The heated debate about abortion is filled with emotional arguments that usually center on considerations such as sexual morality, religious beliefs, women’s rights, or purely on pragmatic reasons: if abortion were made illegal it would still take place – under unsanitary conditions that would endanger additional lives.
However, a rational evaluation of abortion must be built upon one single question: When exactly does human life begin? At conception, at birth or somewhere in between?
Not even the most radical feminist would find it okay to tear apart a recently-born baby just because it is not wanted by its mother. All other considerations aside, the only reason many individuals can support abortion with a good conscience is because they believe it’s not murder… and that unborn babies do not count as human beings.
Ron Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He believes that human life starts at conception, and that casual elimination of the unborn leads to a careless attitude towards all life.
Recalling his personal observation of a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his medical residency, Ron Paul stated, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”
In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:
“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”
During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?” Additionally, Ron Paul said that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is “an act of aggression” against a fetus.
At the GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate on Sep 17, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what he will do to restore legal protection to the unborn:
“As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.”
At the GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, on Nov 28, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what a woman would be charged with if abortion becomes illegal and she obtains an abortion anyway:
“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”
For many years, Ron Paul has been speaking up for babies’ rights. He passionately defends those who cannot speak for themselves because they haven’t been born yet.
In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade”, Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure”.
At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
Many people feel very strongly about the issue of abortion, and once they make up their minds they rarely change their opinion. If you are undecided and/or open-minded, check out this page and this site for more information about abortion, including images and a description of medical procedures.
“Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else.” ~ Ayn Rand, from “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”, 192
I find this statement remains logically consistent with the addition of “freedom from one’s pregnant mother” to the list of ‘not freedoms’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This link needs to be updated. The comparison of abortion laws is from 2002, but what I found particularly striking was how similar the US, as a result of Roe v Wade, is to the Communist (North Korea, Vietnam, China and Cuba) and many Socialist (e.g., Norway) countries, or countries that were Socialist in 2002. In contrast, the countries that have abandoned Communism seem to be generally somewhat less pro-abortion than the US and Communist countries.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Nemesis,
Wow that is an interesting collection. I would be curious to read the actual laws. Most times there is reasoning behind the creation or need of laws. I do not however embrace embracing any law from another country…Our laws need to be based on the people who live here. Environments encourage different needs. But learning from others is relevant!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have no idea whether North Korea has all the same laws as it had in 1979, but at that time, its law regarding marriage was that everyone had to marry and that, if you had not found a spouse by age 26, the government would select one for you and you were obligated by law to marry. That does not sound much like the US to me personally.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
buy propecia online – propecia 5 mg , http://propeciaonlinecheap.com/#7031 buy propecia online
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
френдинг ! официально подтверждаю что я Олег Михайлович Миронов (г.р.1959 г.Москва) шизик, пиздобол и полудурок !!!личное лето 2007 Андоим ,крайний николай николаевич, кретов евгений владимирович, соматин Велизар!рыба Березовский безопасность Болотная профессионализм Единая Россия трагедия авто Прокуратура дороги Анжи френдинг интернет Полонский , еда профессионализм земля Репутация суд !!! блогосфера телевизор с 10.12.2002г. – 01.07.2003г.. заместитель генерального директора Группы компаний Доброслав; Прокуратура ,
))
Также я Миронов Олег Михайлович 21.08.1959 кокаинщик и трус
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The very root of your writing while appearing reasonable originally, did not sit perfectly with me after some time. Somewhere throughout the sentences you were able to make me a believer unfortunately only for a short while. I still have a problem with your jumps in assumptions and you might do well to fill in all those gaps. If you actually can accomplish that, I could definitely be amazed.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Abortion is a sacred rite that has been performed by women for centuries … With the help of the holy abortionist, in the form of the death goddess … we will overcome … the christian fanatics. Century after century these zealots try to impose their feeble morality on women … Women as the goddess incarnate in all her forms and in particular in the shape of the hag, shrew, or fury who devours life in her gaping mouth with her sharp fangs, has sovereign power over issues of life and death.
