UPDATED - Let's Just Be Honest in our Terminology Please: Are you Pro-Life or Just Pro-Birth?

I don't find pro-choice and pro-life to be mutually exclusive.

That's where I am. I am pro-life, but understand the need for choice.

I owe the life of my wife and kids to the ability to make medically prudent choices during a problem pregnancy.

I simply do not trust legislators to have the competence to write a law that applies well to the myriad dilemmas that can occur when human reproduction goes awry.

Amen Buckeye... I also don't leave my free will or others to a book that is open to interpretation.

GGM..... Thank you for your story, I am sure you are a wonderful momma.

Kate.... Awesome article. You should read the one by E.D. Kain.

Sorry, but you can't substitute one for the other. I mean, obviously you'd LIKE for me to forget about being pro-life/anti-abortion, but I can't. One can do all those things you suggested and STILL be pro-life, I should know since I've done that. You just can't substitute one for the other.

Sorry T, but I am not saying you need to substitute one for the other. You are reading something that isn't there. IF someone is truly pro-life then they need to care for all life. You seem to very much and that is wonderful, but not everyone who calls themselves pro-life practice what they preach. I know many people who are pro-life and would never expect them to change who they are, just as I hope they can understand my views.

Good point! Initially, I think they did refer to the movement as anti-abortion, but changed it to Pro-life to gain more sympathy for their cause. You know - a more positive spin on their fundamentalist BS.

As a man I don't believe I have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. That is a choice between a Woman her Doctor and if she is religious her God.

"Good point! Initially, I think they did refer to the movement as anti-abortion, but changed it to Pro-life to gain more sympathy for their cause. You know - a more positive spin on their fundamentalist BS."

You mean like calling yourself "pro-choice" when you are really supporting abortion? Yeah, a positive spin on BS.

BAD1V

Your words are exactly as I feel. I was really upset at all the airtime Randall Terry received showing him rejoicing in Dr. Tiller's death. Why would he found an organization, incite violence, then celebrate the death of a human with "he reaped what he sowed". I don't believe he has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body either.

@Bad1V

@Victoriawood

@GL Stewart

I was really upset at all the airtime Randall Terry received showing him rejoicing in Dr. Tiller's death.

To be Pro-Life you would have to be against any killing.

That's the key right there: One cannot call themselves pro-life and then go out and murder people. That is a sick, twisted mind set. How can one call themselves a christian and then murder a human being? If one truly is a christian, the bible states: :Thou Shall Not Kill"; so just because one feels a doctor is killing un-born babies...your idea is to go and murder the doctor???/!!!! This is truly baffling.

I find that it is too difficult, if not impossible to be Pro-life. If one were Pro-life, one would have to argue against killing people like Hitler for example. One would argue against taking a life of a person for taking another life during piece-time. I always firmly believed that murderers do not deserve to live, when obviously their victims have been killed. I do however believe that life is precious and should be valued and cherished. Because I do not believe there is anything after death, to me life is far more precious than it migtht be to those who strongly believe in after-life. This all said, I do not think life is a right. If one has done harm to society one has to pay and may have to pay with one's life.

As a man I don't believe I have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

This is where I, as a man, have a hard time with. A baby requires a man and a woman. Yet, it is only the woman who has the choice of carrying it????? The women's lib movement changed who got custody of the children. In the past, the courts would find in favor of the father; and then the women's lib movement hit and all of a sudden the children were now being given to the mother. Over the last 30+ years it got so out of hand that some men were now being the ones being victimized and almost stripped of all parenting rights. By giving women justice where once there was none, the pendulum swung the other way and now women are given parental rights and men have to beg and plead to get custody. It is this same out-of-whack philosophy where only a woman has the sole authority over a fetus that both were involved in making. That is disturbing to me. Sure a woman has to carry the baby, but did she not know this when the two had intercourse? If a woman does not want or value a man's input on the pregnancy that they both created, do not share the bed with him. In the end it has to be both making the decision and not one.

Kate

I was reading some of the heated exchanges earlier today on this topic and it really hurt my heart. Lots of anger and rhetoric but not a lot of compassion for life.

