat-race”!

          If a woman wants to “get ahead in business” and doesn’t “have time for husbands and boyfriends” then why the hell is she pregnant? She should be investing herself in her “business” and leave sexual relationships out since that is how babies are made.

        • Basset_Hound

          Ever heard of “Munchausen’s Syndrome by proxy” where a mother deliberately causes medical problems in her child to garner sympathy and attention for herself. Ever heard of Marybeth Tinning? She managed to kill nine infants in 13 years before authorities got a clue that the deaths she claimed were from SIDS were really deliberate. Are you also aware that medical “ethicists” such as Peter Singer and Virginia Ironside have advocated infanticide as being no worse than abortion. Ironside has even said it is an act of compassion if the child is “suffering”.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          Saying or implying that having kids interrupts a woman’s life is just like saying that mothers can’t be significant people and that kids are chains that hold women back.

          • Alex Hunter

            Do you know of any women that made noteworthy achievements whilst raising a family? The reason most historical figures are men is because they either never had a family or they kept them at arm’s distance while they supported them.

          • princessjasmine45

            Are you implying that raising a family isn’t a noteworthy achievement?

          • Alex Hunter

            Considering that a majority of the human race has managed it, no. Raising a family does not change the world or improve society.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You apparently do not study history, sociology, anthropology, or psychology. The family is the basis for all societies everywhere! It’s where you learn morality, economy, theology, manners, and basic lifeskills before real life comes. Polygamy, abuse, neglect, and infidelity are what’s destructive! The reason most historical figures are men is that every society in the world used to be 100% sexist.

          • princessjasmine45

            That’s a very sexist and ridiculous statement.
            How would society even continue w/o families?
            The family is the building block of society.

            That being said, plenty of women made a name for themselves while raising a family. In the US:

            -Sojourner Truth…she had 5 children and even went to court to get one of her babies back from a white man.
            -Harriet Beecher Stowe had 7 children.
            -Elizabeth Cady Stanton had 8 Children.
            -Winifred Edgerton Merril had 3
            -Eleanor Roosevelt had 6

            and
            -Sandra Day O’Connor had 3
            Just to name a few
            Perhaps you can do you own research though

    • Smokering

      “Men shouldn’t take a pro-life stance because they don’t have to worry about hours of pain that might injure or kill them.”

      Western parents shouldn’t take an anti-FGM stance because they don’t have to worry about the ridicule of society for leaving their daughters intact.

      Non-slave owners shouldn’t take an anti-slavery stance because they’ll never experience the difficulty and expense of suddenly converting a cotton plantation to run without free labour.

      Teetotallers shouldn’t take an anti-drink driving stance because they don’t have to worry about the cost of getting a taxi home from the pub.

      Non-drug users shouldn’t take an anti-drug stance because they don’t know how strong the cravings are.

      • Alex Hunter

        You people bring up slavery an awful lot. Last time I checked, slavery is a lifetime of pain and suffering, abortion is dying without a care in the world.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          Last time I checked, slavery is a lifetime of pain and suffering that you can still possibly get out of, abortion is something a fetus can’t get out of, and can’t even cry for their own sake about.

    • Success of women in the past 40 years is not due to abortion! There have been many changes made that contribute to that change including “the pill” but that introduction of oral contraception is what has led to the devaluing of human life and demoralizing of sexual intercourse.

      And your comment “another one can be conceived weeks later” is certainly not true as many women find that once they’ve had an abortion they are no longer able to conceive or are unable to carry a pregnancy to term.

      • kathykattenburg

        “… many women find that once they’ve had an abortion they are no longer
        able to conceive or are unable to carry a pregnancy to term.”

        That is absolutely false. If an abortion is done by a quack, under unsafe, illegal conditions, then yes, that could affect a woman’s fertility. Not to mention her life. But a safe, legal abortion done by a qualified doctor does NOT make women no longer able to conceive a baby or carry it to term.

        That is junk science and just total hogwash.

        • Most abortions are done by “quacks” under unsafe conditions… which is exactly why so many abortion facilities are closing because they refuse to fix their unsafe conditions… because in reality it’s all about the money the abortionist makes, not about the women…

      • Alex Hunter

        The “devaluing of human life” didn’t start with the introduction of the pill. It started with the expansion of densely-populated areas. Rural communities are normally more tight-knit, but in metropolitan areas people come and go and it becomes increasingly hard to form any lasting relationships.
        Its the loss of community combined with overpopulation that has turned humanity on itself, not whatever goes on inside a woman’s body.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          So you admit that abortion is anti-human?

          • Alex Hunter

            Well it’s not something to brag about, but keeping it legal is a necessity. China only makes a big deal out of abortion because they’re expanding too rapidly and living too long. Do you want that to happen to the Western world?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            More people? First good idea I recall you having. And scientists can find ways to live on mountaintops, in polar regions, in deserts, and at the ocean floor, in large numbers, so we probably won’t ever have overpopulation, because unfortunately, immortality will not be achieved and there will still be wars and crime.

            One more thing. If it’s not something to brag about, why are you doing it again?

          • Alex Hunter

            Earth is not just one big camping ground for the entire human race. Other things live here and do more for their respective environments than we can. WWII was followed by the baby-boom, so I’d say we’re pretty durable as a species.
            Finally, I’m not advocating abortion itself. I’m advocating for it to stay legal. I don’t need it and probably won’t use it any time soon, but that doesn’t mean no-one else should use it either.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Um, yes, it is. According to your miserable logic, we have no other function, so “camping” must go on, it’s apparently all we’re good for. According to my logic, God gave us the Earth to “camp” on as long as we don’t abuse it.

            WWII was also followed by an age in which people feared nuclear weapons, and we still are all skittish about them. So much for durable.

            Finally, I’m not advocating abortion either. I’m advocating Respecting People’s Lives Whether They’re Born Or Not. Neither one of use need it or use it soon, and that doesn’t mean nobody else shouldn’t use it either, but you know what does mean nobody should use it? Science. It proves that human life begins at conception, and that fetuses are people. Since they are people we have a moral obligation to respect their rights. End of story. Don’t like it? Oh well. The truth doesn’t wait for you to like it.

    • Andrew J. Corrales

      10. Which is more important, future generations of people or having an impulsive, irresponsible lifestyle? If all the babies killed before birth since Roe vs. Wade had been allowed to live, there’d be more taxpayers, and the recent fiscal emergencies could have been avoided or solved more easily. There would also be more scientists researching ways to fight/cure cancer and AIDS and other diseases. And lice aren’t humans, they don’t have human DNA.

      9. Science doesn’t take sides, but in any strictly empirical scientific debate, only one side can employ strictly empirical scientific facts to further its cause. It is the pro-life people that study embryonic and fetal development in-depth, which only makes them more sure of themselves, whereas the pro-choice people can only make excuses. They do not have science on their side.

      8.They’re not scam artists. They’re greedy corporations. The only kind that liberals don’t whine about. What’s funny is that the big greedy businesses liberals DO whine about sell products and services that are less graphic, demographic-based, and controversial, and therefore more marketable, than abortion.

      7. What they’re trying to say is that if there are more abortion clinics in African American neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods, then how does that mesh with the liberals’ stereotypes of conservatives being white supremacists? Conservatives oppose all abortion.

      6. Men are allowed to take the pro-life position because half of the fetus’ DNA is the fathers. A mother may not want the child, but what if the father does? Does he have no rights to raise his kids?

      5. Making pregnant women pay extra is ridiculous and insensitive, just like liberals telling women that they’re brainwashed if they’re not pro-choice. Pregnant women need the money to raise their kid, and kids usually get cheaper stuff from restaurants etc. anyway. It is only fitting that the smallest kids of all get in free.

      4. Well, duh. This isn’t a Catholic vs. Secularist debate. The point of Cassy Fiano’s argument is that pro-choice Catholics like Peloosinthehead are heretics.

      3. No, it’s not. If you’re (not you, personally) saying that pro-life women aren’t women at all, you’re not only demeaning most women in the world, but you’re also demeaning men by assuming that all men are pro-life. If you wanted to say “Don’t like it, don’t do it,” about anything, just say it plainly. Don’t say something demeaning that doesn’t even sound like what you’re trying to say.

      2. There were famous, successful females in wealthy positions without men’s help before abortion was legal. There was also feminism back then. Take abortion away, and nothing changes.

      1. Since when is any living creature worth killing, except when it’s guilty of causing many deaths?

      • Alex Hunter

        10. Keeping abortion legal is not going to kill off an entire generation. I’ve got 4 aunts who’ve all had between 1 and 2 children in the past 3 years and abortion is legal in my state. If the honour system isn’t broken, don’t fix it.
        Also, since Roe vs. Wade, more and more young people have been going to university, only to end up doing menial jobs after graduation (if they’re lucky) because none of the higher industries can handle the surplus employees.
        And since you brought it up, how can you say terminating a pregnancy is irresponsible, yet finding a cure for a sexually-transmitted infection is something worth fighting for?
        9. You raise a good point up until the last sentence, which was just contradicted everything else.
        8. The “greedy corporations” thrive on consumption, which grows with the population. Does legalising the surest form of population control seem like corporate greed?
        7. First off, you’re only speaking for America, not the whole world. Secondly, Liberals may be control freaks who border on fascism, but at least they don’t extend their jurisdiction into a person’s insides.
        6. A father does have the right to raise his kids. Note how I said “father”, not “the guy who got a woman pregnant”. If a man really wants to have a child, he has to convince his partner that he’s reliable enough, then in all likelihood she’ll come around.
        5. Is making pregnant women pay extra any more insensitive than jacking up the prices for anyone who isn’t under 3/disabled/elderly in order to compensate?
        4. Killing is hardly an act of heresy considering every story in the Bible involves death. Even Jesus slaughtered pigs and trees just because they were considered socially acceptable targets.
        3. The whole point of being pro-choice is not telling people to kill babies, but being empathetic enough to not outlaw every single thing you disagree with. Not everyone has the same number of opportunities.
        2. Are you sure? All the women I remember were either nuns or pretty faces who disappeared after the age of 30.
        1. That describes the entire human race. We don’t have a natural predator, yet we multiply like we do and it’s taking its toll on the Earth.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          10. Keeping abortion legal does inhibit population growth. Less people reproducing. And since Roe vs. Wade, there has been no surplus employees anywhere in America. Cities may be crowded, but get away from them, and you can be in a place with nobody else within miles.

          9. How does it contradict everything else? Science doesn’t take sides, but sides can take science. Pro-life has more, and better science than pro-death.

          8. Yes. If someone will pay money to get it or have it done, somebody will try to make money off it. Abortion included. And again, until you can go nowhere in America without being crowded, there is no need for population control.

          7. Really? They don’t? They need to. They care more about animals and trees than they do their own sons and daughters.

          6. So we agree? How does that exclude men from taking pro-life positions?

          5. Nobody does that. They discount those people, not charge them extra. Does your planet not have, say, the senior discount?

          4. Animals and trees aren’t humans. According to Catholicism, abortion is heresy, not making bacon and getting firewood.

          3. “Pro-choice” is a lame excuse for “pro-death.”

          2. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Dorothea Dix, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Blackwell, Clara Barton, Louisa May Alcott, Annie Oakley, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Amelia Earhart, I could go on…

          1. Is the solution to pollution and deforestation killing off the human race? And if you recognize that innocent life is valued above all else, then why do you support abortion?

          • Alex Hunter

            The reason people like me favour pants and animals over unborn humans is because in most ecosystems, humans are fairly useless, but natural predators and native flora keep everything balanced. We can’t live in an ecosystem that we haven’t fabricated for ourselves, so we just take the best bits from others without giving back. With the population now well over 7 billion (that’s 1 billion per continent, just for some perspective), the time to stop expanding and make the most of what we have is now.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            That’s why you care more about animals and plants than you do humans? Because good is defined as usefulness to the ecosystem? I question that definition of goodness.

            It also implies a belief that the human race is evil/worthless. Way to love yourself, your family, your friends, and your country…

            And since when do we not give back? Forests are planted every time they’re cut down. Even if humans are destroying the Earth, is the solution to systematically kill them off?

  • Melinda Farmington

    I am someone who really sits on the fence on this issue and often when I read well-reasoned and fact-based articles, my opinion can perceptibly shift. However, when I read articles like this, I immediately recoil and vow to remain pro-choice. This article comes off as petty and insulting and does nothing to further your cause. Perhaps if you want to be persuasive to people like me (whose opinion actually can be changed), you should stop with the personal insults, blanket accusations/categorizations and melodrama. Focus on facts and compassion. It will go a lot further.

    • Lisa O’B

      Melinda, I am pro-life and let me tell you that I do feel compassion for both mom and her baby. Because she must make a decision with the clock ticking (although not so much these days as late-term abortions become more prevalent), she often chooses without thinking about how she will feel years or decades now. Abortions are heartbreaking for moms, although they may not realize it at the time. It’s frustrating that many women in this position hear only one side of the story and choose not knowing all the facts–no matter what pro-abortion folks say. I know 13-year olds on their third abortion who still say, “It’s just a clump of cells”. These same girls grow up to be women who grieve helplessly on their baby’s due dates and regret the decisions they’ve made. Please don’t remain pro-abortion because you don’t like the comments of some people. There are many of us who are compassionate toward all involved, including the fathers. Petty insults shouldn’t sway anyone’s opinion on abortion. You will see many insulting comments, and many compassionate ones. The facts speak for themselves.

      • Mary Lee

        You have a kinder tone than I, which is admirable. Though I have, in my own snarky way, actually converted a few people from pro-choice to pro-life. There is a place for everyone!

      • Melinda Farmington

        Lisa, thank you for your note. You should be writing the articles for this site – not Mary Lee or Cassy Fiano! In my own experience, more people are moved and opinions swayed by kindness and compassion, than snarkiness and anger. Not saying its right, but people often conflate the message with the messenger. You are doing much by your cause (unlike many others on here) by being the bigger person.

        • Mary Lee

          As I said, There is a place for everyone. All the pro-abortion articles I have ever read are dripping with sarcasm and attitude, far more than my comments.

      • kathykattenburg

        Your argument here is not compassionate at all. It’s condescending and insulting. Women are not children. Some women regret having had an abortion; most don’t. My best friend in college had an abortion, and (here I go again) I had two abortions. Her reason for having an abortion was completely different from mine. Yet both of us feel that if we had it to do over again and the circumstances were the same, we would make the same decision.

        Stop infantilizing women. It’s really offensive.

        • There are far more women who regret their abortions than there are who do not regret. If so many women are so “okay” with their decision then why aren’t they talking about how great it was? I believe eventually every one of them regrets it. Do you have living children yet? Once life circumstances change the whole “I don’t regret it” attitude can change too. Abortion is permanent. Adoption is a much better choice is a woman feels she cannot parent her child.

          • kathykattenburg

            Abortion isn’t “great.” Is a hysterectomy “great”? Is a mastectomy “great”?

            “I believe eventually every one of them regrets it.”

            Believe what you want, you don’t know every woman who has an abortion.

            “Do you have living children yet?”

            Yes, I have a 23-year-old daughter who is everything in the world to me and who would not have been conceived much less born if it hadn’t been for legal abortion.

            ” Once life circumstances change the whole “I don’t regret it” attitude can change too.”

            A change in life circumstances does not change what the circumstances were when you had the abortion.

            “Adoption is a much better choice is a woman feels she cannot parent her child.”

            How do you know what the “much better choice” is for women you don’t know? That is so presumptuous. And adoption *isn’t* always and for every woman the right choice. Was adoption a better choice for Lisa Steinberg than if her biological mother had had an abortion? Some women’s lives are destroyed by having given a child up for adoption. Some regret the decision all their lives. Some even commit suicide over it. You might even say that when circumstances improve, a lot of women who gave their child up for adoption regret having done so.

            Oh, and I guess I need to point out again that “not feeling she can parent her child” is not the only reason women have abortions. Some situations that cause a woman to choose abortion are not compatible with adoption.

          • Abortion is a permanent answer to a temporary situation, much like suicide. You name exceptions as if they should be the basis for the Rule/Law. I understand reasons why a woman thinks she needs to choose abortion but I don’t believe any of those reasons are better than choosing to continue the pregnancy. And the situation can change a lot during 6 months time.

            You like to twist my words. My use of the word “great” wasn’t like you make it out to be. If abortion is such a *great* solution then why doesn’t every single woman who has ever had an abortion talk about being glad to have made that choice?

            I know that whenever a woman chooses life she is giving her child a chance. When a woman chooses abortion, her child is dead and a little part of the woman dies too whether she wants to acknowledge it or not.

          • kathykattenburg

            ” I understand reasons why a woman thinks she needs to choose abortion
            but I don’t believe any of those reasons are better than choosing to
            continue the pregnancy.”

            I understand that, but my point is, you don’t have the right to force other women to live by those beliefs. In other words, abortion should not be illegal just because you don’t believe women’s reasons for having one are better than choosing to continue the pregnancy.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          The Democrats do that all the time! The male Dem politicians tell women that they’re the underdogs, insist they think and vote one way, and expect nobody to notice when they cheat on their wives! And the Dem celebs male and female tell women they must always A. look good, B. be competent at “girl stuff”, C. be competent at “boy stuff”, and D. have sex on impulse w/o consequences. That’s too much hypocrisy from one liberal team and too much pressure from the other! On what basis is Lisa O’B “condescending” and left-wing politicians not? The fact that she’s pro-life and they’re not? But why demonize the other side like that? Because they speak up for those who can’t even cry for their own sakes, and it interrupts young liberal women’s lifestyles? Lisa O’B at least sounds nicer than most Dems and commentators on this article (me included). Tell the Dems to stop demeaning/infantilizing women. Why women haven’t been offended by it yet, I can’t imagine.

        • princessjasmine45

          Most women regret them. There is a higher suicide rate ( and tendency towards depression) among women who have killed their offspring than women who have given birth…

          As for women who don’t feel remorse or regret for killing their offspring and “would do it again”, well.. serial killers and rapists justify their actions and feel no guilt by dehumanizing their victims all the time..and they would do it again…
          They are sociopaths because they feel no remorse for causing pain to their fellow human.

          Stop dehumanizing children in the womb (to defend your own actions).
          It’s really offensive.
          We were all there once.

          • kathykattenburg

            “Most women regret them. There is a higher suicide rate ( and tendency
            towards depression) among women who have killed their offspring than
            women who have given birth…”

            There is no evidence to support that (other than “pro-life” claims). It’s a claim that “pro-lifers” put out over and over, but it’s a myth.

            “As for women who don’t feel remorse or regret for killing their
            offspring and “would do it again”, well.. serial killers and rapists
            justify their actions and feel no guilt by dehumanizing their victims
            all the time..and they would do it again…
            They are sociopaths because they feel no remorse for causing pain to their fellow human.”

            You don’t know what women who have had abortions feel. You haven’t a clue. Saying “I would do it again if the circumstances were the same” does not mean a woman feels no pain or sadness or has no mixed feelings about the decision. That’s not the same as regretting that you made the decision. Human emotions are complicated. You simplify everything about a very complicated and deeply personal matter. It’s not a black and white issue. Very few issues are, if any.

          • princessjasmine45
        • Calvin Freiburger

          The only people treating women like children are the liberals who insist women need abortion because they’re incapable of exercising basic adult responsibilities.

    • Mary Lee

      I used to be pro-choice, too. I find more “blanket accusations/categorizations and melodrama” from pro-aborts. We *do* focus on facts (scientific ones, even) and we have compassion by the truckload. If you want to know why my heart was changed, I will tell you. (Hint: Facts, reason, logic, science.) But to “vow to remain pro-choice” because you don’t like an article that you feel is “flippant” is a silly, “melodramatic” conclusion.

      • fenaray

        So much judgement!

        • Mary Lee

          Yes, I judge people who blatantly ignore science. What’s your point, troll?

          • Guest

            You repeating that I ignore science doesn’t make it true. You must be a repugnican.

          • Mary Lee

            Nope, not a Republican. But go on with your strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. Because that’s all pro-abort arguments amount to.

          • fenaray

            You seem to be the one attacking. Pot calling the kettle black? What I am saying is that my right to terminate my pregnancy is none of your business, nor anyone else’s. Not even the unborn human gets a say because it isn’t legally a person yet. That’s why states don’t let you get divorced when you are still preggers, they have to wait for the “baby” to be born before it has any rights. It is a cruel world and in a perfect world there would be no unwanted pregnancies. However, in our country we have a right to make our own reproductive choices, whether you like it or not. Personally, I wouldn’t want it any other way.

          • Mamabear

            Which states do not allow pregnant women to get divorced? Sure not my state! Or any others I know of!
            In most states, (I expect it is all) divorce is most certainly allowed. The husband is presumed to be the father unless he can prove otherwise, and he gets stuck with child support and at least a share of the wife’s maternity costs.
            Please do not try to prove your point by making things up.

          • Basset_Hound

            I had a friend whose husband walked out and divorced her when she was pregnant. What planet are you living on?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Abortion isn’t a choice about reproduction, it’s a choice about lack thereof.

          • princessjasmine45

            Remember when blacks were not legally people? ya… same thing.
            You have every right to abuse your own body…but no one has the right to rob us of our lives while in the womb.
            Not the mother
            Not the father
            No one.

          • Me

            “Fetus.” “Terminate.” “Zygote.” Why is it so many words abortion-rights people use sound like they belong in the National Spelling Bee* along with all the other words in it that people never tend to use in normal conversation?”
            *ok, opening-round Regional Spelling Bee, but well, you get the idea. (:

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            They use euphemisms and similar to gloss over what they really mean. Fetus, embryo, pregnancy, and zygote mean a child that is smaller and more innocent, helpless, dependent, and silent than a newborn. Terminate means kill. Therefore a pro-death advocate might say that Adam Ranza terminated his mother and roughly several dozen fetuses in more advanced stages of development, and a liberal he/she would be talking to would understand clearly.