Let us not forget that when she decides her children are fated to die, so be it! She … traverses the bridge between the worlds and carries the souls of aborted children to the other side. Like Lilith, she mercifully robs them of their breath. We are all on loan here and the death goddess must protect her own interests! No one can argue with the whirlwind who sweeps the doomed away! Her word is law! Today we hope to invoke the wisdom and justice of the sacred abortionist, and in defense of women we scoff at these hysterical christians! All hope for an overpopulated planet is born in the darkness of her lethal grasp!
Praise loudly the victorious destroyer of unwanted and unneeded children! She who has the right of jurisdiction owns the souls of this earthly tribe! … With sickle in hand, she seizes the sated and weary souls of the damned! These christians here today only make her job more difficult than it needs to be. Like a goblin-mother, she who suckles the stillborn babe also comforts the mad and possessed. Beloved and misguided christians–know that you are vigilantly watched over by the ever-present destroyer who will someday swoop down upon you and gracefully carry you away! The nature of desire, the truth of life itself has always been death–the all-seeing one who demands responsibility from those who procreate and overpopulate this overburdened planet.
Do not misunderstand! She means to do harm! You can invoke your insane and giddy god all day long. It will do no good. He has no power here! She who whets your appetite with sexual pleasures also whets the knife. She grasps, binds, and enthralls! The holy abortionist only summons those who are deserving of the call! … Like husks removed from grain, the unborn are hers! She marks her territory, a boundary these christians here today have crossed over. These misguided christians think they can strike a bargain with the grave, shriek at the whirlwind, bellow and screech at the all-devouring one. The fearful one, the holy abortionist is deaf to their pleading and will win in the end!”~ http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/snuffit4/abortion.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
The rigid dogma which canonizes “choice” [in the US] regiments adherents to march into abortuaries with heads held high in disdain of motherhood; and after being emptied therein, they goose-step out again prizing their pretense with undiminished determination. “Choice” dictates that all alike make a show of heroics, jingoing to the world: “I choose this. I’m free. I do what I want. Oh say can you see, by the dawn’s early light…”
In Japan abortion prescribes no such pre-fabricated formalities to glamorize “choice.” Women slip into the doctor’s office as unobtrusively as possible, sorry because “it can’t be helped” (shikata ga nai). No one claims that abortion is good. Public opinion looks aside, allowing the recognized evil only because it appears to be unavoidable. No one brags about it. Respectable doctors don’t advertise what they do on request.
Women yield their bodies to the operation in a spirit of fatalism. Their lot is such, so why fuss when an unscheduled pregnancy needs an aborting? Far from “outing” with bravado, they visit an obliging gynecologist with a sense of defeat.
[W]hen she has faithfully paid her karmic duty to society, public opinion now concedes to a Japanese mother a right to grieve for her departed child. Her husband may typically accompany her to the temple to set the ritual of grieving into motion.
The Sakakibara “Great Kannon Temple” in Mie Prefecture caters to grieving parents as its mainline business. Its 90 foot high gold-covered statue of the Kannon goddess attracts visitors from far and wide, and its remote location permits parents to grieve without danger of being seen by the neighbors. To drum up business some years ago, this and other temples resorted to questionable advertising. … We can bring your child to peace, so guaranteed a typical ad. Bring peace to your child, abandoned now and alone on the banks of the River Sai; demons bully him there, making him pile up stone stupas, which the demons kick down again. Our Kannon is equipped to save your child. She has large hands, with webbing between the fingers; she can pick up your shredded and smashed child whole, press him to her bosom tenderly and reverently, then convey him across the River Sai; family ancestors will meet him there and admit him to their company. There at last, the child will be peaceful, and you are safe from its avenging anger.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/japview.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
I take it from your post that you have had no actual social connection with Japan. I studied Japanese history and society as a specialization in both undergrad and grad school, lived in Japan off and on for a total of about six years, in the 70s, 80s, and 90s and, while in the US, have had quite a few good Japanese friends for about 10-12 years.
FYI, the US occupation-written constitution has an equal rights clause for women (social, political, and economic equality) and, in 1949, a very liberal abortion law was put into effect. Overall, Japanese women are very protective of both of these. The educated ones I have known have been appalled at the so-called “pro-life” movement in the US. They understand very well that the reason they do not have to be loudly assertive of their right to choose is simply because they have a law to protect their right, while we in the US have only a Supreme Court decision to protect ours.
