55 Million Lives Aborted. . . in the name of choice

[YoungRepublican]

Yet, you are the one advocating KILLING people.

It isnt advocating killing people, its not wanting others to be in charge of a life altering decision. Like I said, if cast into that situation I would personally adopt it, but it is not my place to tell another what they can or cannot do with their body. I thinks thats what the poster meant.

The life altering decision occurs long before someone gets pregnant. It isn't about making life altering decisions. It's about taking the life of another human being, your own child, because you don't want to face the consequences of your actions.

Killing your child doesn't magically become good because it would be inconvenient if you don't.

But if I accidently had a kid right now I would most likely have to drop out of college, get a real job, not go to law school and work for 17 bucks an hour for the first 20 years of my life. My gf would probably have to do the same, besides the whole grad school thing. and now were living right at the low income-mid income line because trojan couldnt make a reliable product. What right do you have to tell me what I can or cant do with my life? Its completely legal, but because im not living up to your moral code makes me a bad person? you can have your code, ill take my life.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yet, you are the one advocating KILLING people.

No. I'm the one advocating leaving that decision to the people involved. Are you opposed to killing people?

Yes. I am opposed to killing innocent children. That's why oppose abortion.

What you said was killing people. Already you begin to qualify the statement. Do you or do you not oppose killing people? Or is that just a statement of convenience?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Can us as Republicans begin to focus on actual issues and stop making ourselves sound silly by saying things like this. Abortion will NEVER be overturned and one day I will have to explain to my children that at one point in American history women with unwanted children had two options. either they could go to a black market abortion clinic, risking her life or she could have the child in the poverty stricken situation that she was currently in (statistically that is often the case) leaving the child to fend for themselves ultimately leading them to a life of crime. Abortion is a medical practice and has been legal for over forty years, lets get over it. Why should two kids be forced to give up on their dreams and aspirations because they had an accident. the Pro life crowd wants to ruin three lives in order to save the one that is statistically already doomed, just in case. Play the odds, abortion is a necessary evil.

People like you could restore the Republican Party to respectability.

One suspects you will find yourself in the wilderness with the rest of the respectable people in a few years, but if there are more like you maybe there is some hope for what used to be a political party before it became the voice of religious cranks and reactionaries.

 

[AmyNation]

There are plenty of children waiting for someone to adopt them in our country. There is a shortage of healthy white babies, not adoptable children.

And the government, of course, makes it much more difficult than it needs to be to adopt these children.

What do you feel are the unnecessary difficulties the government imposes?

 

[Againsheila]

It isnt advocating killing people, its not wanting others to be in charge of a life altering decision. Like I said, if cast into that situation I would personally adopt it, but it is not my place to tell another what they can or cannot do with their body. I thinks thats what the poster meant.

The life altering decision occurs long before someone gets pregnant. It isn't about making life altering decisions. It's about taking the life of another human being, your own child, because you don't want to face the consequences of your actions.

Killing your child doesn't magically become good because it would be inconvenient if you don't.

But if I accidently had a kid right now I would most likely have to drop out of college, get a real job, not go to law school and work for 17 bucks an hour for the first 20 years of my life. My gf would probably have to do the same, besides the whole grad school thing. and now were living right at the low income-mid income line because trojan couldnt make a reliable product. What right do you have to tell me what I can or cant do with my life? Its completely legal, but because im not living up to your moral code makes me a bad person? you can have your code, ill take my life.

The condom is the worst reliable source of birth-control next to the rhythm method. Because you are stupid enough to create a kid when you can't afford one, you think you should have the right to kill the kid. Supposing your girlfriend doesn't agree? It's her decision after all. <something I don't understand, how only the mother determines if the child is a baby or a fetus>

 

[AmyNation]

There are plenty of children waiting for someone to adopt them in our country. There is a shortage of healthy white babies, not adoptable children.