          • Me

            That’s what I mean, fancy words seem to be used to cover up what’s really happening. It can happen the other way around though too, once I was working at a camp where the kids were being taught a song called “Jaws.” which began with “Embryo Jaws, Fetus Jaws….” and the head counselor stepped in and said “Why don’t we just start with “Baby Jaws?” I’m not sure because this was such a long time ago, but it’s possible she didn’t want the kids to hear these terms being associated with a growing being, even a shark. (This is not an endorsement of Shark Week by the way, I’m still upset over that whole Snuffy the Seal thing)

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            OK, when I read that last part I didn’t know what you were talking about. I looked it up and now I’m mad. I mean, I know they can’t help it when a shark gets a creature they’re releasing and filming, but what idiot had the bright bunny idea of putting it on TV? Really!

          • Me

            Actually, it wasn’t real, no seal was actually eaten. The concept was meant to be FUNNY, of all things (and some people think it is)

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            What? I guess I should have clicked a link. Should I blame Bush and call someone a racist?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Dang, it posted my comment twice, once under the name Guest. Again, it’s Bush’s fault and there’s a racist around here somewhere…

          • musiciangirl591

            i guess i’m the racist, but since its 2013, i guess we can still blame bush

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            No. You don’t smell like a racist.

          • musiciangirl591

            i think that liberals might be the biggest racists i’ve ever seen, but what do i know, i’m just a stupid, racist, sexist, intolerant conservative, and proud of it

          • Guest

            What? I probably should have clicked one of the links. Should I blame Bush and call someone a racist?

          • kathykattenburg

            Then you must judge yourself all the time.

      • kathykattenburg

        You have compassion by the truckload? Is that why every time I visit a thread like this one, every other poster is saying, “If you don’t want to get pregnant, keep your legs shut, you slut”? Is that why when someone tells you she had an abortion because her unborn baby had a fatal disease, or no brain, you say to her, “You murderer! You murdered your baby!” Is that the explanation? Compassion? You must use a different dictionary from mine.

  • JDC

    I can’t believe “don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!” didn’t make the list. It is just about the silliest, most flippant thing I’ve ever heard anyone say about the topic of abortion.

    • Mary Lee

      Oh YES! That one doesn’t even make any sense.

    • musiciangirl591

      relativism is always funny

    • Basset_Hound

      Sorta like…”don’t like child abuse…don’t beat your kid”.

      • Mary Lee

        Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave!

        • Basset_Hound

          The one time this argument is appropriate, and they don’t like that either, as in….

          If you think your employer owes you free birth control, don’t work for Hobby Lobby or for a Catholic organization.

          • kathykattenburg

            How about, If you don’t want to give emergency contraception to a rape survivor, don’t work in a hospital? How about, if you don’t want to fill prescriptions for birth control, don’t work in a pharmacy? How about, if you don’t want to allow a pregnant woman who’s bleeding to death to have an emergency abortion, and if you also don’t even want to refer said woman to an ER where she *can* have an abortion, then don’t work in an emergency room?

            Like it now?

          • You have no concept. People go into health care professions to help people not to kill them! A woman who is bleeding to death doesn’t need an abortion! She needs a blood transfusion and surgery to stop the bleeding! Abortion is never necessary! If she ends up miscarrying due to “bleeding out” then so be it but the child wasn’t killed on purpose. Any ER Dr will tell you they would treat the woman and not take time to kill the baby first!
            http://americanrtl.org/life-of-the-mother-exception
            I’ve heard it put this way as well: If you were faced with trying to save 2 people from a burning building but could only save 1 would you kill the other before saving the 1? See how insane that is?!

          • kathykattenburg

            “A woman who is bleeding to death doesn’t need an abortion.”

            Tell that to Savita Halappanavar’s husband, you cold-hearted [I’ll leave the next word out].

            “Any ER Dr will tell you they would treat the woman and not take time to kill the baby first!”

            No, any ER Dr. who’s qualified to practice medicine will tell you that there are situations where the fetus has to be removed from that woman’s body in order to save her life or save her from permanent severe injury. You call that taking time to kill the baby, he calls it dealing with the thing that’s causing the threat to the woman’s life.

            ” If you were faced with trying to save 2 people from a burning building
            but could only save 1 would you kill the other before saving the 1? See
            how insane that is?!”

            What’s insane is your distortion of reality. If there were two people in a burning building and you could only save one, you would save the one you could save. That’s what you call killing the other person first.

          • Nice name calling! Do you feel better now?

            I’m not familiar with Savita H so I’ll have to Google her but I stand by my comment, aborting the child will not save the woman. If the woman needs the pregnancy to be completed (as in pre-eclampsia) the living baby is delivered alive, not aborted!

            You are the one distorting reality. You are not killing the person you cannot save just because you couldn’t save them! Killing is intentional. Unable to save is not intentional. It’s always possible that you can save both! You never know if you don’t try.

          • kathykattenburg

            “I’m not familiar with Savita H so I’ll have to Google her”

            Yeah, Google Lisa Steinberg while you’re at it, too. You’re probably too young to recognize the name.

            ” If the woman needs the pregnancy to be completed (as in pre-eclampsia) the living baby is delivered alive, not aborted!”

            Uh huh. What if the woman needs the pregnancy to be completed at 17 weeks? And the fetus is dying inside the woman’s womb and will not survive even if born, is the living baby delivered alive, not aborted?

          • Marisa

            Savita Halappanavar died from something called E.coli ESBL septicaeamia, not as a result of bleeding to death. That’s according to her official death certificate. Savita contracted an infection caused by the severely resistant strain of E.coli. There are only very few antibiotics available that will kill it.

            Her diagnosis of sepsis was, unfortunately, missed by hospital staff. A blood test on admission showing infection was not followed up on, and her vital signs indicating sepsis were not acted upon because of poor communication. According to The Irish Times, “had four-hourly measurements of pulse, blood pressure, temperature and respiratory rate been carried out in accordance with guidelines… then the clinical team would have reacted more promptly”.

            While you’re at it, you might want to google Jennifer Morbelli and Karnamaya Mongar. Both women died as the direct result of botched abortions. Where were their rights?

          • Me

            Lisa Steinberg’s biological mother didn’t even know she was pregnant for sure until she was 6 months along, and she didn’t go to his office FOR an abortion according to what I read, she went there just to talk. He did a lot of things wrong after that, such as not making sure a Catholic family adopted Lisa as her bio. mother requested, but he did not kill Lisa himself.

          • By the way, thanks again for your *compassion*…

          • Me

            Emergency contraception to a rape survivor is not an abortion. It removes the sperm before it has a chance to fertilize an egg.

        • kathykattenburg

          Except that child abuse and slavery involve autonomous individuals not fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, or fetuses.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Fertilized eggs=zygotes. That’s to start with. I can cite Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, dictionary.com, merriam-webster.com, and about.com.

            Also, since when does not being independent from someone else subtract from personhood? Guess what else invades people’s private business to survive without returning anything? People on welfare. They’re not independent either. They get free stuff without paying for it! Are you saying they’re not people?

  • musiciangirl591

    number 8 is probably the dumbest one on this list, just saying

    • JDC

      I don’t know, I find them pretty hard to rank.

      • musiciangirl591

        yeah, but going into debt to buy a service that ruins you in the long run is probably the dumbest thing in my book, other than straight up murdering a child (yes, its a baby, when i get pregnant (not now, i’m only 20!), i won’t have a fetus shower, i will have a baby shower :P)

        • kathykattenburg

          Plenty of women get pregnant long before 20. A 12-year-old who’s been raped by Daddy probably didn’t plan on getting pregnant that soon, either. You can’t always choose what age you’ll be when you get pregnant.

          • Mamabear

            Less than 1% of abortions are from rape/incest. 4% or less are due to fetal abnormalities or health conditions of the mother. Late term abortions are never necessary for the health of the mother as they are just as risky as delivering the baby early.
            So that leaves 95% are due to convenience. Pregnancies that were the direct result of choices made by consenting adults and teens, that are aborted because of convenience. In what moral world is that acceptable?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            If you can’t choose when you get pregnant, don’t have sex except to reproduce. That was easy!

          • kathykattenburg

            It’s only easy to someone whose understanding of life and of the human condition and of what it means to be human is as shallow and flat as yours is. I hope it’s not always this way for you, Andrew. I really do.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Which is easier, containing sexual desires when they’re not necessary or indulging them irresponsibly? If you chose A, you are correct, and the fact that it’s not easier is what makes it the right thing.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Also, how is supporting living creatures who happen to be human and helpless shallow?

  • Brother Bo

    Thank you, loony leftists…As Ronald Reagan said, “I notice that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

    • fenaray

      Yeah, he was a brilliant leader that one.

      • JDC

        Well, just about anyone’s better than Obama.

    • kathykattenburg

      Everyone who’s against it has already been born, too. Everyone who has no opinion at all about it has already been born. Try not to take your talking points from addle-pated former C actors.

      • musiciangirl591

        i love ronald reagan :)

      • esperanza.me.da.vida.

        I cannot see how this supports the pro-choice. If you could go back to when your mother found out she was pregnant, would you have been such an advocate for abortion or simply the choice to chose abortion? Would you have told her that you respected her right to end your life, because scientifically you were just a “clump of cells” at that point?

      • Andrew J. Corrales

        Got something against C actors?

        • kathykattenburg

          Not at all, as long as they stick to what they do best.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            What, actors and actresses can’t express public opinions? Why do you seem to OK Hollywood doing it? Because they’re liberal?

            You liberals insist women, black people, homosexual people, Asian people, Native American people, teenagers, Hispanic people, Muslims, atheists, poor people, and rich people think all one way, and when some don’t, you use negative stereotypes of their respective demographic groups on them.

            Herman Caine is a black Republican, and he was accused of perverted relationships with an employee. Nobody’s proven him guilty. Hmm, don’t the Nazis and KKK have a stereotype identifying old black men as perverts? A Republican actor? He must be uneducated and dumb. Sarah Palin? She’s dumb! She said she could see Russia from her house! Nope, she said that Alaska’s only a couple of miles away from Russia at closest point. The person who reported her to have said that was a liberal cartoonist. Mitt Romney? We can have a first lady, but not a second! How about some edumacation: Mormons ditched polygamy long ago!

            Why don’t Democrat actors stick to what they do best and stop saying what they’re paid to? At least Reagan was for real, he became a Republican politician. The Dem celebs just use it as an advertising campaign. The Dem politicians don’t care about liberals either, they use them as voting blocs. If the Democrats cared, there would be none of the recent scandals, and there would be zero hypocrisy.

  • Rebekah

    I do not know whether anyone will take me up on this, but I think this site should write a “Ten most convincing pro-life arguments.” In my mind, we should seek not to put down those who oppose us, but rather to, as respectfully as possible, show them the logical, scientific, and moral nature of the pro-life view. Being pro-life means that we respect our opponents lives too.

  • Donna McWilliams

    Thank You Cassy

  • ThePaganProLifer

    I believe I should have complete and total control over my body. I also believe I have no right to harms someone else’s body. An embryo or fetus is attached by the umbilical cord or placenta. It good blood, food, and air from its mother. Well a breast feeding baby is getting food from its mother. Is it ok to kill them. My rights end where theirs begin.

    • Mary Lee

      Thank you, YES! This is what pro-life means.

    • kathykattenburg

      So do you believe in laws that ban smoking in public places? Would you support laws that forbid parents to smoke in the vicinity of their children? Do you support mandatory seatbelt laws? Do you support laws that forbid pregnant women to smoke, drink, take prescription medications or have medical treatments like chemotherapy, change the kitty litter, eat raw fish, eat foods that could harm the baby, not go to the doctor because of lack of money or insurance?

      • There are no such laws regarding pregnant women. Common sense can’t be legislated. Education is important.

        There is always a way for a pregnant women to get healthcare regardless of finances. Crisis pregnancy centers do exactly that for the woman during her pregnancy, and after her child is born and helps her get on her feet regarding living place, income, healthcare etc.

        • kathykattenburg

          “There are no such laws regarding pregnant women. Common sense can’t be legislated.”

          I know there are no such laws. That’s my point. Obviously, you don’t think it’s always necessary to pass laws against practices that kill children. You can’t legislate common sense. You can’t legislate morality, either.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You can’t legislate morality.” Dead wrong. All laws are a legislation of morality. The question is whose morality?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Dead wrong wasn’t a pun, was it?

          • Me

            And “Planned Parenthood” aaaalwaaays tells the truth, Yeah, right.

      • kirkensmall

        Did you just call the fetus a “baby”?

      • ThePaganProLifer

        No smoking laws: absolutely! And pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke or drink. Parents should not be allowed to smoke around their children. Seatbelt laws should always be in place. And yes I support public assistance for mothers on hard times. I try to fight abortion by trying to stop the causes; unwanted pregnancy, financial trouble, violence against women, ect. The morning after pill is very effective. So is birth control. They should be free. I support pregnancy resource centers, women’s shelters, and charities. I don’t have a lot now, but when I do, I help in any way I can. Men should be educated about rape, that coercion is rape, for instance. The law needs to crack down on rapist, and stop blaming victims. These are all alternatives to abortion. Much better ones, too. We aren’t getting anywhere by retesting outside clinics; we need practical solutions. We need to take care of everyone before birth, after birth, til death. I hope that answers your question. Blessed be

  • kathykattenburg

    “While pro-aborts often try to give sad, sad stories about women who need
    birth control out of medical necessity, or need abortion because they
    will DIE without it, the truth is, it’s often merely a matter of
    convenience.”

    Define convenience, then tell me which of the millions of women you haven’t met, don’t know, and would tell your kids to be wary of because they’re strangers and you don’t know anything about them, are having abortions for convenience.

    And then:

    1. What if full-term pregnancy really would kill a woman or seriously threaten her life or health? And who defines death or serious physical harm?

    2. What if the woman is raped? What if the woman is a girl who was raped by her father or another family member? What if she’s 10 years old, or 12? What if she’s told she has to have the baby, and she tries to kill herself?

    3. What if the woman’s doctor tells her the fetus has a serious physical abnormality incompatible with life and will probably or very likely die either in the womb or at birth, or within a very short time after birth?

    4. What if the woman is told the fetus has a disease like Tay-Sachs, which is always fatal and always results in death between the ages of two and five?

    5. What if the woman is homeless, or mentally ill, or her boyfriend or husband abandoned her, or she doesn’t want children, but adoption is not a good or feasible option?

    6. What if the woman didn’t use birth control because she and her husband very much want a child, but after she becomes pregnant, she finds out that she is in the situations described in numbers 1, 3, or 4?

    And underlying all these questions, if you say there could be exceptions for these situations, then tell me how do you know, or how do state legislatures or the federal government determine when these situations exist? Who makes that determination? Someone known to the woman, or the woman herself, or total strangers?

    • musiciangirl591

      i hate the disability argument, i have epilepsy, i’m on two different medications (a primary and an add-on), under ADA i’m disabled, should i have been killed, honey?

      • kathykattenburg

        You didn’t read what I wrote, sweetie. I said nothing about disabilities. Go back and read it again.

        • musiciangirl591

          serious physical abnormality, i take it as disability, honey

          • kathykattenburg

            Well, you’re not necessarily correct in taking it that way, lamb chop.

          • musiciangirl591

            whatever, still makes me sick to my stomach, even more than my new medication

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            How is a serious physical abnormality not a disability?

          • musiciangirl591

            serious physical abnormality, if i had no arms and legs, i would have a disability (technically, by law)

      • Alex Hunter

        That was your mother’s choice to have you, not ours.

        • musiciangirl591

          but you’re fighting for that choice, which makes me want to vomit

          • Alex Hunter

            You feel sick at the thought that you were born out of love, rather than a moral obligation?

          • musiciangirl591

            i feel sick that you’re fighting for the choice of killing babies that aren’t perfect, like me

          • Alex Hunter

            But your mother made the decision, not me. The choice was not in the hands of a total stranger, which is what people like me are really in favour of, not genocide of the next generation.

          • musiciangirl591

            i feel sick because you are fighting for the choice to kill not so perfect babies, like i am, i am me, my imperfections make me who i am, i’m 20 years old, junior in college, woman with a disability #justsaying

          • Alex Hunter

            What words have I put into your mouth?

          • musiciangirl591

            the it makes me sick that i was conceived in love

          • Alex Hunter

            Is there a better way to be conceived?

          • musiciangirl591

            i’ve said this one too many times, it somehow keeps getting deleted, it makes me sick that you’re fighting to kill babies that are not quite perfect, honey, don’t put words into my mouth

          • Alex Hunter

            It’s not getting deleted. The Disqus links are just funny that way.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          You say that as if her being conceived and born was a bad thing.

          • musiciangirl591

            i got told once that my parents should have used contraception the night i was conceived

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Whoever told you that should stop talking.

          • musiciangirl591

            it was a long time ago, it just sticks in my mind when arguing with pro-aborts :P

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            It still kind of irks me. My younger siblings and me had biological/similar problems as kids. I’m not sure I should speak for the other two, but I used to have a speech impediment.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            And talking that way usually doesn’t go with people’s shoes anyway, so there’s that.

          • musiciangirl591

            yeah, i remember a quote by margaret thatcher, i’ll paraphrase, when people start attacking your character in an argument, you’ve won

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            If that’s true, then everybody I debate with loses, and so do I, unfortunately…I’m only sensitive to people who I think deserve it, obviously. I might need to work on that.

          • musiciangirl591

            i haven’t debated with anyone since this article, its not really that challenging, if you really want some fun, try being in college conservatives on a very liberal campus

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            That sounds like it would kill me. At least debating with internet comments means whoever I’m debating with can’t interrupt me. I explode when I’m interrupted.

          • musiciangirl591

            i don’t try debating on campus, i have friends to do that, the first meeting i ever went to of CC, they said no matter what you say against liberals, you are always a racist

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            No joke…

          • Alex Hunter

            Does everything you lay eyes on have to be either good or bad?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            “That was your mother’s choice to have you, not ours.” Do you even realize how that sounds? Just wondering.

          • Alex Hunter

            It sounds to me like a human’s very existence was dependant on the person/people closest to them and not some authority figure. Our very existence is based upon free will (so far), so why not allow that legacy to go on?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            It sounds to me like you’re using the same tone of voice a smart-alack first grade boy uses to blame his sister/classmate. “I have epilepsy…should I have been killed, honey?” “That was your mother’s choice to have you, not mine.” Either you’re A. implying that she’s inferior or B. doing a lousy job of washing your hands of the question.

            Of course, you can’t advocate aborting fetuses likely to have physical or mental handicaps or pregnancy complications without sounding like you’re bigoted against handicapped people, and if someone asks such a question pitting you against what you’re really saying, I can understand trying to get out of it when you’re on the spot, but remember Murphy’s Law of Political Remarks: If it can be taken as discriminatory, it will be taken as discriminatory.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            And can you prove that free will exists?

    • freddy

      ok say I give on the 4 % you are talking about how bout we discusse the other that 96% are strictly due to inconvenience what about that hmmm?

    • Andrew J. Corrales

      1. Does a threat to life equal an unavoidable, hopeless doom to death?

      2. I said this in another comment, but why kill the baby? It did nothing wrong by anyone’s standards. Why not kill the perp?

      3. Can we not keep it alive as much as possible?

      4. See #3. Also, got something against disabled kids? Abortion is eugenics. More abortion clinics are in African American neighborhoods, and kids likely to develop disabilities are more likely to be aborted.

      5. Under what circumstance is adoption not good or feasible? Bad adopting parents? Switch parents.

      6. Then they find out how seriously they want a kid, and we see if they’re eugenics supporters or not.

      And underlying all these answers, who determines the truth about the humanity of a fetus? A bunch of girls whose minds are clouded by hormones, some older people who have had more experience and can make more rational decisions, or something/someone that exists in its own right apart from both, that invented fetuses (i.e. either God or evolution)?

  • Malissa Bishop

    I am 100% against abortion but 100% for free birth control. If people are so worried about women getting abortions then they should feel happy about trying to give women birth control to keep them from getting pregnant in the first place. Sex is a thing that’s going to happen with most people and if we can prevent a pregnancy to begin with we wouldn’t even have to worry about a lot of cases. People need cells phones for work and school so if you’re against free birth control then don’t cry when a woman goes to get an abortion.

    • kathykattenburg

      Wow, Melissa, *thank you.* Nail on head.

    • Mamabear

      Tell you what Malissa. I’m having trouble paying for my cell phone, too. I’ll gladly pay for your birth control if you pay for my all my out-of-pocket cancer treatment costs. Think very careful before you answer that. Remember, you can control the behavior that might get you pregnant. Cancer? I did everything that is supposed to prevent it, and that was supposed to detect it early, but unlike pregnancy, it was out of my control. And I will be in treatment for life. Very expensive treatment for life!
      My point is, in case you missed it, if you are an adult, you have to take some responsibilities yourself. You cannot ask everything to be free. I’m still working on last year’s bills even though we have good insurance. And this is life and death. To say if you don’t support free birth control that you support abortion, and this coming from someone “100% against abortion” sounds both hypocritical and childish.

      • Malissa Bishop

        Um I don’t take birth control so your argument is pretty invalid haha. My argument is that if you don’t like abortion and you don’t want to see dead babies then you should be willing to pay a little more in taxes for free birth control. And it doesn’t matter if you did everything in your power to not get cancer it can be genetic. And you may have cancer but that doesn’t give you the right to be a jerk. And if I do not support abortion and support birth control that doesn’t make me a hypocrite considering birth control keeps you from getting pregnant in the first place. And sometimes people get raped so I am guessing if they got pregnant because they didn’t have access to free birth control they should just grow up right because the rape was their fault right? We wouldn’t need abortion if people had better access to birth control so they didn’t get pregnant in the first place. You don’t like abortion then do something about it before the woman gets pregnant and scared because not everyone can afford to pay for a baby and abortion seems a lot less than those hospital bills for having a baby

        • John Q

          Malissa, abortions for pregnancies resulting from rape/incest consist of less that 5% of abortions. the remaining 95%+ are for convenience. If abortions were not available, there would either be more babies born or more people being careful and responsible and not having sex when there is a possibility of pregnancy.