Most Japanese women are not the wimps you portray, and most do not visit Buddhist temples to mourn their aborted fetuses. Those whom I have personally known are all pro-choice and get along just fine with pro-choice American women. The “pro-lifers” in Japan are mostly old men.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
The writer is a long-term resident of Japan. In my haste I omitted to use quotation remarks. However I did provide a link to the article from which the text came. My post contained an abridged version. The writer’s views are clearly different from yours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Oh and I did have a Japanese girlfriend and have known quite a few Japanese people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Ok, now I have more time, let’s examine some of your claims a bit more closely simccoy.
~the US occupation-written constitution has an equal rights clause for women~
That’s done women a lot of good has it? Sounds to me like you are an apologist for patriarchy, simccoy. Notwithstanding, or perhaps because of, its US imposed constitution, and its eugenics abortion law, Japan is recognized as in fact one of the industrialized world’s least equal countries?: www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2011.pdf
Strange how you didn’t notice that while you were there. But I guess hostess work doesn’t actually encourage to keep your eyes open.
~Most Japanese women are not the wimps you portray, and most do not visit Buddhist temples to mourn their aborted fetuses~
Do the overwhelming majority of Japanese women have abortions? Not just the overwhelming majority of the ones you know? Ok, didn’t know that. Learn something new every day.
Furthermore, the article I posted referred to “griev[ing] without danger of being seen by the neighbors,” but of course they’d make a public spectacle of it for you simccoy. (You’re so special.)
~Those whom I have personally known are all…~
Yes, we all know how unbiased you are. The representative sample rears its head again!
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
So you’re able to rebut a credible poster’s actual experience on the strength of posting another writer’s work (that you failed to quote) and once having a Japanese girlfriend… not.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I wasn’t a hostess in Japan. I taught college there. And I never said that there was no gender discrimination in Japan. A law is only as good as its enforcement, and its enforcement is only as good as the determination of those protected by it to ensure its enforcement. It takes time for people to learn that determination, especially in a culture where litigation has traditionally been avoided. But Japanese women have, overall, learned this lesson. There has been an increasing number of women litigants for that gender equality, and each case furthers that principle. As more women have become more educated and have sought to practice economic equality, the situation has improved, though slowly.
Perhaps you thought I had been a hostess there because you yourself can’t imagine women teaching college or attending it. I wonder what your culture is like. . . .
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“I wonder what your culture is like. . . ” ~ slmccoy
Probably something along the lines of an E. coli bacterium.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A couple of points:
1. Someone mentioned that the Bible and science do not agree on many things. If we accept that the Bible is, in fact, God’s revealed (true) Word, then that is impossible—the two MUST agree because the one “Entity” is responsible for them both. I submit that if there appears to be disagreement between the Bible and science, either the scientific conclusion is wrong—based on faulty evidence, tools, or methods—OR, our understanding of the relevant parts of scripture is wrong—based on incomplete, inaccurate, or inconclusive knowledge of scripture. No other alternative is possible.
2. To the question of abortion and when life begins, I don’t profess to know the answer to that. I don’t think anyone knows for sure. However, I do know this: Life is so important that we MUST give it the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, consider the following:
I believe that a fetus—along the entire developmental process—IS human, and thus worthy of life. My belief requires but one assumption: A newly born baby, outside of the womb, is a human being in every sense of the word and thus worthy of having his or her life protected, just as any other human is (anyone who would refuse to agree to that assumption is a monster and we need go no further—they are disqualified from even being part of the discussion).
That established, we simply put things in reverse, asking a series of (essentially) the same question: “Since we agree that the ‘baby’ was a viable human just moments after exiting the birth canal, moving backward in time to one micro-second prior to exiting the birth canal, pinpoint the time and the event that changed the status of that baby to make it ok to “abort” him or her”. FAIL!
Ok, moving farther back in time to one second before birth: Pinpoint the time and the event that changed the status of that baby to make it ok to “abort” him or her”. FAIL!
Ok, moving farther back in time to one minute before birth: Pinpoint the time and the event that changed the status of that baby to make it ok to “abort” him or her”. FAIL!
Ok, moving farther back in time to one hour before birth: Pinpoint the time and the event that changed the status of that baby to make it ok to “abort” him or her”. FAIL!