You sound like a person who is full of compassion. That is a good thing. Appreciate your well expressed article. My heart hurts everytime I think of Dr. Tiller's death and the so-called christians or so-called pro-lifers who rejoice in this man's murder. Don't fret too much Kate; you're a great human being and We, who believe in your article and understand what you mean love you for that!! Take care. :)

Your post is what I have been saying to these Ant-Abortion people. I have ask everyone "How many unwanted children have you adopted?" The funny thing not one of them have said even 1.

Bad - Big surprise there. It's such a warped mindset ...

Diane - It's heartbreaking to hear what happens to babies who never should have existed in the first place, for whatever reason, and my heart aches for you if you have witnessed these atrocities yourself.

I've always had the same question about "pro-lifers" also being the most outspoken supporters of capital punishment.

Personally though, I'm not for abortion. I'd lean more towards illegalizing abortion and legalizing assisted suicides. Let the kid decide if life is worth living once he/she's old enough. Pro-choice for the life in question, basically.

I've always had the same question about "pro-lifers" also being the most outspoken supporters of capital punishment.

Being "pro-life" or "pro-birth" or whathaveyou and supporting captial punishment are not mutually exclusive.

For the sake of discussion lets say that you hold the belief (like most pro-lifers do) that as soon as you are conceived you are a person. Most of you here have said that a woman has the right to do what she wills with her body or that they don't want people making their decisions for them. If you believe that the embryo is a person abortion is taking away the child's right to do what they want with their bodies and make choices of their own and their right to live.

Capital punishment is just that, a punishment. Someone who is on death row is no Mr. Rogers. They are there because they have chosen actions that hurt or kill others. They have chosen not to play nicely with the rest of society and are receiving the consequences.

So the difference between the two becomes taking a life that has barely started vs one that has chosen the life they lead and those choices have severly hurt those around them.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I think so much of the abortion disagreement depends on when a person becomes a person...if you believe that personhood starts at conception then it is hard to say that abortion is ok, but if you believe that personhood starts at birth then you don't run into such trappings.

yea I understand that part, but I guess what I have an issue with (and I should've made this clearer) is that they call themselves "pro-lifers", yet a lot of them are so enthusiastic for capital punishment, practically drooling for the heads of these convicts, like they REALLY, REALLY want them to die, yet call themselves pro-lifers. They should just call themselves "pro-choice for the embryo" and in that case if you really consider yourself pro-choice for the life in question, I would think you should also support assisted suicides as I mentioned above, if you really are pro-choice.

If you believe that the embryo is a person abortion is taking away the child's right to do what they want with their bodies and make choices of their own and their right to live.

Saying that a fetus would "want to do what they want with their bodies" makes no sense, because they are non-sentient and can't "want" anything. They are not born, sentient entities and their presence should not exert any control over the choices of a born, sentient person.

It seems to me that someone who is pro-life should be against any type of human caused human death....murder, wars, executions. To me, someone who is anti-choice but pro-death penalty certain sounds like someone who is merely "pro-fetal-life".

I just wish there could be a bigger push on preventing unwanted prgnancies to begin with, and then we could naturally decrease the number of abortions performed.

Kate In Greensboro

I hope you understand I mean no disrespect.

None taken, unlike some threads around here we're just talking here haha.

VerbalBarb

I just wish there could be a bigger push on preventing unwanted prgnancies to begin with, and then we could naturally decrease the number of abortions performed.

I completely agree with you here.

BAD1V - I don't think your argument has merit. Killing one's child, born or unborn is wrong - whatever the actions of others are is irrelevent. If someone cannot take care of a baby, they can give him up for adoption, not abort him.

Besibug-561369

BAD1V - I don't think your argument has merit. Killing one's child, born or unborn is wrong - whatever the actions of others are is irrelevent. If someone cannot take care of a baby, they can give him up for adoption, not abort him

How many of these unwanted children have you adopted? And are you willing to take all that will be born it you had you way?

Like I said in my post, people get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant -period. Killing your own child is wrong. Adoption is a separate issue as is foster care. If there are too many "unwanted children", who do you think the people are that need to be dealt with instead of killing babies?

If you feel that it is wrong to have an Abortion then don't have one. But you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. As to the irresponsible people what do propose to be sterilize them. You cannot make people be responsible. Adoption and Foster care are not a separate issue, where are these unwanted children going to go?