There is a shortage of babies period. Race doesn't matter. People will adopt children of any color. The problem is that our government doesn't terminate parental rights while children are still young enough to be adopted.

Then there is the problem of the Blacks and Indians not wanting Whites to adopt their children. They are much less likely to adopt than whites, but they still don't want whites adopting their children. Thank God the laws on that have changed.

Several years ago there was a beautiful little black girl. Her foster parents, who'd had her since birth decided to look into adopting her. Since they were white, there was an outcry. The girl was taken away from the only family she'd even known and given back to her mother. Only a few months later, the little girl was dead, killed by her mother who shoved a sock in her mouth. Even though she had free daycare and the daycare continually called CPS with their concern for the child, for some reason, the blacks felt the girl was better off with the mother that killed her than being adopted by a white couple.

The argument that black babies are not adoptable is a poor one and a false one. I have friends who have a black child they adopted and he wasn't even an infant when he was taken in to be fostered to adopt. The black baby they took in to foster to adopt, was taken back by his biological parents. No babies since had come up for adoption for them.

There are more Caucasian children in foster care than African American children. Maybe more people should be more open to adopting children who need them instead of searching for the perfect newborn.

 

[rdean]

•16.7 million children lived in food insecure households

•In 2011, 16.1 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty

Seven states exhibited statistically significant higher household food insecurity rates than the U.S. national average 2009-2011: iv

United States 14.7%

Mississippi 19.2%

Texas 18.5%

Arkansas 19.2%

Alabama 17.4%

Georgia 17.4%

Florida 16.2%

North Carolina 17.1%

Hunger Statistics, Hunger Facts & Poverty Facts | Feeding America

Republicans say, "Job will done".

 

[Againsheila]

There are plenty of children waiting for someone to adopt them in our country. There is a shortage of healthy white babies, not adoptable children.

There is a shortage of babies period. Race doesn't matter. People will adopt children of any color. The problem is that our government doesn't terminate parental rights while children are still young enough to be adopted.

Then there is the problem of the Blacks and Indians not wanting Whites to adopt their children. They are much less likely to adopt than whites, but they still don't want whites adopting their children. Thank God the laws on that have changed.

Several years ago there was a beautiful little black girl. Her foster parents, who'd had her since birth decided to look into adopting her. Since they were white, there was an outcry. The girl was taken away from the only family she'd even known and given back to her mother. Only a few months later, the little girl was dead, killed by her mother who shoved a sock in her mouth. Even though she had free daycare and the daycare continually called CPS with their concern for the child, for some reason, the blacks felt the girl was better off with the mother that killed her than being adopted by a white couple.

The argument that black babies are not adoptable is a poor one and a false one. I have friends who have a black child they adopted and he wasn't even an infant when he was taken in to be fostered to adopt. The black baby they took in to foster to adopt, was taken back by his biological parents. No babies since had come up for adoption for them.

There are more Caucasian children in foster care than African American children. Maybe more people should be more open to adopting children who need them instead of searching for the perfect newborn.

Wrong again. Newborns don't have to be perfect. Even crack babies are being adopted as soon as the parent's rights are terminated. People don't want to adopt older children for many reasons, one of them being that older children are in many cases unadoptable, they have already been "ruined" by the system. If you had a baby at home, would you want to adopt a 14 year old gang banger?

Like I said, the government is waiting too long to terminate parental rights.

 

[AmyNation]

There is a shortage of babies period. Race doesn't matter. People will adopt children of any color. The problem is that our government doesn't terminate parental rights while children are still young enough to be adopted.

Then there is the problem of the Blacks and Indians not wanting Whites to adopt their children. They are much less likely to adopt than whites, but they still don't want whites adopting their children. Thank God the laws on that have changed.

Several years ago there was a beautiful little black girl. Her foster parents, who'd had her since birth decided to look into adopting her. Since they were white, there was an outcry. The girl was taken away from the only family she'd even known and given back to her mother. Only a few months later, the little girl was dead, killed by her mother who shoved a sock in her mouth. Even though she had free daycare and the daycare continually called CPS with their concern for the child, for some reason, the blacks felt the girl was better off with the mother that killed her than being adopted by a white couple.