Ok, moving farther back in time to one day before birth: Pinpoint the time and the event that changed the status of that baby to make it ok to “abort” him or her”. FAIL!
Ok, moving farther back in time to one week before birth: Pinpoint the time and the event that changed the status of that baby to make it ok to “abort” him or her”. FAIL!
Ok, moving farther back in time to one month before birth: Pinpoint the time and the event that changed the status of that baby to make it ok to “abort” him or her”. FAIL!
Ok, moving farther back in time to three months before birth: Pinpoint the time and the event that changed the status of that baby to make it ok to “abort” him or her”. FAIL!
Ok, moving farther back in time to six months before birth: Pinpoint the time and the event that changed the status of that baby to make it ok to “abort” him or her”. FAIL!
…and so on. No one has yet been able to give me a time or an event that qualifies. I’ve taken this all the way back to the moment of conception. All FAIL!
Shouldn’t we at least err on the side of life?!
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
“Pinpoint the time and the event that changed the status of that baby to make it ok to “abort” him or her” ~ Joshua Warren
The all that preceded the moment it developed into a viable individual. Until then, as part of a larger organism, life in utero exists as property; not personage.
“It’s life Jim, but not as we know it.” ~ attributed to Spock
Or, if you don’t accept the “once born” argument, how about the moment it presents a clear and present danger to the life and health of a pregnant woman? How does risking her life by forcing her to deliver, “err on the side of life?!”
Or, if you don’t accept the “risk to life” argument, how about the moment it forces itself on victims of rape? Victims of crime are entitled to restitution.. or they aren’t; in which case your err corrupts justice as well as liberty.
Shouldn’t we at least ask the right questions before we mandate an opinion?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
A very good post and well reasoned argument Joshua and one that leaves the pro-killers struggling to answer satisfactorily. Their discomfort shows that you are asking the right questions. Insofar as you start with a born infant, the counter-argument from the pro-killers that the precise moment that it becomes “ok” to kill is the moment it presents a clear and present danger to the life and health of a pregnant woman looks weak. Presuming the mother has survived without great injury to her health, then that ‘clear and present danger’ if it was earlier assessed to exist can be seen to have been catastrophized. Nothing bad happened. The neurotic fear has been shown up for what it is. And if the precise moment it became ok to kill it is the moment it forces itself on victims of rape, then presumably it only becomes ‘not ok’ to kill it after that final microsecond before it exits the birth canal, which is ludicrous. To say that up until then it is “part of” a larger organism is drawing a very long bow, just to muddy the waters. Like saying that Jonah was ‘part of’ the whale perhaps, merely because he was inside it. Or maybe it’s still ‘part of’ the larger organism in the initial seconds after birth, before the umbilical cord is cut. I don’t think so. Then there is the specious “it’s property” argument. As if a legal/economic construct should provide the criterion of when it’s (morally) ok to kill. Man’s law is not absolute. That is to say, it is not objective. It can change over time. During the era of slavery, a black slave fetus was the ‘property’ of the slave owner. And in Exodus, Moses talks of paying restitution to the husband of a woman who is made to miscarry, not to the woman. That suggests that in the Bible, life in utero is considered the property not of the bearer, but of the father. Perhaps there is a good reason for that, in that it negates the capacity of the woman to unilaterally abort, other than by defiance. Well done, Joshua. A very good post and a well reasoned argument.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
I think this talk of moments is nonsensical. At the moment of “conception,” no one knows whether or not the zygote is going to become two, three, or even four zygotes that can ultimately become twins, triplets, or quadruplets, i.e., possibly two, three, or four born persons. Until the seventh week development of sex characteristics under the hormonal influence of the uterine environment, no one knows whether or not the morphological sex is going to be the same as the genetic sex. Until viability, no one knows whether or not the form of the fetus is going to develop sufficiently to become capable of breathing when removed from the womb. The entire pregnancy is the process of creation – it is months and months, not a split second.
I also think that the fact that the embryo/fetus cannot develop without being attached to and inside the body of a person for life-support calls into question whether it is not part of that larger body. Its DNA may be distinct, but the life it exhibits is continuous with the life that larger body exhibits. Before viability, if the woman dies, the fetus will definitely also die, but if the fetus dies, the woman need not. I say the life is the woman’s, even if the DNA is the fetus’s, before viability.