      • Malissa Bishop

        Oh and if we want to abolish abortion completely we need to not act like assholes towards women who get pregnant. Because if we show we care then they are more likely not to get an abortion. And showing we care means helping in raising that child like with daycare and medical and food otherwise the woman might get an abortion over having a baby. If you’re pro life you should care about the baby once it’s born to not just before otherwise you’re pro unborn baby not pro life!!! But hey I am sure because you have cancer it’s ok not to care because that somehow excuses you right? I know and love people with cancer and know it’s no excuse for the way we treat people

  • Ann

    Ask anyone who has taken a pregnancy test that’s positive this question. What are you pregnant with?? Every single person would answer, “Umm, a baby.” Who would ever answer, “I’m pregnant with a clump of cells that may or may not be a human, we won’t know what I’m pregnant with for a few months.” How is there even an argument that it’s not a baby from the very beginning? What else would it be??

    • kathykattenburg

      That’s not the point. Whether you call it a baby, a fetus, or a clump of cells, it’s still inside someone’s body. No one gets to tell someone else how to care for their own body, *and whatever is inside their body that directly and intimately affects every aspect of their health.*

      • Does a woman know how the child “gets” inside her body??!! That is when the woman has a choice. Once a woman chooses to have sex she has to acknowledge the possibility of becoming pregnant and accept personal responsibility if she becomes pregnant! Doesn’t matter what method of contraception used, none besides abstinence is 100%, so every sexual encounter has the *possibility* of conception. Women know this yet choose to ignore their own body’s biological function of conceiving a child and act like they’ve noticed a mole or skin-tag and want it removed.

        • kathykattenburg

          Like I said before, you’ve just chosen to ignore every single reason or circumstance other than being irresponsible about sexual activity that a woman would get pregnant.

          And by the way, Mary Lee, here’s your “compassion by the truckload.” See what I mean now?

          • Moxy

            It isn’t about being irresponsible, it is simply about choosing to deal with the consequences that can come from having sex like a responsible adult. Hey, shit happens. BC fails, condoms break, etc. There are more positive/less destructive ways to deal with an unplanned pregnancy than resorting to abortion. And like Michele said, I too support Equality that doesn’t come with some bs qualification like “oh, you are only equal if you were born from two people in a stable happy marriage who make more than $50k a year after taxes”. LOL, I mean, seriously…

          • I didn’t say the woman got pregnant due to irresponsibility. I said pregnancy is caused by sex so why are so many women “surprised” that they got pregnant? Just because they thought they were using contraception? Does that mean that if you are speeding but you have a radar detector that you absolutely will not get pulled over for speeding?! Actions have consequences. Some consequences are more important than others – abortion kills another human being.

            Just stating facts and am far from showing a lack of compassion. Adoption is always a wonderful alternative to abortion.

      • By the way, I notice your support for “equality” by your *picture* so why does the unborn child not warrant your support for equal Right to Life! That is way more important than any other Right!

        • kathykattenburg

          Because a pregnant woman and the fetus inside her do not have equal rights to life. I say that as a biological, physical reality, not as a statement of moral belief. It is physically impossible to value the lives of both mother and unborn baby equally. There’s an inherent conflict of interest there.

          • I disagree.
            Your take on *value of life* is that it lies in the eye of the beholder. That makes it relative…it’s not relative.
            All human life is equally valuable.

          • kathykattenburg

            Michele, you can disagree all you want, and you can deny the physical facts of pregnancy all you want, but you can’t make them go away. You cannot separate the unborn baby from the pregnant woman and say they are the same as two physically separate people where you can give equal health care to both because their bodies are separate and their biological functions do not physically interact with each other. When you say that abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life, this is exactly what you’re doing: you are choosing one over the other in an inherent conflict of interest. There’s no other way to understand this. You do this by denying that a fetus in a woman’s womb CAN endanger her life.

            It’s just like a child in a playground and her mother sitting on a bench. If the woman gets sick, you can treat her without affecting her child on the jungle gym. If the child gets sick, you can treat *her* without endangering the health of the mother sitting on the bench. They’re two separate people, not attached to each other. They have separate physical existences. One is not living inside the body of the other. The physical well-being of one does not have implications for the physical well-being of the other.

            You cannot do that with a pregnant woman and the baby in her womb. Whatever you do to the baby or don’t do is going to affect the woman DIRECTLY. Whatever you do to the woman or don’t do is going to affect the baby DIRECTLY. I mean, it’s so obvious that if it weren’t so outrageous that people like you deny it, it would be funny.

          • Marisa

            “When you say that abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life, this is exactly what you’re doing: you are choosing one over the other in an inherent conflict of interest. There’s no other way to understand this”.

            I beg to differ. You can save BOTH lives, without trading one for the other. Doctors understand this when they are faced with a situation where a pregnancy poses a very real health risk to the mother. In most cases they perform emergency c-sections to deliver babies. In others where the baby is too small to survive (with the aid of a ventilator) outside the womb, physicians still do everything in their power to save both lives knowing that the baby might die as a result of their efforts. But they are not intentionally extracting the baby from the mother, in an attempt to end his or her life.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            You think rights claims are “physical reality”? It’s “physically impossible to value” both equally?

        • Alex Hunter

          An unborn, semi-formed baby whose mental faculties haven’t fully developed is hardly equal to a thinking, feeling person.

          • Again, I disagree.
            The value of human life is not relative. Either all human life is valuable or it’s not. There are no degrees of value.
            All human life is equally valuable.

          • Mary Lee

            Well, that is patently false. An unborn baby is absolutely equal to a “thinking, feeling” person. Because an unborn baby IS a person. That’s like saying “A two year old is less equal than a 21 year old.” Your arguments are based on conditions and functionalism, not truth or fact. If our unborn children are NOT equal to us, and do not deserve protection under law, then NONE of us do.

          • Alex Hunter

            The difference between the unborn and us is that we don’t live inside our mothers anymore. The Left may seek to control the masses, but at least they draw the line when it comes to what happens inside someone. If abortion is made illegal then what next? Will having dirty thoughts that can be picked up on radar be made illegal as well?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Since when does in your body vs. outside your body matter? And on top of that liberals support a nanny state without meat or carbonated beverages. Who’s controlling people’s bodies again? Conservatives support making sure the bodies of children are respected from conception until adulthood. Liberals want to destroy the bodies of unborn children because they’re inconvenient. And making dirty thoughts illegal violates the First and Fourth Amendments. Making abortion illegal violates no amendment, but rather, it enforces the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment which states that the government has no power to infringe upon one’s life without due process of law.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            The minute you pretend not to know the bright line between killing a baby in the womb and having a dirty thought, and seriously suggest the former could begin some slippery slope to the latter, is the minute you forfeit any claim to being taken seriously.

      • kirkensmall

        You’re right, no one “should” have to tell a woman what to do with her body. I wish I didn’t have to remind my child not to climb on the stove, but sometimes he needs reminding. I don’t think we ever hoped this would be an argument. We have free will, but that doesn’t mean we don’t also have the capacity to control ourselves. I want to tell my m-in-law off sometimes. I want to tell people that they don’t need to give me dirty looks when Im out with my 2 kids under 2, but I also have the power to not do those things. Who exactly is governing your body? YOUR will or lack of control?

  • Tonia Long

    So maybe when insurance stops paying for Viagra and starts covering my birth control pills it wouldn’t be such a hot topic. Enlighten me please….

  • MOM

    See crazy evil excuses.

  • Smile

    Birth control assholes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you stupid batches even know what that is???????

    • JDC

      Batches?

      • musiciangirl591

        cookies, i’m guessing :P

        • JDC

          I sure hope so! Especially since cookies can shut down pro-abortion protests. :)

    • princessjasmine45

      “batches? We don’t need no stickin batches!”

  • Smile

    Have your tubes tied dumbasses……..use birth control….condoms, the pill, prevent pregnancy…..so you don’t have to go out and kill a child….

    • kathykattenburg

      Mary Lee! Mary Lee! Are you still here? There’s a truckload of compassion here for you to look at!

      • musiciangirl591

        you’re a piece of work, aren’t you?

  • blang13

    1) The comments on this page have made me think that abortion needed to be done a little more widely. Almost every single person on here is passionate, and obstinate. Those are big words, I’ll let you look them up because I could add ignorant to the list, but I wont.

    2) I’m all for severe limits on late term abortions. In fact, I think that abortions in the 3rd trimester in just about every state are illegal unless the woman’s life is in danger. And yes, I will always allow the woman the choice to save her life over a yet to be born fetus. Always. If you oppose this, then YOU are the murderer. Yet, people here are making it sound like they are the vast majority of abortions. Not true.

    3) You completely lose me when you get all up in arms over the morning after pill and other procedures that abort a zygote that hasn’t even attached itself to the uterus wall. So, stop with the “babies feel pain” and “they scream” because that isn’t your argument. I know for a FACT that a zygote feels no pain, has no conscious brain activity and most certainly cannot scream. Yet, you would make this illegal too. And that, my good intentioned friends, is where your concern for something that could pass for a human life is overcome by your desire to control the reproductive life of a living, breathing woman. You kill more cells when you scratch an itchy mosquito bite than they typical morning after pill does.

    4) It IS possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion. It really is. I’m not pro-war, but I support a strong national military. See what I did there?

    God bless.

    • Kkay

      I did see what you did… you completely dismissed the basis of pro-life arguments by refusing to admit that life begins at conception… as any scientist would confirm…

      All you did was rationalize your own beliefs by dismissing a truth (that life begins at conception)

      Also, I rarely see people saying BC should be illegal, what we do say is that we shouldn’t be forced to pay for the BC of others due to our moral opposition to terminating life (which begins at conception, aka fertilization).

      • kathykattenburg

        First of all, life begins at conception is not the same as pregnancy. Pregnancy does not begin at conception. And second, reputable, objective scientists do not say that life begins at conception. That is a religious belief, not a scientific. No one can say where or when life begins.

        • kkay

          Uhm, life… as zygote or not is a cell… all scientists maintain that a cell is the most basic form of (wait for it…) LIFE. Therefore at conception, the most basic form of human life is created and began… Therefore…Life starts at conception.

          • kathykattenburg

            And before the cell, what was there? Nothing? You believe that a living human cell is created from nonexistence?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            A fetus is an embryo that’s developed to a certain point and beyond. An embryo is an unborn organism with more than one cell. A zygote is the one-cell stage of an unborn organism. The zygote is made when a sperm cell goes in an egg cell. The father and the mother both gave of their living cells to make a living creature with its own DNA.

        • Once that sperm enters that egg and the cells start to divide, LIFE has begun. In order for that particular life to continue and grow by being nurtured it must implant. Any drug or device that interferes with this new LIFE implanting in order that it may continue to grow is killing/murdering the LIFE. The woman likely has no idea this has happened but there is always One who knows. True pro-life women refuse to take bc pills due to this very fact – that they can and do cause early abortions and just because we are unaware of it happening does not give us an excuse for allowing the possibility of it happening.

          This is very much a parallel to the mindset we have for sex… the very possibility of an “unwanted” pregnancy is reason to abstain. This “fear of pregnancy” was a good thing for society; keeps couples faithful, keeps sex within marriage which means very few out-of-wedlock births and very low incidence of STDs.

          The introduction of oral contraceptives and the “contraception mentality” almost completely removed this association of sex with pregnancy. Now men feel no need to wear a condom (it doesn’t feel as good) when the woman can “just take a pill”. So we have increased rates of all the things that are ruining our society: infidelity, divorce, pre-marital sex and single mothers and raging levels of STDs. Younger age of initial sexual activity as well due to teens feeling “safe” on bc pills leading to an increase in promiscuous behavior which obviously increases STDs and unplanned pregnancies.

          The legalization of abortion has really made it a perceived “safety-net” or “easy way out” for any/all failed contraception or lack of use/improper use of contraception. (Abortion also covers-up crimes of incest, rape, statutory rape and human trafficking by eliminating any “evidence” of the crime)

          The love of money has abortionists providing the procedure under horrible conditions with little to no medical supervision or preparedness for emergencies. And the abortion industry is lobbying to allow abortions to be performed by non-physicians!

          Stop the madness, repeal Roe v Wade. If abortion were illegal then that “choice” would no longer exist. Sure there would always be those few who would try to get an illegal abortion but those would be the exception. If we prosecute anyone providing abortions and thus “force” people to make better decisions from the get-go and put money toward crisis pregnancy assistance instead of abortion clinics… what a wonderful world that could be!

          • kathykattenburg

            That WAS the world before Roe v. Wade — and it was a nightmare for women. You have every right to believe what you believe, but women are not going back to no contraception, illegal abortion, and desperate, no-other-option marriages. We’re just not. You greatly understate the problem of illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade. There were thousands of them every year, and no one really knows the true number. When women are desperate not to be pregnant, they will find a way to end the pregnancy, even at the cost of their own lives. And of course the unborn baby dies in any case. So making abortion illegal does absolutely squat except make it harder and more dangerous to get.

          • 1630

            “Making abortion illegal does absolutely squat…”

            So every single woman who would opt for a legal abortion today, would opt for a back-alley abortion should Roe v. Wade be overturned? No woman would be more careful with her contraception or insisting on a condom if abortion wasn’t available as birth control? No one would opt for putting the child up for adoption if abortion were illegal? In your view, overturning Roe v Wade saves no innocent lives? Is that correct?

            “There were thousands of illegal abortions before Roe v Wade.”

            That’s probably true, but it pales in comparison with the 50 million abortions post-Roe v. Wade.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            If outlawing abortion makes abortion harder and more dangerous to get, good. We’d finally be respecting people who can’t stick up for themselves, and people might even start having more responsible sex.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Your pre-Roe claims are also a myth. Here’s the truth: http://liveactionnews.org/naral-spokeswoman-lies-about-abortion-on-complicit-msnbc/

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          What. The. Heck. How does pregnancy not begin at conception? And how are unborn children not living beings? Are they dead beings? Are they rocks? Are they non-biological chemicals? Nope. They’re organisms, with their own unique human DNA, with functioning organs.

        • Calvin Freiburger

          Let me cure your ignorance. Biology textbooks, medical testimony, even the admissions of honest pro-choicers:

          http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

          I expect you’ll whine about Abort73 being a pro-life site, but it’s all sourced for your independent verification. Your choice whether to admit your error or make up an excuse to keep making untrue claims will be revealing.

    • Andrew J. Corrales

      Nobody’s pro-war.

    • Calvin Freiburger

      “I know for a FACT that a zygote feels no pain, has no conscious brain activity and most certainly cannot scream. Yet, you would make this illegal too.”

      If banning that is wrong, then I suppose we shouldn’t prosecute anybody who kills someone painlessly in their sleep.

      “your desire to control the reproductive life of a living, breathing woman.”

      This is an intentional lie.

      “You kill more cells when you scratch an itchy mosquito bite than they typical morning after pill does.”

      Sheer biological illiteracy. No skin cell is a human being — that is, a distinct, genetically complete organism belonging to the human species.

    • Andrew J. Corrales

      God forgive me but I couldn’t resist myself.

    • Andrew J. Corrales

      Well, dangit, it didn’t post the picture. It was Antoine Dodson saying, “You’re really, really dumb. Fo’ real.”

      • musiciangirl591

        i was attacked by some idiot in the projects

    • Aaron

      The development of human lives, from conception, are becoming closer in resemblance to fully-grown baby; then adult; old age; and natural death. All humans develop in this manner–including pro-aborts.

  • Lanie

    First, a fetus is fully formed in the first 12 wks and need the next months for their lungs to mature, other organs to mature and to get some fat on their little bodies. Next, babies inhale amniotic fluid so they can’t drown in utero. The amniotic fluid matures their lung and without enough they get pulmonary hyperplasia and die with in a few hrs of birth. Next, if a pregnant woman is murdered or kill accidentally like in a car wreck then the criminal can be charged with 2 counts of murder or man slaughter in many states. Then same woman could get an abortion and it is not murder.. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Murder is murder no matter who the murderer is. Last, if women want control over their lives and don’t want a baby to inconvenience them I suggest they learn to keep their pants on. Sex was created for the procreation of life; not for your selfish needs to be satisfied. We are fortunate that it is pleasurable or the human race would have died out a long time ago. Abortion is all about people wanting all the pleasures of life without any of the responsibility. Grow up.. The world does not revolve around any one person. I guess you’re lucky your mom was responsible and did not rip you apart in utero. On yea.. Babies feel pain and fear.

    • Cupcake28

      Amen!

    • kathykattenburg

      “Last, if women want control over their lives and don’t want a baby to
      inconvenience them I suggest they learn to keep their pants on. Sex was
      created for the procreation of life; not for your selfish needs to be
      satisfied.”

      Mary Lee! Another compassion truck here!

      • It has nothing to do with “compassion” – we actually have more compassion than you because we want to help the woman through her pregnancy instead of encouraging her to kill her child because it’s legal.

        You do realize that before legalized abortion there were fewer
        out-of-wedlock children, divorces, STDs etc? This whole “sexual
        freedom” sold by the people promoting “the pill” and abortion is not
        freedom at all.

        Where is the freedom for a man and woman to save sex for marriage, stay married to each other “til death do us part”, raise their children and enjoy their grandchildren?! The liberal feminists and abortion industry try to sell the idea that a woman can only be fulfilled if they get *equal* (as in *same*) treatment as men! Men & Women are not the same! Liberal feminists think that all men want is sex without consequences, and demanding career/job – those are the things that pro-aborts rage about, how men don’t have to “worry” about getting pregnant and don’t have to “worry” about a pregnancy/child impacting their job!

        • kathykattenburg

          There were also more shotgun marriages and more women stuck in loveless marriages because they had no other options. I don’t know the statistics on out-of-wedlock children before Roe v. Wade, but I do know that it’s only women who have reason to fear pregnancy. Men have always been free to have sex whenever and with whomever they wish, with no consequences. And the fear of pregnancy has never stopped most women from having sex, in or out of wedlock. It just means if they do get pregnant, they are the ones who have to deal with the consequences, not the men they had sex with.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Nope, men have consequences too. The difference is, running away from them makes men look like selfish d-words, whereas when women do it, it’s their choice, and they have a right to it.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You apparently thought I was serious in the last sentence of my last comment on this post, so let’s just say it was sarcasm. Men have a moral obligation to commit to their love interests and women have a moral obligation to at least let the child be born.

          • kathykattenburg

            I think there is a much higher probability that women who are with a man who actually does love them and who wants to commit to that love will *want* to have a baby, assuming there aren’t health issues involved.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I think that doesn’t make either partner less morally obliged to raise the kid, or at least let it be born, even if they put it up for adoption.

          • kathykattenburg

            I know that’s what you believe, and I respect it. I can only respond with what I’ve already said, even though it’s a concept you can’t seem to wrap your head around — and I don’t mean that sarcastically, it seems to me that you really cannot grasp a concept that seems simple and obvious to me. That concept being that pregnancy — although it is, as you and others have said, a natural condition and not a disease — DOES affect a woman’s health. It’s not a disease but it affects a woman’s health. Every pregnancy carries health risks. Some can be managed and some can’t, but the point is that you cannot require a woman to sacrifice her own health, her own bodily integrity, to give an unborn baby life. And when you pass laws criminalizing abortion that’s what you’re doing — because the woman *has no other option.* What I mean by that: If a mother’s health is somehow endangered by her child’s presence, she can arrange for someone else to care for the child. But a pregnant woman *cannot do that.* Do you understand? A pregnant woman cannot arrange to have her unborn baby cared for so its presence is not harming her health. That’s the point. I don’t know how else to explain it.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I believe it because I have no choice. I believe the truth, not some little Napoleon-complex ideology based on the absurd idea that there is no absolute truth.

            Before my main argument, I’d like to say that pregnant women are mothers. They’re the female biological progenitors of who they’re pregnant with.

            I addressed morning sickness in a previous article. Other than that, there’s only one kind of life-threatening pregnancy, and that’s the ectopic pregnancy, and it’s extremely rare, as is death in childbirth (it only pops up frequently in movies, plays, and books because it apparently makes the protagonist more of a good guy).

            I don’t know how else to explain it, but pregnancies with major health risks are rare, and the mother should do everything she can to save the child first, and abortion should be the absolute last resort.

      • Andrew J. Corrales

        I detect the sarcasm, but if you don’t mind, it’s true, whether it’s “compassionate” or not. Compassion is no kryptonite to unpleasant truths and no basis for nice-sounding delusions.

        • kathykattenburg

          Compassion is cruelty, and cruelty is compassion, in other words?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            At what point did I say anything to that effect? You misunderstand me. You can’t throw out an truth because it’s not compassionate and you can’t promote a delusion because it sounds nice. If you have a belief system that you accept easily because there seems to be no unpleasant parts, check it Thoroughly for contradictions and/or lack of factual correspondence and/or impracticality and/or ulterior motives, and be ready to change your beliefs to accept unpleasant truths.

          • kathykattenburg

            Well, I’ll admit that I really couldn’t figure out what your second sentence was saying. My response was as close as I could get to responding to what I thought you were saying.

            Having said that, my conception (pun not intended) of compassion — what it is — is that it’s about being sensitive to someone else’s distress and willing to help alleviate it. It’s not about judging, or thinking you know what the other person is REALLY upset about, or SHOULD be upset about. It’s about listening to the other person, and believing that what they say they feel is what they feel, and not what you think they should feel.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Okay, but keep in mind that feelings are temporary and contribute towards prejudices, and in order to still have them (‘cuz, you know, we’re humans) without being completely crazy, we need to have a doctrine of objective value, a system in which some attitudes are correct or valid for how the universe is and how we are, and some incorrect/invalid, and that we can’t sympathize with incorrect/invalid attitudes (but we can attempt to empathize).