The argument that black babies are not adoptable is a poor one and a false one. I have friends who have a black child they adopted and he wasn't even an infant when he was taken in to be fostered to adopt. The black baby they took in to foster to adopt, was taken back by his biological parents. No babies since had come up for adoption for them.

There are more Caucasian children in foster care than African American children. Maybe more people should be more open to adopting children who need them instead of searching for the perfect newborn.

Wrong again. Newborns don't have to be perfect. Even crack babies are being adopted as soon as the parent's rights are terminated. People don't want to adopt older children for many reasons, one of them being that older children are in many cases unadoptable, they have already been "ruined" by the system. If you had a baby at home, would you want to adopt a 14 year old gang banger?

Like I said, the government is waiting too long to terminate parental rights.

Yeah, that's why nearly half of children in foster care are listed as special needs, and that doesn't include emotional issues.

People want perfect newborns. And, suggesting the way to help foster adoption of American children is to make it easier for the government to take children from their biological parents is stupid.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

What is pathetic is people seeking to eliminate abortion don't understand - or are lying about their understanding of - both the Bible and the US Constitution.

The Bible doesn't prohibit abortion at all. Not even a suggestion of it. The harshest penalty for abortion in the Bible refers to causing an accident that results in a woman losing her fetus. Further, the Bible is very specific about when life begins - at the quickening, or first breath.

God will punish the filthy lying scum misrepresenting the Bible.

The Constitution means nothing to these ignorant anti-American rabble.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons... shall not be violated...

The Constitution is clear about the rights of individuals to freedom of religion and to be secure in their person from government interference.

Basically what we have here are a bunch of filthy fucking religious nuts and woman haters lying about the Bible and the Constitution. IKE is probably spinning in his grave since Reagan embraced religious nuts with less understanding of their own Bible than a monkey has of Shakespeare, and neocons whose outrages have rendered the constitution into toilet paper.

 

[freedombecki]

It could be another Ghandi. It could be another Hitler.

In this country, it's always another American Citizen who is not protected by the craven Congress who cowers from the issue of taking preborn lives.

Congress of today values their little moneyspending jobs more than they give a damn whether a million and a half Americans who can't make a fist and sock the bastards with the killing equipment in the eye to stop their own deaths.

Pock, pock pock, p'dock!!!!!

 

[Hollie]

What is it with your side of the aisles' desire to kill their offspring?

What an outrageous and false claim.

In the U.S., Roe vs. Wade is a reasonable compromise for a society to deal with children from unwanted pregnancy. It's obviously not a perfect solution but it does provide a middle ground between those who would require State womb control and those who require decision making in connection with their health and reproductive concerns.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots are hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control (or religious fundamentalist womb control), before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother-nothing more. It neither requires them to enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to a statute (then) at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing one argument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting the fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother's health moot, if the state choose to pursue it.

outrageous and false claim? You actively support killing your offspring. There is no other name for abortion.

If you choose to have an abortion, does your child survive? no. Therefore, you are for killing your offspring

Nothing false or outrageous about it. You just dont want to deal with the truth. But then you've demonstrated your preference for emotional arguments rather than rational ones in the past. Im not surprised here. Anything to avoid the reality of the situation.

I see yours as an extremist position and apparently, so does much of this nation. Hence, the longevity of Roe vs. Wade.

It is indeed a complicated issue, which is why simplistic; absolutist views are woefully inadequate.

Your opinions, dictated by a partisan religious belief does not dictate that we mindlessly leap to an absolutist proscription. As with most contested matters of adjudication, we are dealing with conflicting recognized rights: a woman to control her womb, a fetus to develop into an individual. Rowe vs Wade has delineated the specifics of such a compromise, recognizing as a superior matter of privacy the right of a woman to control a pregnancy before that zygote/embryo/fetus has become a viable entity, and granting that fetus a protected status once its development has reached a definitive stage. There is always a nebulous area in between that can be contested, but to legislate either one extremist position or the other is not an equitable approach.