I also know that killing my mom, dad, neighbor is wrong, but I won't say it's ok for you to if you want. Abortion is legal (unfortunately) and I can't force someone not to get one. So, what your saying is that since we adults are bigger and stronger we can kill helpless babies but not do anything about irresponsible adults? It's these very people's actions that are the problem - surely we can do better as a nation, as a people. Now, of course, there has always been "unwanted" pregnancies, but nowhere near the levels nowdays. Why is that? People will be responsible for what they are taught and expected to be responsible for. Abortion is not about the child somehow not being adopted, it's about the parent not wanting to be pregnant.

Just tell me how you are going to make people be responsible? You are avoiding what to do with the unwanted children. You can call it killing babies all you want but that is your opinion. Can a 12 or younger fetus live on it's on?

Adoption is a separate issue as is foster care.

They are not a separate issue. Bringing someone into this world effects everyone. Unfortunately life does not exist in a bubble. Let's look at the "Octo-Mom" for a second. She brought 8 kids into this world, i forget the total number, and what she has done effects her immediate family, her neighbors, and everyone who pays taxes in the State, and even everyone who pays taxes on the federal level. This is the reality of having children.

I can't speak for others, but what I'm looking for is consistancy. Someone said earlier that death penalty was a punishment. That's true. But it's also a decision made by other people and the number 1 argument from the "prolife" movement is that a woman cannot decide the validity of the life of the fetus, because it's a person even in the case of saving the mother's life. So the whole argument of right or wrong, punishment or not goes right out the window. It makes no sense. If you're pro-life then be pro-life. But as this article implies, I think people who proclaim to be pro-life are more pro-birth than anything.

Killing your own child is wrong.

Not everyone believes a fertilized egg is a "child". Because you do, you probably should not avail yourself of your right to legally terminate a pregnancy (if, of course, you're a woman of child-bearing age). Other women can and should be allowed to make their own choices.

Not everyone believes a fertilized egg is a "child".

Do you believe it will become a child? Whether it will become a child or it is a child, you are still stopping it from being born, no?

Capital punishment is just that, a punishment. Someone who is on death row is no Mr. Rogers. They are there because they have chosen actions that hurt or kill others. They have chosen not to play nicely with the rest of society and are receiving the consequences.

Not 100% of the time.

Total number of executions since 1976 = 1165.

Total number of people exonerated since 1976 = 121.

Percentage of possible unnecessary deaths = 9.4%. That's 9.4% too many.

Indeed, anyone who commits murder is a mass murderer by this definition, including the man who shot Tiller. He killed all of the potential unborn children from the Doctor's unused sperm, who were most certainly innocent of any crime.

By your logic, every sperm, then, is theoretically a potential child

By itself? No. A fertilized egg is, IMO. Unless nature throws up a roadblock. And in the case of an abortion, you are that roadblock. Would you concede that much?

So my Mom, who miscarried twice before I was born, should have been investigated for manslaughter in each case?

Actually, in the case of sudden death an autopsy and death investigation will occur.

You're not trying to prevent much if you are going to allow a doctor to certify a miscarriage as such, when it could have been an illegal abortion. How far are you willing to go?

If it was a twenty five year old otherwise healthy mother?

AdipicAcid,

I'm less concerned with what is considered a crime and more concerned with not lying to ourselves. Let's be real. Abortion is an active decision to prevent a fertilized egg from becoming a child. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking abortion is a passive act.

Do you believe it will become a child? Whether it will become a child or it is a child, you are still stopping it from being born, no?

I believe it has the potential to become a child, and that stopping a pregnancy stops that process. That's the idea.

Indeed. The problem here is caused by binary thinking: that something must be one thing or the other. Human life is far more of a spectrum than that, but that means that you have to think hard about each case and not spout platitudes. The latter is easier.

VerbalBarb,

ok at least we agree on that much. So why not leave the fertilized egg alone and let it potentially become a child, who may or may not think life is worth living, who may or may not grow up to do great things?

I'm saying this more for those who might think about getting an abortion, who I hope would think it through like this. I care less about the legality or illegality of it.