    • Alex Hunter

      “Sex was created for the procreation of life; not for your selfish needs to be satisfied”

      Do you mean the need to feel alive and loved?

      “The world does not revolve around any one person.”
      But it does revolve around those who feel the need to force others into making life-changing decisions?

      • esperanza.me.da.vida.

        which life changing decision? abortion (by terminating a life of the unborn child) OR respecting the life of a developing human being (by accepting responsibility for actions and giving baby up for adoption or taking care of the baby)?

        politely asking for you to clarify.

        • Alex Hunter

          Giving birth is the life-changing decision I’m talking about.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            ….yet taking away the life of an unborn child is not?

          • Alex Hunter

            Unborn children are replaceable, as callous as it sounds. It’s only when they are born and begin seeing the world from their own unique perspective that killing them is a tragedy, as those experiences can’t be replicated through biology.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            “as callous as that sounds”
            I am glad that we can agree on something, but I am confused as to if you truly believe that a living human being is “replaceable”, then why does this sound immoral to you?

            So it is when a baby first opens their eyes the world that the rest of society bestows the right to life upon them? It is only when we have witnessed This Moment when killing them is unjust? What if the baby doesn’t open his/her eyes for a few hours after birth? Killing them in this time period is ok?

          • Alex Hunter

            What makes you think a mother would go through the labours of childbirth only to allow her child to die?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            What makes YOU think a mother would give birth and let her child get killed? You’re the one who thinks that a child must both be born and develop a unique perspective before it becomes a tragedy to kill it. Guess what? Less than 1% of the world’s population fits both those criteria! I knew from other places we’ve debated that you care more about trees and animals more than you do about humans, but I didn’t know it was that bad.

            Or am I needlessly stereotyping you, and you love humans and don’t advocate killing more than 99% of all people. In which case, is there a reason you support abortion?

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            What? Your words: “Unborn children are replaceable…It’s only when they are born and begin seeing the world from their own unique perspective that killing them is a tragedy”.

            So abortion is ok, because when the mother chooses to end the life of her baby, that’s acceptable. But damn the person who hurts the baby after the mother endures the pain of childbirth?

            Is it then the childbirth itself that makes the fetus a human?

          • Alex Hunter

            Its the will of the mother that determines whether a child should be born or not. Humanity has nothing to do with it. A mentally healthy mother will normally go out of her way to make sure her child is safe and happy. If a child dies outside the womb, its usually the act of someone else and is an encroachment on both the child’s life and the mother’s will.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            “It’s the will of the mother…”

            Relativism, when used correctly, is a hilarious experience for all. When not used correctly, it’s annoying, rude, tacky, and makes the person supporting it look ignorant and stupid.

            To start with, since when does the will of the mother get considered more important than what’s right? What if the mother is mentally ill?

            Second, since when is it OK to kill anything, period, with human DNA, except if the thing with human DNA is a threat?

            Third, what basis is there for moral relativism? It’s a half-baked excuse for irresponsibility with no logical consistency or basis in factuality, and has zero (0) practicality.

          • Alex Hunter

            1. The people who dictate what’s right and wrong don’t personally know every single person that ever lived. If there’s no empathy, then what’s the point?

            2. Being human doesn’t automatically entitle one to life. Plus, humanity is a threat in itself to the rest of the world.

            3. What’s considered right is little more than a social construct. If you can adequately weigh the pros and cons of your actions then you don’t need to adhere to someone else’s dogma.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            1. You don’t have to know every single person that ever lived to know right from wrong, and right and wrong are not “dictated” by “people.”

            2. Hitler, Hussein, the Kaiser, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mussolini, Osama Bin Laden, and Ayatollah Khomeini agree with you, I think.

            However, if you decide to support democracy, then yes, being human entitles you to life, in that “all men are created equal” and they are “endowed” with their rights, except if you’re a dictator who causes genocide and/or the perpetrator of a really awful murder with no mitigating factors.

            And how is humanity a threat? I thought you liberals believed in evolution, so why don’t you just trust Nature to take care of itself?

            3. What’s “considered” right is an absolute concept that not everyone sees clearly, and that nobody completely lives up to. Moral relativism, I have already shown to be a flop. If you want to hear it again, here it is:

            –3a. Moral relativism is logically inconsistent. To say “there is no absolute truth” is to argue for something that one perceives as an absolute truth.

            –3b. It also has no basis in fact. The same values and principles pop up in diverse cultures all over the world, and every person, period, agrees about most moral issues.

            –3c. It is also impractical. If there is no absolute then there is nothing to agree upon. If there is nothing to agree upon then there is no common standard of appeal in any conflict of beliefs.

            If there is no common standard of appeal then what do we do? Shall we punish someone for shooting up a school (death penalty or not)? Why? He was only doing what he thought was right! But why should we let him kill people? They weren’t doing anything wrong either!

            We cannot make a choice without appealing to something else, and we have no choice but to go with what we pick. But the moment we pick is the moment we regard something as an absolute.

            –3d. Moral relativism is deceptive. It is a lie, nobody really means it. Everyone takes sides on the above issue because we all agree something is absolutely right. Nobody advocates moral relativism except as an excuse to do what they know is wrong.

            If moral relativism were real, then there would be a variety of different moral ideologies in the world. Instead there are only four: conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and authoritarians.

            –3e. Moral relativism is, above all else, half-baked. Nobody thinks through it completely. They’re in too much of a hurry to use it as an excuse. If they thought it through, they would see its problems.

          • Alex Hunter

            For the last time: I’m not Liberal. Just because I have an opinion does not mean I’m going to take sides. On any other issue I could just as easily agree with a Conservative.
            Men like Stalin and Bin Laden were once foetuses as well. They died so that the West could maintain its security. Their deaths also caused power vacuums that led to further destruction and poverty.
            Humanity is a threat because we breed and consume at the rate of an animal with a natural predator, yet we have none.
            If people really had a universal notion of what right and wrong are, then why do wars and oppression happen?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You A. support animal rights activism, B. support abortion, C. support environmentalism, D. oppose war, E. oppose the death penalty, and F. believe in global warming. You were saying something about not being liberal? If not a liberal, are you libertarian or authoritarian? How about moderate? Don’t give me the “not taking sides” B.S.. Having an opinion, in and of itself, is taking sides. The only “neutral” is the one who doesn’t care either way.

            If you’re implying that WWI, WWII, and so on were unjust causes because of the “power vacuums” they created, you’re pretty much implying that dictatorships are good. They’re better than nothing, but what system is better than a republic?

            “Men like Stalin and Bin Laden were once *fetuses as well. They died so that the West could maintain its security.” Yeah, the Jews didn’t benefit at all, and neither did good, law-abiding Muslims that are saddened by misuse of their religion. Really, do all non-conservatives (since you insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that you’re not a liberal) stereotype conservatives as that kind of people?

            Humans plant trees after they cut them down, they don’t kill animals except out of necessity (if we can’t use trees and animals, what’ll we use for food, clothes, etc.? Rocks? Each other?), endangered animals are being watched, and usage of fossil fuels is decreasing (conservatives believe fossil fuels along with other types of getting energy is OK). How are we threatening nature again? And how don’t we have a predator? There are dictators popping up every generation and murderers every few years, and millions of abortions globally every day. We are our own predator!

            Oppressive people usually make the excuse that they’re doing something good or right. If there were no universal standard of morality, they would make no excuse. Wars tend to happen to topple these oppressors, because a lot of people somewhere believe that oppression is wrong. If right and wrong aren’t absolute, why don’t you tolerate wars and oppression?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            No, they are not replaceable. They each have an utterly unique nucleotide sequence that will never happen again. Killing them is a tragedy before they’re born because they’re Not Even Given A Fighting Chance. And yes, that sounds not only callous but also inhuman. You, me, and every other moving and breathing homo sapiens are are all big advanced fetuses. Are you saying all humans are replaceable? Tell that to the woman who had her first and last kid just before menopause because of a disease she had.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            ….and taking the life of an unborn child is not also a life-changing decision?

  • The Advocate

    Children are blessings. In any way, shape or form, they deserve a right to live. It even says in the Declaration of Independence that “all men” (stress on “all men”-born and unborn alike) “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life…”. Notice how “life” is the very first right? Life is sacred. Life is beautiful. Life is one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, gift that God can ever give us. Every life has purpose and meaning. There is no one, and I mean NO ONE, that has the authority or the right to deem a life worthless. Just because abortion is legal, just because it’s convenient, doesn’t mean it’s right. It’s disheartening to see that people have become so focused on their own selfish desires that they believe they must slaughter our unborn by the hundred thousands in order to achieve them. Abortion IS murder. It’s genocide. Frankly, I don’t understand why “Pro-Choice” is called the way it is. The opposite of life is death. If you are against life, you support death. Call it like it is.

    • kathykattenburg

      “Children are blessings” is one of those sweet sayings that are not very well supported by reality. Children are not always felt to be blessings, and they are not always treated as if they are blessings. So declaring that children are blessings sounds nice but really has little meaning.

      • The Advocate

        It may have little meaning to you, because you and others don’t appreciate what you have. Speak for yourself.

        • kathykattenburg

          No, it has little meaning because you’re making a broad generalization that isn’t supported by simple observation. You cannot say that “children are blessings” because everywhere in the world around you, you should see evidence if your eyes are open that children are not treated like blessings. I have a daughter, and she is a blessing to me. But I’m not simple-minded enough to declare that “children are blessings” as if it were some universal principle that everyone shares.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            “Children are blessings” is a fact, not a feeling. It shows that one has successfully survived long enough to reproduce one’s genetic material (again, assuming evolution here), and furthermore, that you’re enough of a “catch” for someone to trust you with their offspring.

      • Andrew J. Corrales

        So you hate children, and you think hating children is OK?

        • kathykattenburg

          I don’t hate children, and I don’t think hating children is okay. Read what I wrote again, carefully and with thought, and ask yourself if what I wrote might suggest another meaning than the one you took from it.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            “Children are not always felt to be blessings, and they are not always treated as if they are blessings.” If a child is not being treated like a blessing, then that means the person has no particular soft spot for them. Using that as evidence that children aren’t blessings is like saying it’s OK to treat kids that way. Saying that kids aren’t blessings, in itself, implies such lack of feelings for kids in the heart of who says it.

            Treating kids wrong and “feeling” kids to not be blessings makes them no less so, it makes the person(s) who treats kids that way and/or feels that way insensitive (as if one person’s feelings dictates what’s true for everyone else, anyway).

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Hating children isn’t okay. Killing them is. Gotcha.

  • Daylynn

    It is said that between 10-12 percent of women can’t have children. That’s over 6 million women in the United States. All over the world is a far larger percentage. About 30 percent of women of the world have issues with getting pregnant.( I am one of them)

    • Alex Hunter

      That must be hard to have your options taken away from you. But imagine how much harder that would be to accept if abortion was made illegal when some women suffer from ectopic pregnancies?

      • kkay

        abortion has to do with intent… pro-lifers agree that when a woman’s life is in limbo, she may allow the life of the child to take secondary priority. She may also decide to allow both lives to end, or even sacrifice her own life for that of her child. When an ecoptic pregnancy happens, the intent of the procedure is to save the life of the mother, not to terminate the life of the baby.

        • kathykattenburg

          “pro-lifers agree that when a woman’s life is in limbo, she may allow the life of the child to take secondary priority.”

          No, pro-lifers do not agree with that. Take a look at some of the comments in this thread.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            I believe that you should as well.

            NO ONE is saying that every woman of this world must suddenly become martyrs during their pregnancy. “Pro-lifers” argue that ABORTION, in extreme cases where the mother is NOT dying from pregnancy complications, should never be an option.

            The ultimate sacrifice, whether in the case of pregnancy or not, is laying down one’s life for another. It is the personal choice, as it has always been, whether you sacrifice your life for another human being.

            It is, however, the current issue whether or not the unborn baby should sacrifice his/her life for that of a mother not facing impending and extreme health conditions.

      • Calvin Freiburger

        You really should try to familiarize yourself with these issues before spouting off. Virtually every pro-lifer in the country acknowledges the permissibility of what kkay describes below.

        • Alex Hunter

          if pro-lifers are able to make concessions in certain situations, then why try to take away the option that helps those who need it most? Isn’t that just replacing one form of Darwinism with another?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            We don’t support making it illegal in those certain cases. Actually, that certain case–ectopic pregnancies.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            I have no idea what you think you’re asking.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Pro-lifers sometimes accuse pro-deathers of eugenics, which is humans taking evolution into their own hands. He’s accusing us of eugenics, which is absurd, because A. like I already said, we’re more accommodating to abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancies and B. If abortion is illegal 100% and ectopic pregnancy mothers can’t have one, it is natural selection, and moreover it’s just that, NATURAL selection, evolution running its own course without humans guiding it.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            But again, I personally would not advocate forcing women with ectopic pregnancies to face their own untimely demise and that of their child.

          • musiciangirl591

            ectopic pregnancies aren’t actually technically pregnancies, because they are in the fallopian tubes

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Well, yeah they are in technical terms and principals, but extremely abnormal ones that are life-threatening.

          • musiciangirl591

            i thought i read that they aren’t, but i could be wrong

  • Defenestrate

    Yes guys, lets ban abortions, and prevent lung cancer patients from getting cancer treatment. They should of thought about lung cancer when they were smoking. Just like people need to learn that just because we have an option to fix a mistake doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it because you feel it is a life. There is no knowledge when life starts. Also most abortions are not that late. If you are against late term abortions so am I. Also birth control at a college for free helps. Guess she doesn’t really need all those credits or all those books. Also, sex is fun. Anyone that says they do it only for procreation is bull shitting you. Yes they should take precautions, but shit happens. Life happens. If we have a way to fix a mistake we should use it. Prove a fetus is a life with science.

    • Mamabear

      You are aware not all lung cancer patients were smokers, right? Only 80 to 85% were. Whereas 100% of the women who get pregnant had sex, well over 99% willingly.
      As I told someone above, I’ll pay for your birth control if you pay for my cancer treatments, Trust me, you do not want to take me up on that.
      If you are adult enough to have sex, you are adult enough to take responsibility that you or your partner use birth control, to realize that no birth control except abstinence is 100% effective, and to take responsibility for the consequences.

    • 1630

      It’s amazing how the proponents of abortion frequently equate abortion with disease. Conflating an unwanted pregnancy with cancer–it’s just another medical procedure after all–what an amazingly narrow exercise in logic, and a strikingly limited world view.
      Prove a fetus is a life with science? That’s even more anti-intellectual than comparing pregnancy to disease. How about simple, empirical, observation such as a heartbeat recorded and measured with a sonogram or a stethoscope? What level of scientific proof do you require? If you’re asking when does the divine spark enter a fetus, maybe that’s not a question for science to answer. But, I think at conception. Prove me wrong, Einstein.

      • princessjasmine45

        apparently these people are suffering under the delusion that cancer cells have their own DNA

        • 1630

          I had a mole once that seemed to take on a life of its own, but it was benign. I don’t know where that leaves me under the Defenestrate scientific method….

        • kathykattenburg

          The bacteria and other microorganisms inside your body have their own DNA.

          • princessjasmine45

            since when have bacteria and other microorganisms considered human?

          • kathykattenburg

            Read, princessjasmine. I didn’t say they were. I responded to what YOU said. You said that a cell has its own DNA, and I said that microorganisms inside the human body have their own DNA as well. It’s not an argument against abortion.

          • 1630

            What exactly is your point, Kathy? How do you want to weigh in here other than through deliberate obtuseness? Should we use the //sarc// modifier to make it easier to understand?

      • kathykattenburg

        How can you prove wrong a question that isn’t for science to answer?

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          Abstract reasoning.

    • princessjasmine45

      –“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

      “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

      Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

      -“Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”

      T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

      -“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

      Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

      -“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

      Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

      science’y’ enough for you? or do you need more? I have a feeling you’re one of those obdurate deniers….

  • Kesara

    I love stupid people… more so when their being stupid and -they- don’t even realize it… that’s what makes them funny.

  • MOJO

    USE BIRTH CONTROL OR CLOSE YOUR LEGS!

  • MOJO

    Why do women wait so long to have an abortion?The unborn baby looks like a baby,has a heartbeat,feels pain.Hello!

  • MOJO

    They cry my body,my body.But they’re not taking care of their bodies if they use abortion as birth control.

  • MOJO

    Pro-choice=selfish…Me,me,me.

    • kathykattenburg

      You’re selfish, too. Everyone is selfish. Calling abortion “selfish” is simple-minded.

      • esperanza.me.da.vida.

        how so? Isn’t your argument that abortion is simply a mechanism through which a woman can have her rights protected? That should the mother choose that her life is worth more than that of her unborn child, her right to end her pregnancy should be protected and respected?

        • kathykattenburg

          A woman has every right to choose her own life over her unborn child’s. And yes, her right to end her pregnancy should be protected. No one can force respect, but the right should be protected.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            Interesting. Yet in society, if another person “chooses their life over that of another” that is called murder. This system is built for us to respect others, but this respect should not be applied to the innocent unborn?

  • steveschenectady

    Reading the Comments below have provided a never-ending stream of: “dumbest things said in defense of abortion” This article could be a series of endless idiotic Pro-Abortion Statements. Their ignorance has no bounds.

    • musiciangirl591

      true that, its been an endless thumbs downing of comments for me :P

      • JDC

        Same here. I feel like there’s no point actually arguing with these people. But I do love down-voting.

        • musiciangirl591

          its so much fun

    • Marisa

      Their “arguments” remind me of those made by that guy who kidnapped the princess in The Princess Bride.

      • JDC

        Thanks for reminding me about how much I love that movie. :)

        • Basset_Hound

          That was what my (now) husband took me to see when we started dating.

          • JDC

            Cool! Come to think of it, re-watching The Princess Bride would probably be a better use of my time than reading these comments.

  • Frank Nizzo

    Abortion is nothing more than justified homicide in this instance… infantacide.

  • RMc

    Is passage through the birth canal what makes a person a person? (Or delivery via C-section?)

    Is it the severing of the umbilical cord?

    Is it the point at which the child is self-aware?

    Is it the point at which the mother and/or father decide they want the child?

    What makes a person a person, and one worthy of the right to life?

    Seriously, I’d like to hear what both sides have to say.

    • kathykattenburg

      The point at which a fetus becomes a person is birth. That doesn’t mean it was a “thing” before that. But it wasn’t a person.

      • esperanza.me.da.vida.

        so it is through the physical process of removing the baby from the body of the mother, that we are now allowed to respect the life of the child? Before then, the “entity” (which we have to come up with another name for) cannot be identified as a human being? interesting.

      • Andrew J. Corrales

        A person is a person, no matter how small. –Dr. Seuss

      • RMc

        So, passage through that “magical birth canal” is what makes a person a person?

        If a baby is born two months early and is placed into the NICU, is it really more of a person than one that is a week overdue and still in the womb?

        That just doesn’t sound right to me, and I’m sure many other people feel the same way. There simply has to be a different point at which a person becomes a person.

        I don’t mean to make you feel uncomfortable regarding your own abortions, but I can’t help but feel these arguments of yours are repeated more often to yourself than in debate with others, in order to deal with what otherwise would have been emotional trauma.

        • kathykattenburg

          A fetus becomes a person — legally and in my view morally — when it’s born. Whenever it’s born.

          • RMc

            I STRONGLY disagree with that position, but at least you are being honest with us. Thanks.

          • kathykattenburg

            You’re welcome.

  • esperanza.me.da.vida.

    Whether you disagree on the success of the government, it exists to protect our individual rights. I just cannot understand why babies, whether born or unborn, are seen by some as unable to “claim” this right, and are solely dispensable products whose existence relies on the decision of another person.

    I respect a person’s right to their coherent opinion, even if I strongly disagree, but with time, I do believe that like all other social changes of our history, we will live in a world where the rights (especially to life) of a human being is recognized without needing the consent from another person, or by passing “developmental checkpoints” determining when the body is connected to the soul and mind.

    • kathykattenburg

      Unborn babies are not individuals. They are inside the body of an individual. You cannot guarantee an unborn baby’s right to be born without incurring the consequence that the woman’s right to life is NOT guaranteed. There is simply no way around that, and you cannot make there be a way around it no matter how hard you try.

      • esperanza.me.da.vida.

        in·di·vid·u·al(n):a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.

        “Inside the body of an individual” implies that the unborn baby is a separate entity and body from that of his/her mother (distinct). Also, abortion is the termination of the life of the baby through physical means (indivisible).

        Also, Pro-life advocacy is NOT limited supporting the lives of unborn children. Being Pro-life means that I respect the right to life that each living being on this planet possesses, whether they are unborn, children, teenagers, adults, or the elderly.

        In fact, the process of abortion in itself is highly dangerous. Please refer to this article. http://liveactionnews.org/mother-releases-autopsy-pictures-of-18-year-old-daughter-who-died-from-abortion/

        • kathykattenburg

          “in·di·vid·u·al(n):a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.

          “Inside the body of an individual” implies that the unborn baby is a
          separate entity and body from that of his/her mother (distinct).”

          You just argued here against your own point of view. An individual IS a single being, and the unborn baby is NOT a separate entity and body from that of his or her mother. That’s the point.

          “In fact, the process of abortion in itself is highly dangerous. Please refer to this article.”

          LiveActionNews is anti-abortion. It’s a highly biased site. You cannot credibly use LiveActionNews to prove that the process of abortion is dangerous. I mean, that’s laughable. If I used Planned Parenthood or NARAL as a source to prove abortion is safe, you’d laugh too, right?