Forgive me if I misconstrued your intent. I assumed that you do have a personal view of the matter and it is your wish that it be imposed by government upon women, whether they share your view or not. If you do not argue for such an imposition, I apologize. But please recognize that there are extremists, particularly men for whom the situation does not arise, who would dictate and force their personal belief upon women who are personally affected.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"One day if you are blessed with children, you will be able to see an ultrasound of your child with their heart beating and them moving around. No one can deny that there is a new human life growing when they see that."

Wrong again, Avatar. I saw an untrasound of my unborn child, but I agree with the Supreme Court, that an unviable fetus is not a child, until, or unless it can survive without the mother.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

55 Million Lives Aborted. . . in the name of choice

Actually not.

Those abortions were a consequence of this Nations’s failure to address the problem of unwanted pregnancy and the extremism of Christian fundamentalism, including such failed policies as abstinence only sex ‘education.’

Indeed, those abortions would have occurred regardless the ruling in Roe.

As already correctly noted, abortion was occurring long before it became a political and legal issue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is it with your side of the aisles' desire to kill their offspring?

What an outrageous and false claim.

In the U.S., Roe vs. Wade is a reasonable compromise for a society to deal with children from unwanted pregnancy. It's obviously not a perfect solution but it does provide a middle ground between those who would require State womb control and those who require decision making in connection with their health and reproductive concerns.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots are hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control (or religious fundamentalist womb control), before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother-nothing more. It neither requires them to enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to a statute (then) at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing one argument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting the fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother's health moot, if the state choose to pursue it.

outrageous and false claim? You actively support killing your offspring. There is no other name for abortion.

If you choose to have an abortion, does your child survive? no. Therefore, you are for killing your offspring

Nothing false or outrageous about it. You just dont want to deal with the truth. But then you've demonstrated your preference for emotional arguments rather than rational ones in the past. Im not surprised here. Anything to avoid the reality of the situation.

Yes, outrageous and false.

No ‘side’ advocates killing anyone.

The disagreement concerns the solution to the problem of abortion, as all are in agreement abortion needs to be ended.

The conservative ‘solution’ is to ban abortion – in addition to being un-Constitutional, it will do little if anything to bring about the end of the practice.

To be opposed to a clearly ineffective solution concerning abortion is not advocacy of abortion.

 

[rdean]

What an outrageous and false claim.

In the U.S., Roe vs. Wade is a reasonable compromise for a society to deal with children from unwanted pregnancy. It's obviously not a perfect solution but it does provide a middle ground between those who would require State womb control and those who require decision making in connection with their health and reproductive concerns.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots are hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control (or religious fundamentalist womb control), before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother-nothing more. It neither requires them to enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to a statute (then) at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing one argument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting the fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother's health moot, if the state choose to pursue it.

outrageous and false claim? You actively support killing your offspring. There is no other name for abortion.

If you choose to have an abortion, does your child survive? no. Therefore, you are for killing your offspring

Nothing false or outrageous about it. You just dont want to deal with the truth. But then you've demonstrated your preference for emotional arguments rather than rational ones in the past. Im not surprised here. Anything to avoid the reality of the situation.

Yes, outrageous and false.

No &#8216;side&#8217; advocates killing anyone.

The disagreement concerns the solution to the problem of abortion, as all are in agreement abortion needs to be ended.

The conservative &#8216;solution&#8217; is to ban abortion &#8211; in addition to being un-Constitutional, it will do little if anything to bring about the end of the practice.

To be opposed to a clearly ineffective solution concerning abortion is not advocacy of abortion.

No, Republicans advocate "Let him die". Not the same as killing someone.