I have ask everyone "How many unwanted children have you adopted?" The funny thing not one of them have said even 1

Bad1v, you and I are on the same wave. I have done such as well, many many many times. I have sent emails with site links that have hundreds and thousands of kids needing to be adopted. If the "pro-lifers" were so worried about "life" there would be ZERO children needing to be adopted. When I present the question of adoption reform to make adopting easier for families. They just look at me like I have 3 heads. Instead of condemning the "act of abortion" why are they not changing a system that abuses and neglects children that are here, alive and in need. Taking care of the present will make their "cause" seem less like a infringement on a woman's right to choice and more like an alternative. Right now, the alternative is pretty @!$%#ty for most kids. Check out the hundreds of web sites that have kids needing to be adopted or ask a kid that has been in the system all of their life. Their answers are an indication of a reality the "pro right denier's" do NOT want to hear, but the reality of what life is like.

I have an adopted son, age almost 40, who will never get over the abuse he suffered. Some just don't.

@Diane

I was referring to those I have seen for myself. I did not mean to offend anyone who overcame abuse.

I did not take it as you offending anyone...maybe because I understood what you meant. I do applaud you, however, for apologizing to those who may have been offended. It takes a special caring person to do that! Take care.

@shewolf884

I have an adopted son, age almost 40, who will never get over the abuse he suffered. Some just don't.

Agreed! I was trained in my early 30's to do volunteer work over the phone counseling people who called in for many problematic issues ranging from A-Z. The main idea was to allow them to talk and in the end, hopefully get them to accept a doctor's name and # for furthur professional consultation. I don't remember the exact name of our volunteer counseling group. It was a 24/7 hotline. There were many who were abused and as above comment states; many were young, middle aged and even quite older who needed to let this "thing" come from their minds, heart/soul & finally from their mouths and in the end.....cry!! My heart wept as well because many had been holding on to this for so long and never discussed it with no one. What was worse was there were some parents or adoptive parents who were calling because their child had committed suicide after finally comfronting the abuse. Some move on, others are not able to. I contributed in helping so many people (follow-ups were done if caller gave their phone #'s and/or their parents name); however some I was not able to because some just would tell a counselor so much , cry & hang up. I committed to a year...I was only able to do a year. It was simply too hard.

but declines to spend much on extremely cheap preventative/maintence heathcare for children that would help ensure their lifelong help, and productivity/contribution to society.

How about parents do that?

I WOULD like to see the government supply free birth control to people who don't have the means to properly take care of a child - and (to keep on topic) it would help reduce the necessity for abortions. Of course, if they do that, people will start screaming about that.

Jivatman:

I know that you and many others are torn and or divided about who is most deserving of help/assistance. I hope you and others will consider thinking more in terms of getting our human priorities straight. If we (you and I, etc.) want to live in a Just World, we do have to make some real choices about our priorities. I would like to see humanity choose to see that Every Person is fed, clothed, has shelter and health care attention. We are not on a life raft having to decide who is weakest among us and therefore who might be a prospective meal. What has happened for far too long is that we as a nation have sytematically (but legally) excluded many peoples from rising up out of poverty. Many many elderly are the very ones who are taking care of their grandchildren and even their greatgrandchildren because of our present economy. Elderly people put money into pension funds and paid into social security all of their working lives---they have been robbed in many cases, but the point is that even if you took everything away from the elderly, I think that it would never solve the problem of the poor or the care needed for children. The problem is the greed and our allowing the abuses of poverty and lack of care for our citizen to exist in any way, shape, or form. America should set the standard for the reverance and care of human beings and all living things. When we lose money, we're broke; when we lose our humanity, we're impoverished and destitute.

Jivatman

I'm a dunce. I just reread what you posted. I thought you were talking about the elderly care in general---I had a class today where we talked about this general subject, so guess I was still back in class. sorry.

I definitely agree that educating kids on contraception is extremely important. Sometimes condoms break though and parents won't get their daughters birth control cause they think that will stop her. That happened to a friend of mind in highschool.

Teaching kids to be responsible is so important. Parents that refuse to talk to their kids about contraception and only promote abstinence are usual in denial that their child may end up not listening to them. Leads alot of kids into these type of situations.