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            I thought you knew this, but when abortion is “successful” the body of the baby is taken from that of his/her mother. The mother, in most cases, continues living. (distinct). ALSO, as the baby develops his/her organs, they become even more distinguished from their mother. How many babies have you seen sharing a heart, lung, liver, or ANY OTHER organ with their mother? Anti-abortion = pro- life. You knew this when you clicked on the website.

            I do not laugh at matters concerning the respect and dignity of a human being.

          • kathykattenburg

            Fetuses do not share hearts and lungs with the mother, but the fetus does share the mother’s bloodstream and everything that enters it. The fetus does put stress on a woman’s heart and lungs and every other part of her body.

            I’m sorry, but as much as I respect your beliefs, you ARE trying to support your beliefs by referencing sources that laugh off the respect and dignity of human beings (women, in case you were unsure) everyday.

            The reason I used the term anti-abortion instead of pro-life is that anti-abortion is factually accurate; pro-life is not. I also refer to “pro-life” in quotes sometimes and I use the term pro-birthers, and sometimes I use the term anti-abortion. I’m perfectly well aware of the ideology on this site regarding women’s reproductive rights. You don’t have to worry about that.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            I found sources that combat your claim that abortion is in fact beneficial to overall maternal health. Whether or not you believe that abortion is destroying a life, you will not find a credible source that will honestly say that, except in cases of extreme medical situations, the process of abortion is more beneficial to maintaining the health of the female body, than carrying out the pregnancy.

            Women, and men, are exposed many different biological, environmental, and mental stressors daily, so advocating abortion, does not eliminate the other stressors, that cannot be avoided whether or not you choose to end the life of the unborn.

          • kathykattenburg

            Esperanza, I did not say that abortion is “beneficial” to a woman’s body. I did not say that pregnancy is beneficial to a woman’s body. I said that abortion is less dangerous for a woman than full-term pregnancy and childbirth. Especially the earlier in the pregnancy the abortion is done, and especially when the mother is a teenager or younger.

            “Beneficial” does not mean “safe.” Safe is a lesser standard than beneficial. Beneficial mean it’s actually good for you. Safe means it can’t harm you.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Evolution dictates that if reproduction happens a certain way, the species will adapt and will suffer no species-threatening (and few individual-threatening) effects or possibilities from it, and since evolution is pro-reproduction, the method of reproducing will have health benefits, and any attempt to interrupt the process of reproducing will yield threats to health.

            If abortion is less dangerous or more beneficial than live birth, then evolution isn’t working right.

            Creation dictates that even though as a result of the Fall women have pain in childbirth, it doesn’t mean that childbirth will always take their lives.

            If abortion is less dangerous or more beneficial than live birth, then creation isn’t working right.

            No matter what you believe, there is no biological grounds for believing that abortion is better or live birth is worse, and there is no excuse in any scientific subject for abortion.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            If you are implying that abortion is safe to the body of a women, you are highly mistaken.

          • kathykattenburg

            Abortion certainly is safe when it’s done by a qualified medical professional. Of course, safe does not mean risk-free. Pregnancy is not risk-free either. But abortion, especially early in the pregnancy and when the mother is very young, is most definitely safER than full-term pregnancy and childbirth.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            Abortion and pregnancy both pose health risks to mother and the unborn child (whom you may chose to refer to as “fetus”).

            The only difference is that you are purposefully ending a life in an abortion, and putting yourself at risk for complications. In a pregnancy there are bountiful resources to ensure the health of both mother an child. referring to pregnancy as putting the health of a woman in danger, is a sad view on a beautiful power only a woman holds.

          • kathykattenburg

            I agree that abortion and pregnancy both have health risks associated with them. Any medical procedure or event does.

            Abortion does not put a woman at any more risk for complications if done by a qualified professional and considerably less risk than some other medical procedures about which there is no controversy at all.

            “referring to pregnancy as putting the health of a woman in danger, is a sad view on a beautiful power only a woman holds.”

            Well, okay, but it does. Pregnancy is a health-related and medical-related event. It may be a beautiful power only a woman holds, but it’s still a health-related event. There is still some amount of risk in every pregnancy, beautiful power though it may be.

            Only a man can impregnate a woman, but there are risks to having sex, especially for men who are not in good physical shape. A man’s power to use his penis and his sperm to impregnate a woman may be a beautiful power only a man has, but a man’s penis can also be used as a weapon against a woman, and there are health risks associated with having a penis (penile cancer being one of them).

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            I refuse to look at natural life as full of “health-related events”. Pregnancy is a natural process, abortion is not. If anything, abortion is a riskier “medical procedure”. http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/11

          • kathykattenburg

            Refuse all you like. I refuse to believe that my wonderful cat will ever die, but I still had to euthanize her last week. All living things can be harmed, and all living things die. If life were not full of health-related events, no one would die.

            Pregnancy is a natural process, but women do die in childbirth. Ageing is a natural process, but one does have to take more prescriptions, go to the doctor more often, and be more alert for health problems when you’re 63 than when you’re 23.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            I fear you have begun to deviate from the severity of this issue.

            Abortion is an unnatural process, and while the baby definitely dies, the mother does not always survive either.

          • kathykattenburg

            Abortion is no more an unnatural process than is removing someone’s kidney or implanting a pacemaker in someone’s chest.

            The mother is less likely to survive an abortion if she sticks a coathanger in her vagina or persuades her partner to kick and hit her stomach or drinks a bottle of bleach than if she has the abortion done by a quaiified doctor.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Both removing kidneys and putting in pacemakers are unnatural in that they are artificial.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            removing a kidney and inserting a pacemaker has direct and beneficial effects to the person undergoing the procedure. Justifying the murder of a child when there is no clear and imminent health risks by using these examples is very confusing.

          • kathykattenburg

            It’s not for YOU or for anyone but the woman and her doctor to determine or decide what is a clear and imminent health risk and what is not. Moreover, you don’t have the right to force a woman to accept health risks just because they’re NOT imminent.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            If she doesn’t want the health risks that come with a pregnancy, why is she having sex?

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            what?? Common sense suggests that indeed, if a woman is DYING due to pregnancy related issues, the course of action would be determined between the woman and her doctor.
            A doctor who suggests abortion in cases otherwise, should have their medical license revoked, because they only serve to harm

          • kathykattenburg

            A woman does not have to be bleeding to death on an ER table before she has the right to an abortion and before her doctor has the right to diagnose a health problem that if not treated will result in death or serious physical harm. You have no right to tell a woman when her health requires an abortion or to tell a doctor when he can do his job and when he can’t.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            I am not debating that a doctor should have the best interests of their patient in mind at all times. I am only pointing out that they too should not abandon their moral mindset.

          • kathykattenburg

            They should not abandon their moral mindset, defining morality the way you would? Moral mindset is personal and individual by definition. Your morals and values are not the same as mine (to put it mildly).

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            It has its own unique DNA, which is half derived from its father, and the dependence on the mother is temporary. It is an individual.

          • kathykattenburg

            Having its own DNA does not make a fetus an individual. Neither does its dependence on the mother being temporary change the fact that while the fetus IS inside the woman’s body, it’s inside her body. You can’t justify taking away someone’s body rights by saying “it’s just temporary.”

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You can’t justify shedding innocent blood–the most innocent blood in the universe, more so than an infant’s, and more helpless and dependent, too– because you think that the unborn child is inconvenient. That’s treating unborn kids like house pests, despite the fact that They’re The Future Of The World.

            And yes you can. It has its own unique DNA, it has its own organs apart from the mother’s, and it’s only borrowing the mother’s body, and will return it’s mother’s body later. If you got a DVD from Redbox, you wouldn’t want whoever owns Redbox to come after you with malicious intentions.

          • kathykattenburg

            No one has the right to “borrow” anything from me without my permission, much less my body. Women’s bodies are not plexiglass incubators. They’re not cardboard boxes that you can put something in and then take it out with no change to or effect on the box. And you cannot force a woman to have a baby by reducing her right to her own life to a “convenience.”

            I have no idea what Redbox is.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You give an unborn child permission to borrow your body when you have sex. And nobody said anything about reducing a woman’s life to a “convenience.” I did say that pro-abortion people tend to justify abortion with saying that it’s not convenient.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            And Redbox is like a DVD vending machine (it sits around Wal-Mart and/or Walgreens and everything!) for DVD’s but requires the movie be returned. Eight bucks a day, if I remember right.

          • musiciangirl591

            its 1.20 a day i think

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Yeah, something like that. My bad.

          • musiciangirl591

            i just rented a movie yesterday, thats how i know

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I should really rent movies more often…

          • musiciangirl591

            i rented the dark knight rises yesterday, it was really good

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Yes! Excellent movie!

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            And may I reiterate the question, If A Fetus Is Not A Person, Then What Is It?

          • Mary Lee

            Yes. Having one’s own DNA makes the fetus (as you call him or her) an individual. You know who says that? Biologists.

          • kathykattenburg

            No, sorry, they don’t.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Yes they do. The fact that you think they don’t confirms that you’re not a scientist.

          • kathykattenburg

            And you are a scientist, I take it.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Not professional, but at least I’m not denying what scientists say.

          • kathykattenburg

            LOL. I’m not professional either, but at least I’m not making false statements about what scientists say.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Neither am I! What a coincidence!

          • kathykattenburg

            My point is that your answer begged the question. “I’m not a professional scientist but I don’t deny what scientists say” begs the question of whether they actually do say what you claim they say.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            They do. Think, kathykattenburg! The following is based on empirical scientific research: A tissue is a group of cells with a single function that contributes towards the rest of the organism. Fetuses therefore aren’t just tissues. They don’t contribute towards the mother, even at self-risk, and the cells of a fetus have multiple and diverse functions geared toward the fetus’ good. A fetus is an entire organism, and since it has its own unique DNA, it’s its own organism. It may be 100% dependent for now, but it will eventually grow to be an intelligent, responsible adult that can make decisions and make a difference in the world. It’s a person, and it has the right to be alive.

          • kathykattenburg

            It’s inside a woman’s uterus. That means it’s a health-related condition and the woman has the right to control her own health care. Period.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            It has its own DNA and its own organs. It is not an organ or tissue as part of the woman, it is a person dependent on the woman.

          • kathykattenburg

            It’s inside the woman’s body. It’s not a person, and it’s not dependent on the woman the way a baby or child is. It TAKES from the woman’s body and DOES to the woman’s body. You cannot force me to put or keep something in my body that makes me throw up every day, affects my respiratory and cardiac system, puts me at risk for diseases like diabetes or epilepsy or makes those conditions worse if I already have them, etc., etc. You just can’t.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You’re right, I can’t, I don’t even have to, when a woman has sex, she does it to herself.

            And the fact that it takes from a woman’s body and does things to said body, with contributing anything in return, proves my point. If it were an organ or tissue as part of the woman’s body, there would be no taking or doing to. It must therefore be an entire other organism, a temporary parasite, but a human and one with unique DNA. It is therefore a person.

          • kathykattenburg

            Who said a fetus was an organ or tissue? And having sex does not constitute a woman’s agreement to have a child. Any more than having sex constitutes a man’s agreement to stay with the woman and be a father.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Having kids is what sex is there for. If people will just abstain until they want to be a parent, then abortion will not be necessary, debated, or even done.

            And if a fetus is not a person, then what is it?

          • kathykattenburg

            “Having kids is what sex is there for.”

            That’s utter bullshit. Sex is a natural, completely normal human need. People cannot exist or function if they can never express love in an intimate physical way. “If people will just abstain until they want to be a parent,” first of all, as I just said before, is ridiculous because it assumes everyone WILL want to be a parent. You’re saying, in effect, that if you don’t want to be a parent, or never meet someone you’d want to have a child with, you shouldn’t have sex. Ever. From, say, age 18 to age 95,whenever you die. No sex. That’s beyond outrageous.

            And second, not wanting a child is not always the reason for an abortion. Married couples who want a child do get abortions, too. There ARE other circumstances. I had two abortions of pregnancies I really wanted because the fetuses had a fatal genetic disease that I had already lost one child to, she died when she was 3. You’re not allowing for the full range of human experience and circumstances.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Nope, it’s not utter bull$#!+. I agree that it’s natural and normal, but guess what? I’m a virgin, and I haven’t gone crazy yet. No violent attempts on people’s lives, no criminal record, no pills, no straitjackets, no shrinks, no padded rooms, no anything they do to crazies. And on top of that, I still exist. This implies and/or proves that people can exist and function without sex.

            Another thing that does so is the fact that despite a few bad occurrences that happen from time to time, most Catholic priests and monks in the world aren’t pedophiles (if anyone tells you otherwise, they’re intolerant bigots who stereotype people, and I’m not kidding. You can’t and shouldn’t put an entire demographic group in one descriptor unless most of them fit that descriptor).

            And on top of that, thinking that sex isn’t for reproducing is like saying eating isn’t for nourishment, walking isn’t for going places, grabbing isn’t for obtaining small things, and flushing the toilet isn’t for getting rid of excretions. All 5 statements are equally absurd.

            And if someone never wants to be a parent, yes, ethics dictates that they should stay virgin all their lives. I’m delighted that you understand my argument. Now let’s work on your sense of Ethics, Responsibility, and Moral Obligations to All Blood Relatives, Including Ones That You’re Pregnant With. Lesson 1: if someone does not want a child and keeps having irresponsible sex, they’ll eventually get one, whether they like it or not. The question is, will they kill it before it can speak for itself, or will they put it up for adoption, so they don’t have to keep it and it still gets the right to be alive that it has whether pro-death people believe it or not.

            And I realize that pregnancy developmental problems happen, but they’re extremely rare. Evolution (which you seem to believe in) weeds out unfavorable variations, which include such pregnancy complications. Remember that one person’s experiences does not define an entire universe of truth, which is why scientists like publishing their work so other scientists can duplicate it. There is only one circumstance under which I’d even empathize with abortion, and that’s ectopic pregnancies. Killing a fetus that has a condition that will be fatal after birth because it has that condition is eugenics, which is taking evolution into our own hands and has led to all kinds of evil, and deserves more of a trophy for such than the love of money.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            And running a red light isn’t an “agreement” to cause a pile-up. Doesn’t mean you don’t have responsibility for your actions.

          • Mary Lee

            Something? You mean “someone” and that is your own child. You put him or her there. You have no right to kill your son or daughter. EVER.

            Yeah, pregnancy is so fatal, that’s why women are dropping dead from it all the time. Pregnancy is NOT A DISEASE. The answer is not to kill your own baby. They are not parasites. They are OUR BABIES. They are no more parasites than a newborn, or toddler, or teenager. Pregnancy is not a disease that needs to be cured. Our unborn children aren’t “things.” Pro-aborts resent babies. They RESENT their own unborn children. They HATE them. It’s disturbing.

          • kathykattenburg

            What would you say if I told you that anti-aborts resent women, HATE them. What if I told you that I find that disturbing. What would you say?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I’d say B fricking S. Calling conservatives sexist is the worst argument for your case and it’s a sign that you’re losing and you’re desperate.

            As I wrote below, liberals are more sexist than conservatives. They put women under more pressure (to excel at both girl things and boy things, and to be perfect, and to be always pretty), demand special treatment for women (you can’t hit a girl!), tell women that they’re underdogs, and force women to think one way (don’t vote Republican! They’re greedy racist sexist homophobic gun-toting religious fanatics! And don’t you dare ask if we’re stereotyping them, or if we’re really being factual! If you even question us, you’re brainwashed by THEM!), and then they go cheat on their wives (JFK, Ted Kennedy (probably), Jerry Springer, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Jesse Jackson, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Gavin Newsom, Kwame Kilpatrick, Mel Reynolds, Tim Mahoney, Antonio Villaraigosa, James McGreevey, Neil Goldschmidt, and Gary Hart), and expect them to like it (will the Muslims ever let Weiner’s wife divorce him? Why didn’t Hillary ditch Bill? And so on), and Never Are Forced To Take Responsibility By The Democrats.

            There is an equally long list of Republicans that cheat, but Republicans Usually Ditch Them Really Fast. Or else they take responsibility for their own actions and accept the consequences like Men, or both, and/or reconciled, or divorced, but none I know of force their betrayed wives to simply endure it. Such good ones include Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Chip Pickering, John Ensign, Vito Fossella, Dan Crane, and David Vitter.

            Republicans who acted stupid include Larry Craig, Don Sherwood, Ed Shrock, Donald Lukens, and Dan Burton. I noticed that the Wikipedia articles on them are really short.

            Republicans come after politicians of their own party that they don’t like. They’re the political party that reforms itself. And since they don’t support women having irresponsible sex with abortion if necessary, you can’t exactly accuse them of having their minds in the gutter. Also, Republicans tell nobody they’re underdogs. As an example, Republicans were formed for the express purpose of abolishing slavery, and Nixon accomplished integration in one year.

            Whereas Democrat men think women are sex trophies. That’s why they have all those things! Women are put under the pressure of mastering two worlds (girls’ and guys’) to make them more of a prize! You can’t hit a girl because trophies are suppose to look good! Same reason for the Hollywood liberals telling you that you have to look good and act slutty! And women have to be convinced that they’re underdogs who need to fight back! To Dem politicians, they’re voting blocs! And they can’t change parties, that would contribute towards removing Democrats from power! And finally, if they don’t support abortion, then Democrat male politicians can’t have affairs with them! And if they ditch their husbands because of the affair, that would mean the Democrat guy has one less lady to copulate with!

            And in any case, it can be proven that leftists hate children too. They support murdering them before they’ve had a chance to enjoy and suffer and change life, they support explaining sex to them in a “non-mystifying” (read: disgustingly explicit) way, support disarming teachers (who now can’t defend against school shooters), and oppose vouchers for private schools (which takes away kids’ opportunities for good educations, I didn’t get a lot out of public school, and I live in a red state. It’s that bad).

            Leftists are just against reproducing. They support same-sex marriage and oppose heterosexual marriage, they support abortion and oppose adoption and teachers protecting kids, and use sex ed and public school to make kids’ lives miserable, they tell women they should be courtesans, and they support donating embryos to research that isn’t going anywhere.

          • Me

            Quite a few of them ARE women, many of them young, too.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            I would say you were committing premeditated defamation.

          • Griffonn

            And how did it get inside that body?

            If I bring a dog into my house, do I have the right to blame the dog for being there?

            Does that justify me perpetrating a gruesome death upon that dog?

            Not sure why a baby is worthy of less protection than a dog.

          • Griffonn

            Nonsense; health care is about maintaining or restoring healthy bodily functions. If, for the sake of convenience, you want to pervert normal bodily functions, that’s not health care.

            A birth control pill is health care if you take it for medical reasons, but not if you take it for the purpose of preventing your body from doing what healthy bodies do. Likewise, cosmetic surgery is health care if the goal is to reconstruct a face after an accident, but not if you just want a different nose.

            Circumcision is health care if you do it to prevent risk of disease, but not if you do it for religious reasons. Note I am not opposed to circumcision for religious reasons – but it’s not honest to call it medical. That it involves a body part does not change that fact.

            And the uterus is not special. If for some perverse reason you wanted a tattoo on your uterus, that would not be health care.

          • Ella Warnock

            I certainly never thought my uterus was special. That’s why I never “used” it.

          • Mecz

            Why are you here, Kathy? Honestly, why does it upset you so much that a human life inside the womb should get just as much attention and right to life as that of the mother? A mother-to-be’s life is rarely at risk when she has a new human life growing inside of her. If it is, the best way to approach such a situation is by figuring out a way for both the mother and the unborn baby to survive. The mother may choose to sacrifice her life for the sake of the new life inside of her. Or it may be possible that there is no chance of survival for her baby, and what follows is important. The baby may be at her zygote or embryo stage and he or she deserves to be removed in a respectful manner. In a way that the body is not harmed. That way you respect the unborn baby’s dignity. Kathy, carrying an unborn baby to term is a selfless act. An act that requires the mother to put herself second out of love. But in this individualistic world, allowing others to depend on you, and you to depend on others is a hard thing to do. Being pregnant is an opportunity to experience and practice unconditional love. It is what our society needs and goes crazy over on the news when we witness others performing selfless acts and call him or her a “hero.”

          • kathykattenburg

            “A mother-to-be’s life is never at risk when she has a new human life growing inside of her.”

            This is why I’m here. Forget everything else you wrote. THIS is why I’m here.

          • Mecz

            Why are you choosing to ignore everything else I wrote? Also, before you commented to quote me, I changed it to “rarely”. I’m assuming you disliked that I put “never”. We can at agree that risks do occur. So, do you agree with the rest of the statement I made? Do you agree that the unborn deserves the same attention and dignity as the mother? Is it not true that being a pregnant mother is a selfless act? Is it not true that a mother has to be selfless for the sake of her children, born and unborn?

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.
          • kathykattenburg

            The first and second linked sites are not unbiased. They have a very obvious “pro-life” slant.

            The other two are definitely unbiased. Very respectable, reputable sites. And neither one of them says that abortion is more dangerous than full-term pregnancy and childbirth. In fact, the first one debunks the myth that abortions are associated with increased for breast cancer.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            Then please, I ask you to support your own opinion. I have done my part of provide sources which you continue to deem invalid, even when they soley report the SCIENTIFIC aspect of abortion. Where is your source?

          • kathykattenburg

            My source for what? The second set of links you provided *already* support my point that abortion is not more dangerous for women than pregnancy. I just told you that.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            “Abortion is not safer than full-term pregnancy and childbirth. Less than one in ten thousand pregnancies results in the mother’s death. [1] Government statistics indicate that the chances of death by abortion are even less. But while deaths from childbirth are accurately reported, many deaths by legal abortion are not. This completely skews the statistics. Furthermore, “abortion actually increases the chance of maternal death in later pregnancies.” [2] This means that some maternal deaths in full-term pregnancies are actually caused by earlier abortions, which creates a double inaccuracy.