FYI, one reason the Exodus law on a third party causing a miscarriage talks about the husband in the way it does is that married women did not represent themselves in legal cases. The husband was the wife’s legal representative in court. Saying “he shall surely be punished, according as her husband lays upon him,” is just an old-fashioned way of saying, ” he will be punished if her legal representative opts to prosecute.”
Moreover, there is no law anywhere in the huge Mosaic code that forbids voluntary abortion on the part of the woman. If God had thought that voluntary abortion by the woman was unacceptable, this code chock full of laws about even trivial details of daily life would certainly have mentioned the phenomenon. Why? Because methods of abortion were known and practiced across the Mid-East at this time.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
~If God had thought that voluntary abortion by the woman was unacceptable, this code chock full of laws about even trivial details of daily life would certainly have mentioned the phenomenon. Why? Because methods of abortion were known and practiced across the Mid-East at this time.~
On this basis, I take it that you endorse the ancient practice of female genital mutilation? Whereabouts in the Bible is it prohibited?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
~On this basis, I take it that you endorse the ancient practice of female genital mutilation? Whereabouts in the Bible is it prohibited?~ Nemesis,
What religion practiced this? I have never heard it to be a christian based or pagan based…Muslim maybe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Female genital mutilation predates Christianity. Islam is a much newer religion than Christianity, despite having Adam, Abraham and Moses among its prophets. Muhamad lived c570 – 632. However, female genital mutilation dates to at least the 2nd century BC in the middle east (see link). It was permitted by the early Christian Church, although it had earlier opposed it. Female genital mutilation has been banned in the US since 1997. Personally, I approve that ban because I think it’s a hideous, sick, barbaric and cruel practice. However, it’s not prohibited in the Bible, and you have argued that there are way too many laws, so I assume you’d like to see those laws repealed? If it’s not legalized, it may sometimes still be done anyway, except in unhygenic conditions by backyard circumcisers, using blunt razor blades, or sharpened coathangers. And anything that’s not prohibited in theBible is ok, yes?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1966.tb05163.x/abstract;jsessionid=BB0ED48E0B13C2014BEF5411B477CDC7.d02t03
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Nemesis,
The bible is to guide. I do not think I used the Bible to dictate what can and cannot be done. I do believe that I have mentioned God has a plan for everything, yes? I looked to the bible to see what it said and its position on the unborn….I did not look to the Bible to condone anything. I looked to see if the unborn had it own soul and spirit. The Bible says many things…If one is taught the ten commandments it is the way an individual interprets those commandments. I think circumcision is wrong and I do not think it is necessary. The Bible does not command it. When Jesus was born the many conditions set forth in the Old testament were no longer necessary. The power of forgiveness that Jesus gave the people is something the human race has not been able to match. Most laws are formed from anger and resentment. As for the many laws I refer to…I see laws cost many lives and I do not see any concern for the people dying do to these laws that are only serving a government of tyranny… I will finish later..
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“At the moment of ‘conception,’ no one knows whether or not the zygote is going to become two, three, or even four zygotes that can ultimately become twins, triplets, or quadruplets, i.e., possibly two, three, or four born persons.” ~ slmccoy
This is a good point, and I don’t think it’s been addressed before. Can a pregnancy be forced based on protecting an indeterminate number of individual rights?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Peter Gilmore [High Priest, Church of Satan]: “I think abortion is something fine to be used … [the fetus] it’s just a piece of tissue and most human life doesn’t really have that much value on a grand scale. In the universe, individual life is practically meaningless, it’s sort of like droplets in a wave that crashes against a rock. Who cares about the droplets? The way life works is it is making large amounts of species of whatever it is, and it keeps moving biologically. [The fetus] is life. Sperms and eggs are alive, they’re organic, you can’t say that is not life.”
“ LaVey’s [Founder, Church of Satan] teachings are based on individualism, self-indulgence, and eye for an eye morality, with influence from Friedrich Nietzche and Ayn Rand.”
Trippy, huh?