Alwaysthinking.. I agree with you on adoption and horrible parents. But other issue with adoption is .... The people that can afford to adopt want a perfectly healthy white new born or they'll go out of the country and get a cute little oriental or Latino baby. Mean while we have toddlers, pre-teens and teenagers sitting in dismal unloving foster care getting angrier and angrier. What's wrong with people?

Thousands of Black children languish in foster care while potentially loving parents spend tens of thousands of dollars to get that cute Asian baby from overseas. I wish somebody could explain why this is allowed to happen.

It's because it's really frigging difficult to adopt in country. I had a friend who was adopted from Korea- her mother spents years trying to adopt in country and just couldn't deal with it anymore. Plus there are some strong movements in the the US to only allow adoptions within the same race. That really grates me (I'm half-Korean, half-white, and therefore would have very limited options) but the fact remains- people are going to look elsewhere if the gov't is going to frustrate them at every turn.

Hahaha, Sorry I was out of the loop for a bit but got a chuckle from reading your posts above:

The people that can afford to adopt want a perfectly healthy white new born or they'll go out of the country and get a cute little oriental or Latino baby.

Definitely agree with this statement. My parents were on the list for a white baby but the month they got a white baby boy in NY, my dad lost his job and they couldn't keep the baby. (Lucky for him). So it was so difficult to do in the US, they went through Catholic Social Services and adopted me from Korea. lol and I was pretty damn "cute"

I've known alot of Koreans have been adopted, esp around my time (1979 DOB). But I also know these same parents that adopted, would NEVER have adopted a black baby or a sick baby.

I'm not a fan of interracial adoption. I got brought up around Scranton PA where there's no diversity and lots of prejudice. Never met a Korean until I got to college. Sucks cause everyone looks at me like I'm asian when I'm "really" not, except for asians.

Diane

Where are all these pro-birth people for these children. Why are these same people against programs to help these children. Why do these same people call these children a burden on society. I would like to tell them to get off their damn soapbox and become a foster parent who stays up all night calming a children who thinks the "monster" is coming back. A good deal of these children are bi-polar, ADHD, paranoid or just ill from a number of things done to them. Where the heck are the pro-birth people for these children?

Agree to comment above totally.

@dmkatt78

O'Reilly didn't put the gun in his hand.

1st, please allow me to state that your post was very touching & moving. It is a very good post. As I read, the only comment , which I paste above, had my mind automatically thinking, No! O'Reilly did not put the gun in killer's hand but I felt he came darn close to verbally pushing the killer to do something horrific to Dr. Tiller. There are some twisted minds out there and Bill and others who think as he does about this issue should stress that murdering a person is not the answer....there are legal ways to handle this , if what you are after is putting the docter out of business & not harming him/her in any manner. Take care.

I don't understand the correlation. Are these the kids that you think should have been aborted? I wonder what percentage of them (as hard as their life is) wish they were aborted, and what percentage of them want to keep on going.

The correlation is these are the unwanted children. How many more would be there if abortion is made illegal? The anti-abortionist aren't adopting the 500,000 that are in CPS custody now. Please don't say how hard it is to adopt. No matter how hard it is at least 1/2 (250,000) could be adopted.

That brings up a lot of different arguments but I guess I should start by getting some clarification, what is your main concern with those statistics that you posted? That many of the "unwanted" children have hard lives? (probably an understatement)

ed,

I can't speak for Bad1V obviously, but my concerns with the whole pro-life movement are the fact that there are no solutions for after the child is born. Obviously Bad's statistics show that there are many unwanted children that nobody seems to care about. Would that be a reason to kill them now? Obviously not, however there are only so many children that can be supported by any given society.

So in essence, here you got people screaming about killing babies and many of them are unable or unwilling to gather enough empathy to see that a lot of mothers will need help after birth. Currently most households living in poverty are headed by women, often single mothers who do not receive any kind of support from the fathers. These mothers therefore are forced to rely on government assistance (general cry of the right: they need to start to pull themselves out by their own bootstraps and get off assistance) or work two to three jobs which will not allow them to monitor their children. This of course will lead to higher gang memberships, ... This is a vicious cycle with no way out.