            But even if abortion did result in fewer maternal deaths, that wouldn’t make it safer. The nonfatal but significant complications of abortion are much more frequent and serious than those of full-term pregnancy.”

            http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/11

          • kathykattenburg

            Sigh. That is a PRO-LIFE site, Esperanza.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            Kathy, it being pro-life does not mean it skews it FACTS and information.

          • kathykattenburg

            Unfortunately, it does.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            …..fact
            /fakt/

            Noun
            A thing that is indisputably the case.

            Facts are, by common definition, indisputable.

          • kathykattenburg

            I’m aware of that. :-)

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            yet you continue to say that the facts presented on these websites are invalid solely because you are unable to find equally valid sources to retaliate?

          • kathykattenburg

            Nope. Didn’t say that.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            “The first and second linked sites are not unbiased. They have a very obvious “pro-life” slant.”

          • kathykattenburg

            “The second two linked sites are definitely unbiased. Very reputable, respectable sites.”

            SIGGGHHH.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            There is no need for superfluous comments when debating this issue. Opinions are more likely to be respected if they are not presented in a demeaning manner. Just a note.

          • kathykattenburg

            You’re less likely to get them if you do not argue dishonestly and disingenuously, leaving out relevant information to imply your opponent said something they didn’t say. Just sayin’.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            Name one dishonest argument I have said thus far.

            I valued your opinion much more when we were able to debate before the name calling.

            We are not opponents, we are human being discussing Life.

          • kathykattenburg

            Then let’s stop debating. Because you told me I hadn’t provided sources to support an argument when I had told you I agreed with two of the sources YOU provided.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            I am a pro-life, Catholic, and pro-love. Each of these characteristics is independent of the others and I live my life in a way where I am not afraid to discuss opinions with others. When debating, I strive to present facts upfront so that I am more credible.

            I respect the opinions of the other individuals on this planet, but it just saddens me to see so many women and unborn children caught in the crossfire.

            Thi is my personal belief, and you are welcome to your own.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Then find equally valid sources! If you’re so right, then there should be more people than (corrupt) politicians and (comparatively) uneducated celebrities and (whiny) mobs to back you up!

    • kathykattenburg

      Babies ARE unable to claim the right to be born, and they don’t claim it.

      • esperanza.me.da.vida.

        “claim the right to be born”?? I have never heard this used in a valid argument on abortion before. Thank you for blowing my mind.

        • kathykattenburg

          esperanza to me: “I just cannot understand why babies, whether born or unborn, are seen by some as unable to “claim” this right….”

          I took from this the implication that you think babies ARE able to claim this right. I’m sorry to have blown your mind.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Rights aren’t things to be claimed. According to the Declaration of Independence, all people are “endowed” with them “by our Creator” who made them “unalienable.” Rights are part of who we are. Unborn children included. They shouldn’t have to “claim” the right to be alive, it should be assumed by all parties involved and respected as such.

          • kathykattenburg

            No, Andrew, unborn children are NOT included in those inalienable rights. The Constitution CLEARLY defines “person” as someone who was born. A fetus is not a person.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            http://constitutionus.com/
            please tell me which section you are referring to.

            Also, the Constitution had allowed slavery, before it was amended. Social changes take time, and the Constitution adapts to support this change. The Pro-life movement is not going away.

          • kathykattenburg

            The 14th Amendment, very first sentence.

            As to your second point, I don’t disagree that the Constitution is adaptable to historical and societal changes. But as the Constitution stands now, fetuses are not persons.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ” No where does this state that an unborn person, or a person not born or naturalized in the United States is any less of a human being.

          • kathykattenburg

            Esperanza, it clearly implies that a person is defined as someone who has been born. It doesn’t say that a fetus is less of a person or less of a human being, it does not say anything at all about what fetuses are or are not. And it doesn’t say anything about anyone being less than a human being because that is not the subject being discussed. It’s about WHO IS A CITIZEN. Not who is a human being. And a CITIZEN is anyone who was BORN in the U.S. or NATURALIZED in the U.S.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Even non-citizens have rights, as long as they’re here legally according to federal and international agreements. Fetuses are here legally. Why do they get the death penalty?

          • kathykattenburg

            Non-citizens are persons. Fetuses are not persons.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Fetuses are persons that are also temporarily non-citizens.

          • kathykattenburg

            Not according to the Consitution. Sorry.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Yes according to the Constitution, as well as the Declaration and science and reason and common sense. I dare you to find a professional biologist and argue to them that fetuses aren’t people.

          • kathykattenburg

            I dare you to find a professional biologist who says that they are. I mean, your argument is sophomoric. It doesn’t prove anything.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I won’t have to look hard, they all say that fetuses are people.

          • kathykattenburg

            Fine, I’m not from Missouri but I’ll say show me anyway.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I dared you to look for a biologist that won’t admit that fetuses are people, you show me.

            I will show one article, because I’m nicer than I debate.

          • Mecz

            Science matters. A fetus is a human, and like all humans, they deserve the right to life.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            “implies”? you are basing the foundation of your argument of whether or not someone has the right to live, on an implication?

            You said “The Constitution CLEARLY defines “person” as someone who was born.” but it does not.

          • kathykattenburg

            That’s a distinction without a difference, in this context. The Constitution does not say “a person is someone who is born” but it does say “a citizen is a person who was born or naturalized….” and I think the implication there is pretty clear to anyone with reasonably good reading comprehension.

            On the other hand, the Constitution is completely silent on fetuses. Doesn’t say anything at all about them. And yet you are proposing to take away a woman’s reproductive rights based on a contention that is neither stated OR implied in the Constitution.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            Do you base all of your moral judgments on whether or not they make an appearance in the constitution?

            As to the “distinction” on the difference between a “person”, a “citizen” and an unborn baby, do you not expect to be respected and treated equally regardless of your location on this planet?

          • kathykattenburg

            “Do you base all of your moral judgments on whether or not they make an appearance in the constitution?”

            No. Why would you think I do?

            “As to the “distinction” on the difference between a “person”, a
            “citizen” and an unborn baby, do you not expect to be respected and
            treated equally regardless of your location on this planet?”

            Being inside a human being’s body as opposed to being outside a human being’s body is not the same as being in China as opposed to being in England.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            “I don’t disagree that the Constitution is adaptable to historical and societal changes. But as the Constitution stands now, fetuses are not persons.”

            I do not understand your analogy.
            Are you familiar with the term “symbiosis?”

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            It does imply that you can be a person without being born, just not a citizen.

          • kathykattenburg

            No, Andrew, it says or implies nothing about not being born. It says you’re a citizen of the U.S. if you were born in the U.S. or if you went through a legal process to become a citizen. That’s what it says.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            And it IMPLIES (=not explicitly) that you can be a person without being born, just not a citizen.

          • kathykattenburg

            No, it does not imply that, Andrew. It simply doesn’t. And I know what imply means.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            It states, word for word, that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Hence, if a person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not naturalized as a citizen, they can be a non-citizen if they’re not born.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            No, it defines citizens as people born or naturalized in the United States. You can be a person without being a United States citizen. And it does not define “citizen” as someone conceived in the United States because A. back then, if a man and a woman had sex, they usually kept the baby alive and everyone assumed that would happen. If you were conceived you were also born, and B. It’s hard to keep track of who’s conceived where anyway.

            “A fetus is not a person,” said the American Liberal Democrat. “Jews, gays, blacks, Asians, Catholics, and Native Americans are not people,” said every white supremacist ever. Guess what? Animals, trees, and rivers aren’t people either, and liberals care more about them than about their own unborn posterity.

          • kathykattenburg

            “No, it defines citizens as people BORN or naturalized in the United States.”

            “A. back then, if a man and a woman had sex, they usually kept the baby
            alive and everyone assumed that would happen. If you were conceived you
            were also born, and B. It’s hard to keep track of who’s conceived where
            anyway?”

            Born means born, Andrew. And actually, abortion was extremely common in the U.S. (and before it was the U.S.) in the 18th century and first half of the 19th.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Exactly where do you get your information? Most Americans and Europeans back then were Christians, and Islam was, like today, the official religion of the Middle East and Saharan Africa. Most people globally were pro-life. If abortion was “extremely common,” then nobody today would worry about overpopulation. They’d want it.

            And again, it’s hard for the government to keep track of where you were conceived. That’s why conception is not mentioned. The Constitution doesn’t define “person,” it defines “citizenship.”

          • erudite_recondite_eremite

            Thirty-five (35) states currently recognize the “unborn child” (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim,
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            I welcome the coherent sharing of ideas and opinions.

            I do not believe that unborn children should have to “claim a right to be born”, nor do I believe that any person must “claim the right” be be equally respected by others.

          • kathykattenburg

            I agree that women should not have to claim a right to their own bodies and lives. I agree that babies and children should not have to claim a right to be loved and cared for. I don’t think the assertion that a fetus should not have to claim a right to be born means anything given that a fetus *can’t* claim such a right whether it wanted to or not. And it can’t want to or not want to, either. Those terms are just not meaningful when you’re talking about a fetus.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            Here is my point: No human being, whether born or unborn, should have to satisfy the minds of others, by declaring that they possess the right to live. Children under the age of 3 are incapable of declaring such a proclamation, yet we instinctively protect their lives, and do not condone a murder of a born baby.

          • kathykattenburg

            Children under the age of 3 are nevertheless able to communicate their wish to be safe, to be unharmed, to have their basic needs met. They CAN claim that right. And they do.

            Fetuses cannot claim any right or anything at all.

            I agree that no woman should have to claim her basic rights as a human being.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            this verbal reassurance is for the benefit of whom? why do we need to hear a verbal proclamation before we can respect a life?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Again, neither should a fetus. An unborn child’s right to live should be assumed by all, since it exists outside of anybody’s ability to say anything for or against it.

          • kathykattenburg

            “… since it exists outside of anybody’s ability to say anything for or against it,” is just a restatement of your belief. It’s not a supporting argument.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I have few beliefs. I was stating an objective fact: that the truth exists in its own right, and nobody can change the truth by simply denying it. And the truth is that according to science, fetuses are people, therefore they have rights, therefore they shouldn’t have to claim the right to be alive, it should just be acknowledged and complied with.

  • Mike

    Absolutely brilliant!

  • Mike Ackermann

    The pseudo-feminists use the destruction of motherhood as their #1 banner issue, whereas true feminists do just the opposite: They hold up motherhood as the absolute essence of being a woman.

    • kathykattenburg

      Actually, most women who have abortions are already mothers. Sixty-one percent of women who have or have had an abortion have at least one child at the time of their abortion. So your definition of feminism is crap.

      • esperanza.me.da.vida.

        I believe this is in reference to your argument that abortion is protecting the rights of women by giving them a “choice”. Mike, please correct me if I’m wrong, but you are saying that being pro-life instead recognizes the individuality and beauty of a woman in her power and ability to have life grow inside of her, so therefore this miracle should be protected by society and the government.

      • Mike Ackermann

        I stand corrected. 61% 0f American women who have abortions have already one or more children.

        This is from:

        http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

        WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

        • Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers;
        those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain
        11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.[6]

        • Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions;
        women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29
        obtain 24%.[6]

        • Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic
        black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races
        for 9%.[6]

        • Thirty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant and 28% as Catholic.[6]

        • Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions [6]

        • About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children. [6]

        • Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below
        100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no
        children).[6]

        • Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6]

        • The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their
        understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life.
        Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other
        individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths
        say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability
        to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single
        parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]

  • sh04

    Anyone on here ever think of applying Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” to this issue? Basically, it says that if you think something should be “legal” or “right,” then you must be able to apply it universally (all people must do it all the time) without arriving at a logical contradiction. An example would be: Someone says, “Stealing should be right/legal.” If you apply this universally, however, you realize that in a world where everyone steals all the time, then there is actually no such thing as personal property to steal in the first place. Similarly, if you apply abortion universally (everyone who is pregnant has an abortion) you eventually end up in a world where there are no people to get pregnant or have an abortion. If it is not right/logical for an entire population to act a certain way all the time, why should it be ok for individuals to act that way? (A non-religious argument against abortion)

    • 1630

      Great point, but I think that the pro-choice crowd are Benthamites instead. The greatest happiness for the greatness number (defined as pro-abortion feminists — fetuses, pro-life women, and men need not apply).

      Wasn’t Kant a virgin for his entire life….does that disqualify him? Kind of like the Pope…”You no play-uh the game, you no make-uh the rules.”

    • Alex Hunter

      That just sounds like forcing people to either breed or kill each other.

      • Andrew J. Corrales

        How? Pro-death eaters and other liberals use the “carry-things-to-extremes” logic all the time. Your argument just sounds like you don’t understand your own side’s logic.

        • Alex Hunter

          I’m hardy Liberal. I support a small government, just not one so small it fits inside a uterus.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I’m not sure where my comment went, but small government doesn’t make you conservative.

  • Michael Deleon

    I get being against it, I really do, but why does she have to insult “pro-aborters” so much? I’ve read this whole page, and it is all one-sided. I do not like the idea of abortion, but I believe a person should have their CHOICE. I believe in America, where we have choices. Whether they are stupid, weird, good, or healthy. I don’t like knowing a life was taken like this, but the choice is the person’s to make, not other people’s.

    • Andrew J. Corrales

      So if someone chose to take his mother’s gun, kill her, go to a nearby elementary school, and kill dozens of students, it’s OK, because this is America? Why do liberals whine about liberty and rights but despise justice when it conflicts with their interests? Conservatives don’t have to worry about that, our views are based on balancing liberty with justice.

      • Michael Deleon

        Oh yes, because those are the exact same thing. Stick to the topic.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          Abortion is destroying a human life, no less than mass killing. There are two things you must establish to refute my statement: either prove that unborn children are somehow not really alive, or that they’re somehow not human.

    • Calvin Freiburger

      Because they’re dishonest, vicious narcissists, and their dishonest, vicious narcissism is responsible for bloodshed of the innocent on massive scale.

      • Alex Hunter

        And if you cut us we bleed straw.
        Don’t shoot a lizard and then claim you’ve slain a dragon.

  • Monkone

    I’m only here out of curiosity as an old friend of mine is a pro-lifer and I’m constantly being spammed with anti-abortion info, some of it worth reading, and propaganda, like this. It’s encouraging the idea that people pro-abortion are idiots. Which is propaganda. Don’t get me wrong, these 10. comments are indeed daft. Laughable. I’ve seen the same kind of propaganda used against the anti-abortionists, and I find it daft when people get swept along in that too.

    Either way such ideal marketing tends to be worth nothing more than the chuckle it elicits. People say dumb stuff, haha.

    Truthfully I don’t much care about the whole pro vs anti abortion to and fro. Different people have different arbitrary points where they stop seeing a fetus as just a fertilized egg and start seeing it as a human who deserves to be protected by human rights such as the right to life. I have my own point where my feelings change, it’s a bit below where abortion by choice is legal now but meh, the majority of people disagree with me believe abortion by choice should be legal up to a later date.

    The only thing I’d bitch slap someone for is being stupid enough to try and have abortion made completely illegal no matter the circumstance. That’s just begging for disaster.

    We had it before and it didn’t last that long, considering. Bad stuff kept happening and the anti abortion laws kept having to be relaxed a little.

    Such is the nature of moral grey areas; the lines we draw, in our desire for black and white, shift all over the place.

    • Andrew J. Corrales

      Abortion was never completely illegal in all US states and the lines wiggle and blur but they don’t shift. Every culture, indeed every person, agrees on most moral issues.

  • Ieva

    Just a friendly reminder that “fetus” is Latin for “young one.”
    You’re welcome.

    • princessjasmine45

      actually it’s Latin for offspring

      • Ieva

        Thanks for the correction (I’ve never taken Latin). But the two mean the same in general — offspring/young still equates to children.

      • kathykattenburg

        Actually, it’s not. From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

        fetus (n.) late 14c., “the young while in the womb or egg,” from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) “the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young,” from Latin base *fe- “to generate, bear,” also “to suck, suckle” (see fecund).

        In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of “offspring, brood” (cf. Horace’s “Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus”), but this was not the basic meaning. Also used of plants, in the sense of “fruit, produce, shoot.” The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is not historic.

  • Conor

    Hold up, why are you talking about birth control in a piece about abortion?

    “Worst of all is the notion that they might be forced to abstain from sex, since they can’t afford birth control and aren’t ready for a baby. Because in the pro-abort world, women are merely animals, incapable of controlling their sexual urges, right.”

    No. Don’t try to paint the pro-choice crowd as the TRUE denigrators of women.

    Sex is one of the most basic acts of human interaction. No woman should be “forced to abstain from sex” (your words, not mine) because she can’t afford birth control and does not wish to become pregnant. That desire does not make a woman into an “animal;” it makes her into a healthy, adult human being.

    How dare you even suggest that one’s sexual activity be dictated by one’s income?

    • Andrew J. Corrales

      It’s not an argument that one’s sexual activity should be dictated by income. It’s an argument that one should not have sex unless one means to reproduce.

      • Conor

        That’s not what the author said. Read the section I quoted; the author clearly implied that if a woman does not want a child and cannot afford birth control, she must abstain from sex. In other words, a woman’s sexual activity is dictated by her income.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          No, it’s dictated by her choice. According to your perception, this person is saying that having kids is for rich people. And remember that the other thing “dictating” it is her lack of wanting a kid.

          • kathykattenburg

            What’s dictated by her choice? You are saying a woman should abstain from sex if (a) she can’t afford birth control; or (b) she doesn’t want a child; or (c) she hasn’t found the right person to have a child with. I’m saying that’s one of the most inhumane and cruel things I’ve ever heard. Yes, more inhumane and cruel than you think abortion is. I don’t want to say you’re a monster, but what you’re demanding of women is monstrous.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            If that’s “monstrous,” and “one of the most inhumane and cruel things” you’ve “ever heard,” then you really, really need to grow up and familiarize yourself with the real world.

            Part of this thing called “adulthood” is understanding that sometimes tradeoffs between things we want are unavoidable, and we have to make grown-up choices between things we want. Often (and the choice that liberals suffering from moral arrested development bristle at the most) it’s a choice between short-term gratification and long-term well-being.

            Granted, you’re free to try having it both ways. But what you’re NOT free to do is have your son or daughter KILLED because you played Russian roulette and lost. That’s what you’re demanding. And to say that’s not as “inhumane and cruel” as asking people to act like competent adults is a despicable perverseness that speaks for itself.

          • kathykattenburg

            If you can find someone, or know of someone, who has gone without sex for his or her entire adult life (other than priests and nuns, who choose to be celibate), let me know. And when I say “entire adult life,” I don’t mean someone who is 25 years old. I mean someone who is my age, 63. Or 57. Or 75.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I know none personally. I didn’t say they were common, I said if you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex, and a hypothetical 80-year-old-virgin is possible, and in fact, is the only morally acceptable alternative to sex for reproduction only.

          • kathykattenburg

            Okay, well, at least that’s honest. But I do disagree strongly with that view, and I do think it’s cruel and inhumane to expect that, not to say wholly impractical. Impractical is an understatement. Human beings are not built that way. Sex is many things, and one of those things is a physical expression of love. To require or expect people to love someone in a romantic way (as opposed to filial or fraternal or platonic) and to abstain from expressing that love physically, ever, is absurd, inhumane, idiotic, all those things. Unless you break off the relationship because you know you can’t ever express your love sexually, and in that case you’re saying, effectively, that human beings don’t have the right to that kind of love. It’s not possible to feel that kind of love and not at some point express it physically. It’s too painful emotionally. So you’d have to abstain from any further contact with that person, and if you never found the person you wanted to have children with, OR you did not want children, OR you could not have children for medical/health reasons (because it would endanger your life), then you would have to spend your entire life without love. That’s monstrous.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            There are more ethical ways to express love. Dancing, candlelight, old-style music, flowers, jewelry, rings, and/or complicated classy dinners anyone?

          • kathykattenburg

            Making love is not ethical? You’re sick. Dancing, candlelight, etc., are ALSO ways to express love, they’re not lifelong substitutions for making love physically. You are sick.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            How? I advocate with sex within marriage, and I can tolerate sex outside of marriage as long as it’s for reproduction only, therefore I do not think sex in itself is completely wrong, but irresponsible sex for any reason? How does that “express love”? It expresses nothing except lust. How do we know that the partners actually love each other? Too many times does a guy just want a girl’s body and too many times a a girl want a guy’s money. Who’s sick again, the conservative Mr. Be Careful and Look for Better Ways, or the liberal Ms. (Mrs.? IDK) Have Sex Whenever You Want And Don’t Accept The Consequences Or Take Responsibility For Your Own Actions If You Don’t Want To?

          • kathykattenburg

            So you admire and support sex within marriage to make babies only, regardless of whether there’s any love at all. That’s morality to you? A man and a woman who feel nothing for each other but have sex mechanically to make babies?

            You can advocate whatever you want, but if you want laws passed to reflect your personal sick, narrow-minded, religiously fanatic idea of morality, then you can expect a fight.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Who marries someone they don’t love these days? To be married is to imply love. And I only brought it up anyway because your awful, entitlement- and impulse-based logic dictates that when I say, “Sex isn’t exactly the most ethical thing on the planet,” you read it as, “All sex is evil.” Now I demonstrate that I don’t think sex is completely inethical, you somehow derive from it that I think love is not important. How does that work again?

          • kathykattenburg

            Plenty of people marry for reasons other than love. And people who think they’re marrying for love don’t always stay feeling that way. If they did, there wouldn’t be so many divorces. There are tons of loveless marriages out there.

            “Sex isn’t exactly the most ethical thing on the planet.”

            What a sad way to feel. Sex is unethical? Sex is not unethical, Andrew. Whoa. I mean, you really floored me here, I can’t find words. I mean, it’s unbelievable that you would feel that way. It’s sad.