 

[YoungRepublican]

The life altering decision occurs long before someone gets pregnant. It isn't about making life altering decisions. It's about taking the life of another human being, your own child, because you don't want to face the consequences of your actions.

Killing your child doesn't magically become good because it would be inconvenient if you don't.

But if I accidently had a kid right now I would most likely have to drop out of college, get a real job, not go to law school and work for 17 bucks an hour for the first 20 years of my life. My gf would probably have to do the same, besides the whole grad school thing. and now were living right at the low income-mid income line because trojan couldnt make a reliable product. What right do you have to tell me what I can or cant do with my life? Its completely legal, but because im not living up to your moral code makes me a bad person? you can have your code, ill take my life.

The condom is the worst reliable source of birth-control next to the rhythm method. Because you are stupid enough to create a kid when you can't afford one, you think you should have the right to kill the kid. Supposing your girlfriend doesn't agree? It's her decision after all. <something I don't understand, how only the mother determines if the child is a baby or a fetus>

What else should we use? Accidents happen and it isnt because im stupid, its because shit happens. The mother doesnt decide whether a sperm and an egg are a baby, the supreme court did that already 40 years ago. it is a legal practice and is not murder even though the pro life crowd likes to use that term when discussing abortions.

 

[Againsheila]

But if I accidently had a kid right now I would most likely have to drop out of college, get a real job, not go to law school and work for 17 bucks an hour for the first 20 years of my life. My gf would probably have to do the same, besides the whole grad school thing. and now were living right at the low income-mid income line because trojan couldnt make a reliable product. What right do you have to tell me what I can or cant do with my life? Its completely legal, but because im not living up to your moral code makes me a bad person? you can have your code, ill take my life.

The condom is the worst reliable source of birth-control next to the rhythm method. Because you are stupid enough to create a kid when you can't afford one, you think you should have the right to kill the kid. Supposing your girlfriend doesn't agree? It's her decision after all. <something I don't understand, how only the mother determines if the child is a baby or a fetus>

What else should we use? Accidents happen and it isnt because im stupid, its because shit happens. The mother doesnt decide whether a sperm and an egg are a baby, the supreme court did that already 40 years ago. it is a legal practice and is not murder even though the pro life crowd likes to use that term when discussing abortions.

Yes, the mother decides. If she's 6 months pregnant, she can get an abortion, but if she's 6 months pregnant and wants the baby and some idiot kills her and the child, he can be charged with both murders. So yes, it's a baby only if the mother wants the child.

What else should you use? Talk to your doctor. There's the pill, there's the patch, there are a whole lot more reliable birth control methods on the market than what you are using. BTW, if your girlfriend should decide to have a baby and not take the birthcontrol pills, even if you pay for them, she can still get you for child support.

The absolute best method is and has always been abstinence. At least until you find the right person and are ready to have children.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Well if the mother decides to kill the child on her own with a coat hanger, im pretty sure thats murder too. It needs to be a medical procedure. I didnt make the law I just abide by it. the pill is effective and im a big fan of it, but like the condom nothing is perfect.
My real issue with the whole prolife prochoice debate is that it is none of my concern what you or anyone else decides to do with their lives, if they are operating within their legal boundaries. I have a lot on my plate and if you want to have an abortion its not my place to say that you cant. I can say that the major difference between us younger repubs and the older ones is that we just dont care what people do with their own lives. We're too busy paying off hundreds of thousands of dollars in school loans, finding jobs that arent there, in order to pay into govt systems we will never see lol. I just have more to worry about then some persons accident.

 

[Noomi]

Yes, the mother decides. If she's 6 months pregnant, she can get an abortion, but if she's 6 months pregnant and wants the baby and some idiot kills her and the child, he can be charged with both murders. So yes, it's a baby only if the mother wants the child.

Wrong. One is a medical procedure, the other is an assault resulting in the death of a fetus the woman intended to carry to term.

Why can't lifers understand the difference?