So what I would propose, if you are pro-life make sure that these women, who aren't supposed to get an abortion, are able to raise their childrren to be productive members of society. Enact government funded policies that will give support to these mothers and enable them to raise their children in a way that will decrease the likelihood of abortions needed/wanted. Put up a social system that women can rely on while their children get through the worst.

Pro-life simply can't end at birth, there needs to be more involvement and willingness to give once the child is born. Punitive measuresalone won't cut it. Let me assure you that raising a child alone, despite sufficient finding isn't easy. Ask any military spouse doing it off and on.

I agree wholeheartedly that more needs to be done for these kids. But I personally think these should be separated issues because I don't think the answer is decreasing the number of "unwanted" children with abortion.

Saying abortion is ok sometimes because it prevents a child from suffering is the beginning of a slippery slope. This leads to questions like, "Should children who may suffer because of a handicap be aborted?" and so on and so on.

And as I said, for the majority of these unwanted kids, I would think that they want to keep living, despite their hardships, or they would have killed themselves already. They should have that choice though IMO. And not surprisingly, I think most people find that life is worth living, as hard as it may be.

But yes, we need to concentrate more on the root of the problem (i.e. why are there so many more unwanted pregnancies, why aren't we doing more for the lives that are already here, etc.) instead of the symptom (i.e unwanted pregnancies and what to do with them).

ed,

personally I believe that no law should prohibit it simply because it would force women to visit the back ally "Angel Makers" again. I also found that most pro-choice people are not necessarily saying that abortions should be done, it is more a realistic assessment that it will happen anyways so might as well make it safe.

Personally, I wish no abortion would happen ever, but as long as we cling to things like abstinence only, no sex education etc the chances of that happening are getting increasingly smaller. To end or limit abortion we need to do better than we are doing.

As far as my last statement goes, it was more there to illustrate that abortion is not the only aspect of the discussion. There are numerous things that also need to be worked on in order to better the system and allow more children to be born. Look I can understand why a mother of three, who receives no child support, struggles to make ends meet, and gets pregnant despite using birth control would choose an abortion. Certainly there are as many reasons as there are people but I think we are not doing the issue justice by merely chanting "baby killers" and trying to illustrate it in a "bubble" far removed from reality.

Both sides should come together and find solutions that will allow us to minimize the number of abortions taking place.

yea most people just use this as an opportunity to play politics anyway. There's not much I can say to justify prohibiting it, since I don't believe in forcing others to act a certain way. I just wish people would rethink using abortion as a solution to their problem. IMO it is a life and you are taking it's choice away from him/her.

Anyway, it's late here. Goin to sleep.

Xanthiana

Both sides should come together and find solutions that will allow us to minimize the number of abortions taking place.

I don't understand your statement above. Why should both sides come together and who is "us"?

Us is pretty much anybody who has a stake or opinion in this.

The coming together part is where we, as a whole, should look for means to decrease the number of abortions but still allow choices.

How does anyone other than myself and the child's father have a stake in the matter?

Obviously everybody discussing this matter has an opinion on the topic ...

Well everybody may have an opinion but that opinion doesn't give them the right to offer it unsolicited into matters that don't concern them. Unless I misunderstood you when you were talking about the two sides coming together. I thought you meant the pro-life group coming together with the pro-choice group and together discussing ways to reduce abortions.

Mariyam,

I am not arguing that anybody should dictate to somebody else. What I am trying to say is that I doubt anybody is pro-abortion per se. Most people I know and talked to wish it was not necessary and thus I think both sides on this issue should try to come up with solutions that strive to reduce the number of abortions. Naturally there is a bigger pool of solutions if everybody is looking and not only one side. More people generally translates to more ideas.

In the end, I really don't care who aborts or not, everybody has to act according to their own conscience. I just find it sad that women feel they have to abort, because they can't find any workable way to have a child and support and raise it. That choice should also always be available.

Hey Xanthiana,

I haven't asked a whole lot of people but the ones I do know of who are supportive of the right of women to have access to a legal abortion (female & male) have never indicated that they perceive a need to "do anything" to reduce the amount of abortions. These people are not children indiscriminately having sex without having developed to ability to think ahead to the consequences of their actions. They're educated, knowledgeable and informed adults who use birth control. But as I'm sure everyone knows, no method of birth control is 100% effective barring abstinence.