            People’s reasons for having sex are certainly not always ethical, but sex in and of itself is an essential part of being human. It’s neither ethical or unethical in and of itself. It’s essential. Humans are sexual beings. You can’t be human without having sexuality. Those who don’t are sociopaths or psychopaths, or end up killing themselves.

            I think you really do believe that sex is an evil, but since it’s necessary for reproductive purposes, the only way to deal with it is to fence in the evilness by only having it within marriage, and marginalizing or penalizing anyone who has it outside of marriage or for nonreproductive purposes. It’s sad.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I did not say sex is unethical, I said there are things more ethical. Are you having trouble comprehending this? Do all liberals carry things to extremes?

            And in this society, which is relevant to the topic we were originally talking about, marriage is for love. Leave it to foreign countries to make marriage into something about money or similar.

            And no, sex isn’t evil, people are just capable of using it for evil. And yes! Marital sex for reproduction only! That way we’re using for What It Was Created Or Evolved For.

            And like I said, I’ve never done it before and I’m neither antisocial nor suicidal.

          • kathykattenburg

            You said that sex is not the most ethical thing in the world. Which obviously implies that it’s unethical. There may be things that are even more unethical than sex, but sex is unethical. That’s what you said. And it’s sad, and really messed up to feel that way.

            “Marital sex for reproduction only! That way we’re using for What It Was Created Or Evolved For.”

            In another comment just before this one, you said that if you feel romantic love you’re more likely to abstain from sex until marriage or reproduction. Marriage OR reproduction. Here you say, No sex unless you’re doing it to have a baby. Which is it?

            And sex was not “created or involved” solely for reproduction. Where is that written? One of the things that distinguishes humans from lower animals is that we CAN and DO have sex to express love and not just as an automatic activity to make babies. You are diminishing and degrading one of the most important aspects of humanity.

            “And like I said, I’ve never done it before and I’m neither antisocial nor suicidal.”

            And how old are you?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Not the most ethical thing in the world means there are things more ethical, but entails the possibility of things less ethical, such as abortion. Not all sins are equal. Sex is not the best sin, but it is also not the worst sin.

            And you’re right. I should have said marriage AND/OR reproduction. Not all married couples want kids, therefore they can use contraceptives, and not all reproducing couples are married. However, I will not whine about their lack of documented sworn commitment if they commit without the document or the vows. If they break up needlessly and before the kid’s an adult I’ll have a problem.

            I said Evolved, with an E, as in Exasperating, not INvolved, with an IN, as in INexcusable. What I mean is that whether God made sex or sex is a product of evolution, sex is for reproduction.

            And how am I degrading sex? I’m telling you what it’s for. Degrading sex is saying that you can and should do it irresponsibly. That deceives people into believing that it has no consequences, and they’re left unprepared! That degrades sex!

            And I’m 20, as I believe I said before–that time of life when one is horniest, as well as the time of life when suicidal tendencies and antisocial behaviors begin to distinctly emerge. None of the above possess me.

          • Conor

            The idea that human sexuality evolved exclusively for reproduction has been disproved (and disproved and disproved) by studies of our closest primate relatives, by larger studies of animal sexuality, and by taking, oh, the BRIEFEST of looks at human history.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            What else does sex do again? Does is help us breath, digest, excrete, ingest, think, see, hear, smell, taste, touch, run, or fight? Inform me, apparently I’m ignorant of what all sex does. All I remember learning is that it makes babies, runs up your blood pressure, induces sweating, temporarily takes away your ability to feel pain to an extent, and leaves bruises. Oh, not to mention its uncanny ability to make immature men feel powerful (that’s how immature men see irresponsible sex–a status symbol).

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Almost forgot STD’s too…

          • Conor

            Hey, you’ve just mentioned one of the many, many social functions sex provides! It’s almost like sex ISN’T strictly for procreation and nothing else!

            I mean, you’re aware of the many studies detailing non-procreative sex throughout the animal world, right? Homosexual sex, sex with partners too young or too old to bear offspring, etc.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            How people use it today doesn’t have any bearing on how it evolved and what for, assuming evolution, or how it was made and what for assuming creation. People misusing sex isn’t evolution in action.

          • Conor

            How about all those gay birds “misusing” sex? How about those bonobos “misusing” sex as a tool for social cohesion rather than strictly for procreation? How about all those lesbian bighorn sheep “misusing” sex?

            Nevermind that evolution is literally ALWAYS in action, but hey.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            If evolution were always in action, liberalism wouldn’t exist anymore. They oppose reproduction (by supporting abortion and same-sex marriage and contraceptives) and survival (by releasing criminals and leaving people defenseless and supporting terrorists and enemies and treason), which means they’re at the top of evolution’s hit list. Why are they still around?

            Because conservatives support survival and reproduction, and are nice enough to help liberals, that’s why.

            And until every bird and bonobo and bighorn sheep does that without properly using it for an extremely long time and the species survives anyway, they’ll be cut out by evolution too.

          • Conor

            You clearly don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about. Like, not even a glimmer.

            That’s not how evolution works, there is nothing to suggest that the sexual behaviors observed throughout the animal kingdom are anything new, and haha, you seriously think liberals oppose reproduction?

            Please, read a basic biology textbook before you try to step to me with this nonsense.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Liberals hate straight people marriage, support same-sex marriage, support abortion, support birth control, and support contraceptives, and tell women they’re nothing without abortion. You think they support reproduction? All of their relevant statements, in practice, lead to less reproduction!

            And how do they support survival? They release criminals and terrorists, won’t fight to overthrow dictators, help enemies, and take away people’s rights to defend themselves! In LibWorld, bad guys run free and good guys can’t protect themselves!

            Evolution is essentially natural selection. Natural selection dictates that only creatures with traits that help them survive and reproduce will reproduce. Liberal policies help them do neither. Only conservatives support policies that help survival and reproduction along.

            And again, counter-reproductive and counter-survival tendencies happen in animals but aren’t common because they don’t help the species.

          • Conor

            This view of evolution (never mind politics) is so simple-minded as to not merit a response.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            What is evolution without natural selection?

            And how do I know you’re not just covering for not knowing a good way to prove I’m wrong? If you think I’m so wrong, prove it.

          • Conor

            I have neither the time, nor the patience, to give you an in-depth explanation of how evolution works.

            Suffice to say, if you believe that supporting same-sex marriage goes against natural selection, you don’t understand natural selection. (Look up: group selection, allo-parenting, and epigenetics).

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Homosexual people don’t pass their favorable genetic traits on to the next generation unless they had a kid before they decided to become homosexual.

            And I know how evolution works: A species’ survival is dictated by a number of factors, including availability of nourishment, mates, etc., and how many predators and competitors etc. there are. Each species has a certain amount of variety, but you cannot reproduce outside your own species. In times when sources of nourishment and mates etc. are running down, or predators and competitors are running up, only those with traits that help them get nourishment/mates and/or avoid/fight predators/competitors will survive to reproduce.

          • Conor

            You clearly did not look up a single thing I asked you to look up.

            Come on, man, this is embarrassing.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Not embarrassing me. I only need to argue against your pro-death arguments and your accusations of me being stupid or evil or whatever it is this week to make you sleep at night without guilt. Few liberals have the audacity (or is it courage they lack?) to look at a pro-life article. It must me embarrassing You.

            And what to group selection, alloparenting, and epigenetics have to do with natural selection as applied to analysis of liberalism? It doesn’t keep liberals surviving and reproducing. They still promote policies that make both less likely.

            If the laws of the world were abolished today, in a year there would only be conservatives and criminals, and in a generation there would only be conservatives. Liberals would neither survive (because they would get their wishes of releasing criminals and terrorists, and obviously wouldn’t have guns so they could protect themselves) nor reproduce (because they would get their wish of abortion on demand).

            The criminals would only survive because they’re the only ones who benefit from anarchy, and conservatives would survive because they would take protective measures and would come together (liberals are too divisive). Also, occupational criminals have a tendency to be selfish and irresponsible, and so advocate the anti-reproductive policies of liberals, and so wouldn’t reproduce, and the next generation would have only conservatives.

            The only surviving liberals would be the ones who had conservatives for protection. And they could never actually argue against conservatives ever again, after knowing it saved them. And the only surviving occupational criminals would be the ones that don’t do dirty work themselves. And they probably wouldn’t have many proxies to do the dirty work!

          • kathykattenburg

            “Not all sins are equal. Sex is not the best sin, but it is also not the worst sin.”

            Sex is not a sin AT ALL, Andrew. That’s my point. Sex is not a sin.

            “What I mean is that whether God made sex or sex is a product of evolution, sex is for reproduction.”

            “And how am I degrading sex? I’m telling you what it’s for.”

            If sex is for reproduction, why is it okay for married couples who don’t want children to have it?”

            In my opinion, you are reducing sex to one very narrow purpose. In my opinion, that is degrading sex, because sexuality is such an essential part of being human, and sex can be so profoundly meaningful on so many levels, that to reduce it to one specific purpose is degrading it.

            It’s like if you said that the only reason for a woman’s existence is to obey her husband, have children, and make raising them her full-time career. That is degrading to women as human beings who are much more than just their reproductive organs. As are men.

            And maybe you DO believe that. It wouldn’t surprise me at this point.

            “And I’m 20, as I believe I said before–that time of life when one is
            horniest, as well as the time of life when suicidal tendencies and
            antisocial behaviors begin to distinctly emerge. None of the above
            possess me.”

            You may have said it before, but not to me. Anyway, it’s what I expected to hear (in that range). It’s the only explanation for your saying that you’ve never had sex and you’re perfectly fine. Well yeah, okay, lol. So what? It’s not like you’re 40, or 60, or 80 and have never had sex.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            My point is that it is a sin if you misuse it.

            Having sex gets people pregnant. Trying to use sex otherwise only leads to STD’s, abortions, and perverted minds. Those are all facts. I don’t see how stating facts degrades sex.

            And no, saying that sex is for reproduction is nothing like saying that women are for men. To start with, saying that women are made for men is just as true as saying that men are made for women.

            And if you honestly think I’m a sexist, after saying that both men and women have moral obligations to the same things, you’re insane.

            Sex is for reproduction is like saying cars are for driving, pencils are for writing, cups are for holding liquids, and books are for reading. Am I degrading those things too?

            Did you know that in the wonderful world of psychology, most personality disorders pop up in early adulthood? If sex was as essential to the human psyche as you think, I’d be crazy as heck. In contrast, when we watch shows like Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, read books like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, and learn about mental illness, we learn that before adulthood, excessive sexual activity is more dangerous than being the 20-year-old-virgin. You haven’t proven anything except that you don’t pay too close attention to psychology.

          • kathykattenburg

            “Having sex gets people pregnant. Trying to use sex otherwise only leads to STD’s, abortions, and perverted minds.”

            Do you think the government should criminalize sex outside of marriage and/or sex for purposes other than reproduction?

            If you *don’t* think the government should do that, then this is just your personal opinion, your personal morals, and that’s fine with me.

            “And if you honestly think I’m a sexist, after saying that both men and
            women have moral obligations to the same things, you’re insane.”

            You did say that, once in this thread, but many more times you put all the responsibility on women (women should abstain from sex if they’re not married or don’t want to have children — not men should abstain from sex if they’re not married or don’t want to have children). The onus is always on the woman. Also, at one point you asked me didn’t I think that women should be just as responsible as men, which is ridiculous, because women are almost always held MORE responsible than men. The problem isn’t that I’m not holding women responsible. The problem is that you and others like you are not holding men as responsible as women.

            “If sex was as essential to the human psyche as you think, I’d be crazy as heck.”

            No, because you’re only 20. We’ve been through this already. I did not at any point say that human beings could not go without sex at all for any length of time without going crazy. And you know that.

            I never said that being a 20-year-old virgin was dangerous.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I believe that even though responsibility is better and Democrats hate responsibility, they still have the right to be irresponsible and divisive. This is, after all, America, and they are, after all, Democrats. If the government outlaws abortion, then they can be irresponsible and divisive without killing their kids.

            And there is no such thing as personal morals. I believe in morals that exist apart from me. Moral relativism is the most obvious B.S. in the world.
            A. It’s inconsistent. People argue that there is no absolute truth as if it is an absolute truth.
            B. It’s not supported by facts. Everybody has something they agree on, and the same values tend to pop up in different cultures.
            C. It’s not practical. Should we punish a thief? He was interfering with others’ rights, but he was doing what he thought was right. Which takes precedence? Neither! That would be an absolute truth!
            D. It’s deceptive. Nobody really thinks that everyone has their own sense of right and wrong, they use relativism as an excuse to do irresponsible and/or divisive and/or just evil stuff.
            E. It’s half-baked. People only buy into it because it sounds good on paper. Nobody actually thinks it through.

            And nope, I said several times that men have that obligation too. I brought women up more frequently because the debate was originally about abortion. Men can’t kill babies they’re pregnant with.

            You did say that you can’t be fully human without sex, and those that go without it become sociopaths or psychopaths or commit suicide.

            And again, I’m at the age at which I am most likely to develop a personality disorder. And again, too much sex is proven to be worse than not enough sex (I’m virgin and OK, kids who suffered sexual abuse develop personality disorders as a consequence of said sexual abuse unless they get a shrink to treat them effectively).

          • kathykattenburg

            “If the government outlaws abortion, then they can be irresponsible and divisive without killing their kids.”

            Women can and do and will have abortions whether they’re legal or not. If they have money, they’ll go where it’s legal. If they don’t, they’ll go to an illegal abortionist, or they’ll do the job themselves.

            “I brought women up more frequently because the debate was originally
            about abortion. Men can’t kill babies they’re pregnant with.”

            Right, but men *can* be punished for participating in creating a pregnancy that is unplanned and/or unwanted.

            “You did say that you can’t be fully human without sex, and those that go
            without it become sociopaths or psychopaths or commit suicide.”

            You can’t be fully human without love, and you cannot love fully if you can’t make love unless you want to marry or have children, *which does not happen to everyone.*

            “And again, too much sex is proven to be worse than not enough sex.”

            No, it’s not. Unprotected or exploitative sex is a bad thing, but it has nothing to do with the amount of sex, it has to do with the quality of the sex, or why you’re having it.

            ” (I’m virgin and OK, kids who suffered sexual abuse develop personality
            disorders as a consequence of said sexual abuse unless they get a shrink
            to treat them effectively).

            I don’t really understand what your point is here.

          • kathykattenburg

            “Having sex gets people pregnant. Trying to use sex otherwise only leads to STD’s, abortions, and perverted minds”

            This is very interesting. Do you think sex is a disease, Andrew?

          • musiciangirl591

            sex isn’t the only way to express love, honey, thats what he was getting at

          • kathykattenburg

            And flowers, dinners, and stuffed animals aren’t the only way to express love, either — that’s what I said! And I’m not your “honey,” asshole.

          • musiciangirl591

            so classy :P

          • johno

            I like! Ha ha!

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            They offend less people than sex does.

          • Alex Hunter

            True, but people who are unrelated and of differing genders don’t have a lot keeping them together and the ones that do are usually off limits for various reasons (friendship, working relationship, friend’s sibling etc.). Being able to get physically close to someone in a way that you wouldn’t even try with your best friend is a way of showing just how much you want to be with that person. Plenty of people may have one-night stands, but they’re normally unhappy to begin with.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            If you want to get close as possible, why not just hug them frequently?

          • musiciangirl591

            movies, bowling, stuffed animals, magic the gathering, thats what me and my boyfriend do

          • kathykattenburg

            What’s magic the gathering?

          • musiciangirl591

            card game :)

          • JDC

            For me, Go fish will always be the only card game worth playing. :)

          • musiciangirl591

            its really fun, but it can be really competitive, i’m only a recreation player

          • JDC

            Maybe I’ll try it sometime. I suppose I should try to expand my horizons somewhat when it comes to card games.

          • Alex Hunter

            So basically money.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            First, so just because a priest or a nun has chosen it, celibacy magically becomes *not* monstrous, inhumane, and cruel? Do clergy have superpowers that make them immune to natural desires the rest of us just can’t handle?

            Second, if you expect 25-year-olds to handle lack of sex better, then presumably you’d be willing to distance yourself from your side’s party line that young people are just gonna do it anyway and therefore we should throw contraception and abortion “access” at them instead of expecting them to exercise basic responsibility? Is there a specific age at which point virginity becomes a violation of the Geneva Convention?

          • kathykattenburg

            Well, since you ask, I happen to think that the celibacy requirement for Catholic priests is very ill-advised. I think it should be abolished. However, I am not Catholic, and as long as Catholics and other religions I don’t subscribe to keep their dicta off me, I consider it none of my business.

          • Basset_Hound

            Abstaining from sex is “inhuman and cruel”? REALLY????

            What happens in a marriage when one of the partners is ill or away for awhile (i.e. deployed or travelling for a job). OH THE HUMANITY.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            If kathy’s logic is truth then when the partner is away or sick…time for a new partner. #LiberalLogic

          • kathykattenburg

            And you, too, are responding to something I did not say. Such dishonesty. I guess the point you’re arguing just won’t stand up, since you have to alter what I said to argue it.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Nope. You’re shocked at lifelong abstinence in the name of not reproducing, because to you, sex is for fun and it’s impossible and unnatural to abstain for long. You may not have said it word for word, but you imply as much the way you react to the idea that Sex Is A Tool, Not A Toy, And If You Will Not Use It As Such, Do Not Use It At All. And if a partner is not willing or able to have sex for long periods of time, what’s a sex-starved citizen of your planet to do?

          • kathykattenburg

            Sex is not just for fun. I’m not talking about sex for fun. I’m talking about sex FOR LOVE. And I’m not talking about being unable to have sex for long periods of time because a partner is away or something of that sort. And you know damn well I’m not talking about that.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Sex for love? Doing better, but nobody has sex for love. They have sex for lust, or else for reproduction. Sexual desire is not the same as romantic love (psychology is a hobby of mine).

          • kathykattenburg

            I’m not “doing better,” this is what I was saying all along. You’re “doing better if you finally understand what I’m saying, but it doesn’t appear you do. If you can say that “nobody has sex for love,” then you are either to be laughed at or pitied. And I think you should either find another hobby, or not use it in debates about public policy or the law.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Psychology dictates that Lust Is Not Love. Which one is defined as sexual desire, therefore being the motive for irresponsible sex?

          • kathykattenburg

            I never said that lust was love. They are two separate things that both exist but are not the same thing.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Which one is the reason for irresponsible sex?

          • kathykattenburg

            Neither one. There’s nothing wrong with lust; it’s just not the same as love. It’s important to know the difference so you can know which one you’re feeling.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Yes, one is the motive for irresponsible sex. People with real romantic love are thinking of something higher than sex, and are more likely to abstain until marriage or reproduction. People with lust, they’re the ones who are more likely to have irresponsible sex.

            And I agree, lust is not wrong in and of itself, but people can use it the wrong way.

          • kathykattenburg

            That’s absolute nonsense. Sex, when it’s making love and not simply fucking, IS love. Sex with someone you love IS love. It’s one of the ways you express your love. And it doesn’t have to have anything to do with marriage or children.

            And lust doesn’t have any connection to marital or child status, either. Two people who are married to each other can and do still have sex out of lust, or out of love, without babies having to result from that.

            Face it, Andrew, your feelings and views about sex, relationships, women, and children are just all fucked up.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I assume you were punning when you f-bombed me?

            My views on sex, relationships, women, and children? I believe in moral obligations. If you have sex and get pregnant, put the kid up for adoption and raise it yourself. Don’t like it? You’re not the one who decides right from wrong. Women are just as morally obliged as men (is equality of the sexes f’ed up?). Children are persons from conception (I cite science, science is never f’ed up). Relationships? Don’t fake love for money, sex, or anything else (you keep saying much the same thing, so how am I f’ed up?).

            Love, psychologically speaking, is any one or combination of three behavioral tendencies: frankness or “liking,” sexual and emotional attraction or “passion,” and determination to stick together or “commitment.” The three put together are what’s known as “consummate love.” Sex with someone you love is not love itself, it’s sex with someone you love. Equating love itself with sex with someone you love does not really define love outside of sex.

            Love, lust and sex happen without marriage, but the second two will probably eventually involve kids. Sex makes kids! You know it! Babies only exist without sex if you use contraceptives or murder the child!

            Face it, kathykattenburg, you don’t understand a word I’m saying, you just assume everything you argue against. You’re views about sex, relationships, women, and children are based on irresponsibility, and your views on me are filtered through your own biases and prejudices.

          • kathykattenburg

            I didn’t “F-bomb” you, Andrew. I used the word that means “having sex for no reason other than that it’s fun for the moment even if you have no feeling for the other person.” That’s what “fucking” means. I wasn’t cursing at you.

            “You’re not the one who decides right from wrong.”

            Neither are you. This is still a free country, Andrew. You do not have the right to make your moral beliefs binding on me, or anyone else but yourself. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not trying to convince you that your beliefs are wrong. If that’s how it comes across, then let me be clear right now that I don’t care what you believe and I think you have a perfect right to live your life as you see fit. I have the same right. My daughter has the same right. Every other human being has the same right.

            “Equating love itself with sex with someone you love does not really define love outside of sex.”

            My point is that romantic love — the kind of love that people mean when they talk about being “in love” — cannot be sustained without making love, which means having sex with someone you love. That’s why it’s called “making love.” You literally are loving the other person with your body. And when you have such luck — if you have such luck — it’s a treasure beyond words.

            “Face it, kathykattenburg, you don’t understand a word I’m saying,…”

            That’s true.

            “You’re views about sex, relationships, women, and children are based on irresponsibility, …”

            That’s not true.

            “…and your views on me are filtered through your own biases and prejudices.”

            That’s probably true, but just as true for your views on me as for mine on you.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You may not have been cursing me, but was that wordplay intentional?