The perception that something needs to be done to "minimize the number of abortions taking place" appears to exists only on the side of those who oppose abortion. Therefore the way you minimize the number of abortions taking place is for anyone who opposes abortion to not have one, right?" Because to do anything else is infringing upon the rights of those who don't view this legal right in the same manner.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is a very personal decision and the fact that there are so many people who think they have a right to be informed of the decision, make their opinions known, offer their input and/or try to sway or change the decision is somewhat frightening because it demonstrates a form of mob mentality, in my opinion. This can be demonstrated in real life by media footage of women being harassed, taunted and threatened as they attempt to enter various Planned Parenthood clinics country-wide, some of which do not even perform abortions.

And just for the record, I formed my opinions on legal abortion while I was still a child, actually before I reached my teens. I used to read a lot, about a lot of topics, including the history not only of black people in this country, but the history of women in general, here and in other places.

My position is that the right to a legal abortion, just like my right to use a firearm in defense of my own life, is something I'd rather have and not need it, than need and not have.

Mariyam,

The perception that something needs to be done to "minimize the number of abortions taking place" appears to exists only on the side of those who oppose abortion.

Perhaps I am hanging out with the wrong crowd, but I spoke to several women who felt they had no choice other than the abortion in order for their family to survive. These are the cases I would like to see minimized, because in a way they are forced into a decision. And as I am all for choices I don't think that finances should be able to force a woman to choose abortion.

This can be demonstrated in real life by media footage of women being harassed, taunted and threatened as they attempt to enter various Planned Parenthood clinics country-wide, some of which do not even perform abortions.

This shouldn't happen, but I think it is partly due to the system the USA is using. In many other nations you will be admitted to a general hospital, there are no clinics who only perform abortions or hand out birth control. Would the abortions be done in normal clinics it would be much more difficult to harass these women and their doctors, simply because no one knew who went in for an appendix or an abortion. So the way it is set up certainly contributes.

simply because too many people use it as means of getting out of having to deal the consequences of their actions,

No offense, but comments like this make it look like there is a belief that children are supposed to be punishment for having sex. A woman must pay if she plays and gets "caught".

Well, no. She doesn't have to and she shouldn't have to. It would be nice if women who didn't want to get pregnant took better precautions (and there IS birth control that fails and there IS forced/coerced sex), but they should always have the choice of continuing or not continuing a pregnancy.

No offense, but comments like this make it look like there is a belief that children are supposed to be punishment for having sex. A woman must pay if she plays and gets "caught".

I think the emphasis should not just be on sex education but teaching men and women that sex will result in pregnancy if they are not careful, and that should be a consequence they understand and are willing to accept.

Consequences aren't always negative, but they are indeed cause and effect.

Just because something is a consequence though, doesn't mean it should be accepted. If I'm driving my friend and he doesn't put his seatbelt on, should he be denied medical care if I get in a wreck? Of course not, because consent to an action (being in a car/sex) does not equal accepting or realizing its outcome (death/childbirth). We live in a society where cause and effect are not set in stone, as unfortunate as it may be in some cases.

In reference to the question posed, I'm pro-choice. I can't say I'm pro-life because I would not be able to nor am I interested in supporting a child put up for adoption.

If I'm driving my friend and he doesn't put his seatbelt on, should he be denied medical care if I get in a wreck? Of course not, because consent to an action (being in a car/sex) does not equal accepting or realizing its outcome (death/childbirth). We live in a society where cause and effect are not set in stone, as unfortunate as it may be in some cases.

You're right, of course not. But it does mean that his insurance bill might be higher because he didn't take all of the precautions, for example.

Unfortunately this takes the, "abortion is OK to regularly use as a type of birth control" stance. Let's just have sex now and deal with the consequences later. I don't want to put my seatbelt on because it's too tight--but I shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of it...

That is an irresponsible argument!

Neenie, on an earlier thread, I found someone who actually said they were pro-abortion.... roflcopter, I believe that was the name. His reasoning, he didn't want to pay for anyone who could have been aborted......

Now that's just sick.

he didn't want to pay for anyone who could have been aborted......

Now that's just sick.

Or certain attention-getting if one needs that sort of thing. ;0)

Apparently he's not pro-active, pro-condom or pro-cranial/anus separation.

But he said he wasn't pro-choice, so I would guess he was just trying to get some attention.

neenie1991

Apparently he's not pro-active, pro-condom or pro-cranial/anus separation.

ROTFLMAO!

I'm definatley...

pro-cranial/anus separation

Yes, he is just another troll that spouts random BS no matter what post they are on to get attention. There are a few of those around, best just to ignore them as long as they don't get too out of line, then delete them, but don't be baited into feeding them.

Apparently he's not pro-active, pro-condom or pro-cranial/anus separation.

;0)

I knew you'd come along with a fresh perspective for me! Thanks.

Sharing different perspectives and views on things is what I enjoy most about the vine. Not to mention that even on a touchy topic such as this that people can stay (mostly) civil towards one another.

And you'll find that my bottom line stance on most issues stems from limiting government involvement in all areas of our lives. More people need to rely more on themselves and less on government entities to run their lives for them. In all areas.

As the world population keeps booming in quantities that are not sustainable those people who don't want or agree with abortion and the people who are pro-choice all need to start working towards lowering the need for abortions. If we keep going the way we are, there could come a point when not only are abortions legal, they could become mandatory for purposes of population control.

In a society as advanced (technologically, at least) as ours it seems as though we could do much more to prevent pregnancies and not have to worry about abortions being used as birth control except in the cases of rape, molestation, physically dangerous for the mother, etc. I guess it's easier for society to point fingers, blame, kill and call each other names than it is to come together and work towards rational solutions?

In a society as advanced (technologically, at least) as ours it seems as though we could do much more to prevent pregnancies and not have to worry about abortions being used as birth control except in the cases of rape, molestation, physically dangerous for the mother, etc. I guess it's easier for society to point fingers, blame, kill and call each other names than it is to come together and work towards rational solutions?

Very well stated.

Relative to "working toward rational solutions", how many "pro-life" people are against birth control as well as abortion, thinking that some birth control might stop a fertilized egg from implanting. Would they start yelling about allowing only barrier methods of birth control?

how many "pro-life" people are against birth control as well as abortion, thinking that some birth control might stop a fertilized egg from implanting. Would they start yelling about allowing only barrier methods of birth control?

Many of the pro-life people I know or have encountered seem to be against birth control. Wouldn't surprise me if people did yell about allowing only barrier methods - or not allowing any at all.

I have more I'd like to say but I don't want to set off a sh*tstorm and have the discussion get taken that far off topic. More science, less dogma would about sum it up.

Please see post 4.4 you will see that this is not just one person.

No, he knew exactly what he was doing, he is a terrorist. He wants to scare the medical community into not performing abortions anymore. Do not label him as unbalanced or mentally ill. He knew what the effect of his heinous crime would be and did it purposefully.

And that's the truth.

He chose to kill another human inside a church. Indefensible act of premeditated violence, and committing this inside a church?

I wonder if doing it inside of the church was meant to be significant.

Thanks! Someone flamed me for labeling this an act of terrorism, and now I don't feel so alone in my concept ...

It is an act of terrorism in the sense that it's meant to affect a public policy, that policy being access to a legal abortion.

Per Webster's New World Dictionary:

Terrorism

1. the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
2. the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way

No, he knew exactly what he was doing, he is a terrorist.

Absolutely!

Hard to believe, but its also hard to believe how stupid people can be. I can site an example of a person who because "i dont get off when I use condoms" prefers to have the occasional abortion.

This is blatant stupidity. It should be punishable by death, it is hindering the evolution of our species.

Not saying that this is the Norm, but they certainly are out there, and if that is their choice, its my opinion that that is their freedom......... and if its risky, and becomes more risky with repetition, i say "Great!" because its fewer offspring that this idiot is burdening society with.

With regards to the soul..... you beg the question.... does anyone know at what point or if at any point does a soul enter a body. My definition of soul has to do with music, not god, so I can say with certainty, that some soul entered my body when I was exposed for the first time to James Brown.