            You’re right, I don’t decide what’s right and what’s wrong. I believe that what’s right is determined by authorities far higher than you or me, free country or not. And no, nobody, not even me, has the right to live their life how they want. At any rate, Adam Ranza and Timothy McVeigh tried, and nobody likes them.

            And yes, romantic love can exist without sex. Love is part communication, part attraction, part commitment, remember? Sex is just our species’ method of reproducing. It’s associated with love because nobody wants to reproduce with someone they don’t love.

            And me calling attention to you not understand me? You twist words I don’t even say and make assumptions with no basis. I do that too, but mine are based on objectively analyzing and synthesizing behavioral tendencies. Yours are based on your knack to think that I’m more extremely something than I am.

            How are your views not based on irresponsibility? You think sex should be on impulse without consequence, and deny that it exists for its own biological function! And you consistently say that pregnancies are fatal or dangerous, when in reality, they rarely do more harm than birth pains! On top of that, you know that a fetus has its own unique human DNA, and that everyone you consider humans are pretty much fetuses, and still insist that fetuses aren’t people! You haven’t even conceded yet the possibilities of STD’s! What messed-up planet are you on where irresponsibility is good (and not called that explicitly, and pretended that it’s otherwise) and reproducing is bad?

          • kathykattenburg

            What wordplay? If I made a pun, it was inadvertent, and I don’t even know what it was.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            “May views about sex [insert other things] are f’ed up.” You may not have wrote is as a pun, but it looks like one.

          • Alex Hunter

            You can have sex with someone you love and not try for a baby. Some people just like to feel close to the ones they care for.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            And if you get pregnant anyway? Is adoption not an option?

          • kathykattenburg

            You’re responding to something I did not say — again. Go back, read what I wrote (more than once) then come back to me if you want to respond. Respond to what I wrote, not to what I didn’t write.

          • musiciangirl591

            or in college and somewhat engaged, oh the torture! :)

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            OH! THE EXCRUCIATING PAIN WILL MAKE ME EXPLODE!

          • musiciangirl591

            abstaining until i’m married in 3-4 years will kill me! :P

          • Alex Hunter

            The sex that follows afterwards will feel incredible!

          • Conor

            And the choices are, apparently, have sex and be at risk of becoming pregnant with a child she obviously cannot afford (since she cannot afford birth control), or don’t have sex at all.

            All of which boils down to, “poor women should not be having sex.”

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            To start with, you don’t need to be wealthy to be able to afford offspring. Why does almost every liberal I debate with always take things to extremes?

            Whether she has sex or not is dictated by her choice. Prudence dictates that, like Conor and you suggest, if she can’t afford a kid or doesn’t want a kid or hasn’t found a good enough guy, she shouldn’t have sex. That’s how people should be thinking.

            It’s common sense. If you can’t afford it or don’t want it, don’t try to get it. You wouldn’t go to a car dealership if you couldn’t afford a car, would you?

            However, truth dictates that people don’t think or act how they should, and women have sex whether they can afford kids or not, and then have an abortion and blame the dad then they get pregnant. They have irresponsible sex and will not take responsibility for their own actions. Women are people, they have just as much personal responsibility as men. Irresponsible sex without consequences yields men objectifying women, and treating them as inferiors as a result.

            All of which boils down to, stupid irresponsible women should not be having sex, only the ones that are intelligent and responsible.

          • Conor

            Again: If the choice is, “have sex and risk getting pregnant because of economic factors preventing access to birth control” or “don’t have sex at all,” what exactly is the “intelligent, responsible” choice? And, remember, if you say, “don’t have sex at all,” you are telling poor women that ANY SEX THEY HAVE will necessarily be “stupid and irresponsible.”

            That is a really cruel thing to say.

            (And really, you’re comparing “not having sex” to “not having a car?” Come on).

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Nope. Sex to reproduce is not irresponsible, because you’re not needlessly subjecting yourself to health risks like STD’s for fun.

            The choice is have sex to have kids or don’t have sex. If you aren’t willing or able to have something, don’t try to get it. Going to a dealership is to getting a car what sex is to having kids.

          • Alex Hunter

            Having children can be considered irresponsible. There are endless cases of abusive parents which can prove that. Even some celebrities are using pregnancy as a way to stay in the spotlight, because society is conditioned to believe that pregnant women are beautiful, flawless creatures who can do no wrong.
            And as always, overpopulation.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Having children, irresponsible? This just reinforces my already firm belief that liberals hate kids!

            Abusive parents don’t make reproducing irresponsible. That’s like saying abusive teachers make teaching a class irresponsible.

          • Alex Hunter

            Belief is just the absence of knowledge. Look at how many left-wingers have children or support censorship and tell me that they hate kids.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Belief isn’t the absence of knowledge, it’s the holding something as true based on any evidence (not the same as faith; faith is intellectual trust with little to go on). The absence of knowledge is ignorance.

            The evidence that sincere liberals hate kids:

            They rag on straight people marriage and support same-sex marriage. Apparently kids aren’t allowed to have the safe environment that marriage would otherwise give them.

            They support contraceptives and abortion and ignore adoption.

            They support public schools (nobody learns anything there, I know that from personal experience), sex education (which disturbs children) and disarming teachers (which leaves kids vulnerable to school shootings).

            They’re the political wing of health and looks anxiety. Kids of liberals lead miserable lives, I imagine, because liberal parents are self-conscious and won’t let their kids enjoy life. A twelve-year-old girl is entitled to birth control pills but can’t wash it down with Diet Pepsi.

            They oppose prohibition on a lot of things. Apparently every teenager should have the right to get in a drunk driving accident, or get high, or whatever, and what’s this about substances eventually making you uglier than you would be otherwise?

            If liberals don’t hate kids, then they at least don’t enjoy them 24/7 either.

          • kathykattenburg

            Well, it’s good to know that you really do hold men just as responsible for sex as you do women.

        • kathykattenburg

          What if she never can afford birth control? Your “explanation” explains nothing. Sexual activity should not be dictated by income. You can only have sex if you’re rich; you can’t have sex if you’re poor, is a non-starter in practical terms, and in terms of human rights, it’s an abomination.

          • Conor

            I completely agree. That’s the point I’m trying to make in response to the author.

      • kathykattenburg

        I said nothing about income. And your second sentence is a statement of your own belief. People have sex without wanting to reproduce every day and they will continue to. There is no reason why a woman should have to abstain from sex for her entire life because she hasn’t found a man she wants to have a child with or because she doesn’t want a child. I mean, that’s insane and tyrannical.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          I was commenting on Conor. And the second sentence I was stating the opinion of all pro-lifers everywhere, and what the author was trying to say.

          And no, it’s neither sane nor tyrannical, it’s common sense. Irresponsible sex is risky, so it’s wiser to abstain until you want to reproduce. Remember, sex is not for fun, it’s for reproduction, and pleasure’s just a perk to keep it from being totally stopped.

          • Alex Hunter

            You use terminologies like “abstain” and “not for fun” and you’re telling us you’re way of thinking isn’t tyrannical?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            “Abstain” and “not for fun” are not tyrannical. They’re technical. Tyrannical is murdering an innocent, defenseless, dependent person who can’t speak up for him/herself and hasn’t had a chance to see the world. Saying to have responsible sex is like telling you to not run with scissors or save candy until after dinner–none of the above are fun, but one keeps you from seriously injuring yourself if you fall down in class, another is good for your health and makes that Snickers or Kit Kat more worth it, and the third helps keep the human race from going extinct, and it also keeps STD’s from spreading unpredictably.

          • Alex Hunter

            Tyrants don’t have to kill to get their way. Some tyrants are much more passive in their approach. The entertainment industry for instance, is built on keeping the over-privileged wealthy while leaving the aspiring minds to struggle in obscurity.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Tyrants don’t have to kill to get their way, but murdering said innocent, defenseless, dependent person who can’t speak up for him/herself and hasn’t had a chance to see the world is still a tyrannical act.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            *insane

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          And I have to go somewhere for a while, I will be back later.

    • esperanza.me.da.vida.

      Through maturity, a woman is able to gain knowledge of her body, and through developed respect of her body, she is able to make decisions concerning her life an the potential lives resulting from her actions. Natural birth control is in no way influenced by income, no is it forcing women to become robots and ignore their natural body responses, which are supported by science and common sense.

      A woman who has taken full responsibility of her body, is one who has knowledge of herself, and of the consequences of her actions.

      A man who loves and respects her mind and body will support her an recognize the possible consequences of their actions.

      • Conor

        I have literally no idea what you are trying to say. What are you referring to when you mention “natural birth control?” Coitus interruptus? The rhythm method?

        • esperanza.me.da.vida.

          I am sure that a simple and independent research on your part will suffice.

          One method is noting the times of the month when a woman’s body is more likely to conceive and then acting accordingly.
          http://www.medicinenet.com/natural_methods_of_birth_control/article.htm#tocq

          • Conor

            Yeah, that’s called the rhythm method. Which I mentioned.

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            Conor, I apologize; in my haste to reply to kathy’s comments I didn’t read your comment to its entirety. Thank you for maturely pointing out my mistake.

          • Conor

            No problem, but let me ask you: If you’re OK with a woman trying to regulate her fertility via “natural” methods, are you then OK with a woman regulating her fertility via pharmacological methods?

          • esperanza.me.da.vida.

            If you’re referring to birth control, then no.
            It is a well-known fact that sex can result in a pregnancy; taking full responsibility for one’s body requires taking full responsibility for your actions.

            Not everyone has the mindset of “sex is only for making babies”, but birth control is a deliberate mechanism used to avoid taking full responsibility for one’s actions because it is meant to allow people to have sex, while blocking a natural effect of sex.
            Indulging in the action, but preventing its effects.

          • Alex Hunter

            But birth control is the best way to keep everyone’s hands free of the blood of the unborn. By taking away both birth control and outlawing abortion, you’re essentially telling people that their life should follow one strict path.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            No, we’re essentially telling people that if you’re too much of a wuss to accept responsibility for your own actions, then use self-control. Oh wait, that’s reality. Can’t let people be well-adapted to real life…

            And you liberals think that you shouldn’t be allowed to practice your religion on impulse (like the First Amendment guarantees). Something about that doesn’t tell people that they should follow one strict path?

        • kathykattenburg

          Ohmygod, I’m not the only one! I saw this after I posted my response to esperanza.

        • musiciangirl591

          NFP, its actual science, honey, google it

      • kathykattenburg

        I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate with the above blather. Sorry.

    • Alex Hunter

      Hear hear! These people keep forgetting that sex is a form of love. Just like most other forms of physical contact, sex is a way for people to connect. Without sex, people lose their humanity and become isolated.

      • Andrew J. Corrales

        Without sex, the human race goes extinct. Sex and love are two different things (not that they’re incompatible). Are you saying that all partners with sex are always in love? You keep forgetting that sex is for reproduction. Romantic love (strictly in the context of sex) is just a psychological adaptation to help induce sex and keep the parents together (in other contexts, it is emotional attachment plus frank, mature communication plus commitment–that’s the psychological definition, anyway. But apparently pro-deathers don’t like science).

      • Andrew J. Corrales

        On top of that, I’m a virgin. You saying that I’m not human?

        • Alex Hunter

          I’m a virgin too. Do I seem like a poster-boy for a chaste and wholesome existence?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            “Without sex, people lose their humanity…”

            If you concede that I’m human or insist on your own humanity, then you necessarily concede that statement as false.

  • Gail Finke

    Great piece!!!

  • amazedatthelackofcompassion

    Isn’t it amazing though that all those who are for abortion are already born? What if someone had taken your life?

    • kathykattenburg

      Isn’t it amazing that all those who are already born were once not born? What if your parents had not had not had sex and you had not been conceived? What if they had never met? If you have a right to be born, surely you also have a right to be conceived, because the second would not be possible without the first.

      • Andrew J. Corrales

        Just out of curiosity, what if your parents had murdered you when you were conceived? If your mom had a right to choose, surely you had no right to live.

        • Alex Hunter

          Wouldn’t that just make life more precious?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Nah dip Sherlock.

          • musiciangirl591

            exactly, life is beautiful for everyone, especially the unborn :)

          • kathykattenburg

            Especially?

          • musiciangirl591

            its a word :), its in the dictionary, look it up

          • kathykattenburg

            Oh my god. How old are you?

          • musiciangirl591

            i’m 20 :)

          • kathykattenburg

            Well, you talk like you’re 12.

          • musiciangirl591

            i got told that i looked like i was 12 once :P

          • kathykattenburg

            Well, treasure that. There will come a day when you’ll be very happy to be told you look 8 years younger than you are.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            12-year-olds would be more educated about biology than what you’re spewing.

          • kathykattenburg

            Go for it, Calvin. I’m an individual human being with a body, and I get to say what happens to it, and everything that’s inside of it. If it’s in my body, it’s part of me, period, end of story.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new textbook example of “fanatic” – Kathy here.

        • kathykattenburg

          This “what if your mother had had an abortion” game is so silly.

          I was conceived long before Roe v. Wade, and besides that, my mother desperately wanted a child because she thought that she wasn’t a real woman unless she had a child (sound familiar?).

          However, if she HAD had a legal choice, and had taken the morning-after pill (if THAT had existed when I was conceived), I wouldn’t have known the difference. I was a *fertilized egg* for pete’s sake! I was not Kathy Kattenburg! I had no conscious awareness or self-awareness. I did not exist as an individual. It’s just absurd.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Doesn’t sound familiar. You can be a real woman without kids, you just shouldn’t have sex if you don’t want kids. And yes you were a person! The fact that you would have been OK with your mother killing you is disturbing as heck. That’s like a teenager wanting suicide by cops. Sad, disturbing little worldview.

          • kathykattenburg

            “Doesn’t sound familiar.”

            Well, somebody here said it. I don’t remember who, but somebody in this thread did say it.

            “The fact that you would have been OK with your mother killing you is disturbing as heck.”

            She wouldn’t have been killing me. There was no me. A fertilized egg is not a person. And the fact that you can compare emergency contraception to a teenager’s suicide is disturbing to ME.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            It wasn’t me that said it, and I don’t recall reading it off the top of my head. At least I have a head, as opposed to whoever said that.

            And yes, there was you, a zygote is a person. It has its own unique human DNA. Saying otherwise with a straight face makes you a bit dehumanized. And no, it’s not emergency contraception, it’s abortion. And yes, being okay with someone killing you before you’re born is masochistic.

          • kathykattenburg

            Having human DNA makes you human but it does not make you a person. The two are not the same. They’re not synonyms.

            Actually, emergency contraception does not end a pregnancy, it prevents one from occurring by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. There IS no pregnancy until and unless implantation occurs.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “Having human DNA makes you human but it does not make you a person.”

            Prove it.

          • kathykattenburg

            You can’t prove a negative, Calvin. Prove that it is. Prove that DNA — any DNA from any living thing — is an individual member of that species. Is a DNA sample taken by law enforcement an individual human being?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Dear Lord, this is like arguing with a two-year-old. You don’t care what I actually said, you don’t care what science actually says, you don’t care how ignorant you expose yourself to be.

            Nobody said DNA is an individual human being. That would be idiotic. The embryo is an distinct organism that HAS human DNA.

            Show some sincere effort to break out of your dishonesty and your fanatic anti-intellectualism, and maybe we’ll continue this conversation.

          • kathykattenburg

            “The embryo is an distinct organism that HAS human DNA.”

            I completely agree. But you make a leap from the undeniable fact that an embryo has human DNA to the conclusion that an embryo is an individual human being and a person, which is legally incorrect and biologically ignorant. Then you use this inaccurate claim to declare that this is why abortion must be illegal. And that is what I object to.

            If you think wanting control over your own body, inside and outside, makes a woman an intellectual and/or emotional two-year-old, so be it. I think that says more about your attitude toward women than about my attitude toward unborn babies, but hey, like I said, when all is said and done, I really don’t care what you think. My body, my business, my choice. No one else’s. Period.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            You’re embarrassing yourself. You can keep lying about basic human biology all you want, but it doesn’t make it so. And that obsessive lying on behalf of a greed that doesn’t even care if SOMEONE DIES on your behalf is what makes you infantile, not “wanting control over your own body,” which we both know doesn’t capture the real controversy.

            But hey. Your body, your plantation. Your gulag. Your Dachau. Got it.

          • kathykattenburg

            Are you Jewish? And if you are, do you have family members who died in the Holocaust?

          • princessjasmine45

            actually , yes you can prove a negative.

            You’ve been out of school way too long.

            All you need something that logicians call “the Universe of Discourse”, or “the Domain”,

            People in the middle ages couldn’t prove a negative.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            To start with, a fertilized egg IS a pregnancy. It’s the zygote stage of pregnancy. Research anatomy and fetal development.

            Psychologists frequently discuss the possibility of personality being partly based on genetics. Identical twins who were separated at birth and have never met each other are frequently studied because any similarities in personality they have must be dictated by genetics. Results have been looking up for the theory of genetic personalities.

            Now personality is dictated by several factors: genetics, culture, peer pressure, childhood events, circumstances, and demographics, and there are several parts of a personality: habits, traits, complexes, type, and personal likes and dislikes. The latter three are partly determined by genetics.

            The point being that a huge part of your personality is genetic. Your series of nucleotides and chromosomal arrangement are with you from conception, therefore you have a personality from conception, therefore you are a person from conception.

            For the sake of argument, someone may say that fetuses don’t have personalities, they sit in one spot doing and saying nothing for several months. Well, guess what? The personality hasn’t been given a chance to carry out its functions, that doesn’t mean you kill the fetus. It’s still there. Would you kill a puppy because it hadn’t opened its eyes yet? Nope. In the same way you shouldn’t kill a human organism with its own personality before it’s born.

          • kathykattenburg

            “To start with, a fertilized egg IS a pregnancy. It’s the zygote stage of pregnancy. Research anatomy and fetal development.”

            A fertilized egg is not a pregnancy. There is no pregnancy until implantation. That is the biological, scientific definition of pregnancy.

            “Your series of nucleotides and chromosomal arrangement are with you from
            conception, therefore you have a personality from conception, therefore
            you are a person from conception.”

            This and everything that follows it is almost comic, it’s so ludicrous. A blueprint is not the same as a building. Really, Andrew. Even as a 20-year-old, you are not yet what you will become, and what you might become — even though your genetic makeup may tend you toward the person you will become. Genetic tendency toward personality is not personality. Hopefully, whatever kind of person you become is not this silly.

          • Basset_Hound

            What is comical is the use of the tired, old, “blueprint” argument. A blueprint isn’t a building. It never will become a building. It’s not an immature, juvenile or developing building. An embryo and a zygote are both human beings in very immature stages of development.

          • Alex Hunter

            And grass is just cow manure before it gets chewed up.

          • Basset_Hound

            And grass doesn’t ever become a cow, does it? When the grass is chewed up and digested, the plant tissue is usually destroyed. So what’s your point?

          • Alex Hunter

            My point is that just because something is going to grow or change, that doesn’t mean it already has.

          • Valde

            Exactly.

            We don’t hand out rights based on WHAT YOU MIGHT OR WILL BECOME, we hand out rights based on WHAT YOU CURRENTLY ARE

          • Valde

            Potentiality is not actuality.

            If a zygote is a child, then you are an undead corpse.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Potentiality is not actuality, but does it make it less right?

            The mother is killing its son or daughter because the child is inconvenient. That makes the mother a murderer with an ego bigger than her heart–and her sense of causal determinism as regarding posterity, too, because she might be killing someone who would otherwise cure every disease–and that’s her actuality.

            Her potentiality? She could be the greatest hero on Earth, revered by every person (literally), with great accomplishments and a flawless record. She’s scrapping that because her child is inconvenient.

            I’m not sure where you’re from, obviously not Heaven or Gallifrey, but on Planet Earth, what you could be is a large part of who you are. Every aborted fetus could be the best thing that ever happened to the planet, and nobody would know it. Liberals would rather have a convenient life than to watch their offspring live an amazing one.

            Long story short, if a zygote isn’t a child, you’re an inhuman monster.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Yes! No pregnancy until implantation! The sperm implants itself into the ovum, and the nuclei fuse, and conception has occurred! It’s called a zygote until its first cell division, when it gets the name “embryo” until it’s 8 wks. old. Then we call it a “fetus” until it’s born. Then it’s an “infant.”

            A blueprint is not a building, but the building is dictated by the blueprint, and laying the foundation means the building’s begun. Genetic tendency toward personality is a huge part of personality. The only control factor of personality, in fact, the rest are variables. They can change, genetics can’t. And as you have DNA at conception, you have the foundation of a personality at conception. As an afterthought, you can’t say that it’s OK because the personality isn’t fully formed. You’re personality keeps forming until you die.

            Citing empirically proven science is not silly. Ignoring and denying it is. If you can prove me wrong with pure science, do it.

          • Basset_Hound

            Somebody here said that Calvin was a shape shifting alien from Planet Zorgon. I don’t remember who, but somebody in the thread said it. I can’t provide any details either. You’ll just have to take my word for it.

            Hop over to the miscarriage thread. You’ll find over a hundred posters who felt the loss of their unborn baby early in pregnancy just as devastating as they would if they lost a teenage son or daughter to suicide.

          • kathykattenburg

            I had two miscarriages myself, so I don’t think I need to read other people’s stories of miscarriage to know how devastating it is. But thanks anyway.

          • Basset_Hound

            The people there grieved the loss of their CHILDREN…not nebulous, kinda-sorta but not really human building plan, acorn like tissue globs…CHILDREN.

          • kathykattenburg

            Yeah, so did I.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I thought you had two abortions. Make up your mind.

          • kathykattenburg

            I did have two abortions. When did I say I didn’t?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            When you said you had two miscarriages, I believe. Were the abortions and miscarriages separate incidents?

          • kathykattenburg

            Yes.

          • Andrew J. Corrales