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
“… individual life is practically meaningless…” ~ Magus Peter H. Gilmore, High Priest of the Church of Statism
“… If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind…” ~ from “For Whom The Bell Tolls”, by John Donne
I care about the droplets.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
See the comment below on The Order of Kaoss Under Satan (TOKUS). TOKUS and the Church of Euthanasia openly promote abortion. Satanists, regardless of sect, are overwhelmingly pro-choice. There is no substantial difference in the attitudes to abortion of most of the pro-choice contributors to this forum and the attitudes of most Satanists. On a range of topics, there also appears to be at most only superficial differences between your often espoused positions and those of the COS, Temple of Set and several other Satanic groups. You are obviously a theistic Satanist, not a Hindu or Buddhist as I had suspected. The ‘goodness of fit’ between your ideology and that of Satanism is much more than to Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism. I recognize the schisms within Satanism. However, for you to describe the COS as the Church of Statism does not seem to accord with the facts. In Peter H. Gilmore’s own words:
“Satanists are generally Libertarians. They may choose their specific political alliances because it might better whatever they are trying to do in their lives, but essentially most of us are fairly libertarian people. We would like to have government as minimal as possible.” ~ Magus Peter H. Gilmore, High Priest, Church of Satan
“The Order of Kaoss Under Satan TOKUS is a Division of the Church of Euthanasia. As a form of Satanism, TOKUS maintains close affinity with the Church of Euthanasia who is their Mother and their initiator into the mysteries of the Flesh, the World, and the Devil. Their definition of human sacrifice is suicide, non-reproduction, abortion, cannibalism and sodomy.” ( http://www.satanservice.org )
( http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/ )
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
“… but essentially most of us are fairly libertarian people.”
LOL
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
I’m strongly pro-choice, because it’s a woman’s choice what she wants to do with her own body. If she doesn’t want a >>>clump of developing cells<<< in her uterus, then she doesn't have to have it.
Who are we to shove religious views down people's throats who may or may not be in that religion? It doesn't matter who thinks it's murder, it's honestly not.
And to the person arguing that gametes were people- I guess girls having their period kills lots of humans along with guys masturbating lmao.
It's not our place to say what a woman wants to do with her own body. Until that baby is born, or at least in the third trimester, it is a part of the woman and she can remove it or keep it.
Besides, if we make abortion illegal, women will still get them unsafely and then we could possibly have two people dead instead of one. It doesn't matter how immoral it is, people will still get them, and more problems will arise.
Let the women be. The fetus, an organism not fully developed or registered in society yet, should not have more rights than the woman that may be forced to carry it against her will.
Like or Dislike:
6 
10
“It doesn’t matter who thinks it’s murder, it’s honestly not.”
I agree… however it is relevant to a rational discussion of abortion, to acknowledge that something human is being killed by the practice. One can hope that medical abortions are limited to defending the lives of pregnant women, and seldom used for birth control, but either way, something human is being killed by the practice.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
A woman DOES have a choice to do what she wants with her body. However, if she CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, and it results in the creation of a separate life within her, that other life should be taken into account as well.
I understand that your position on this matter stems from not considering a fertilized egg to be “human” and there for disposable. However, your decision to uphold that belief and my decision to believe that it is “human” isn’t necessarily religious. This really has nothing to do with the argument, but I HATE when people say others are “shoving religious beliefs down their throats”. Every person has different opinions (not necessarily founded on religion) and as long as you stand up and speak out for what you believe, you’re shoving your own beliefs down people’s throats as well.
Anyway, I don’t think making abortion illegal altogether will solve the problem. Obviously what is needed is a SERIOUS and urgent push of comprehensive sexual education. Abortion numbers have begun to decrease because women are finally knowledgeable of birth control and able to access it. The greatest numbers of abortion are lower class women who frequently don’t have much information on birth control or can’t afford/access it. Also, some crazy conservative states (Texas) that ban comprehensive sex-ed in high schools have some of the nation’s highest pregnancy rates. You can’t stop people from having sex, but you can teach them to do it responsibly. This would help stop teen pregnancy and avoid abortion, which can be emotionally stressful and an unpleasant procedure.
Until all women are well educated on the subject of sex and birth control, there will continue to be teenage pregnancy and abortion. I’m against abortion in almost all cases, but I realize calling for an end to abortion is unrealistic unless it’s accompanied by a sincere effort to give women access to sexual education.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
if I didn’t want YOU (a living breathing clump of tissue and cells) to be around anymore, does that give me the right to “dispose” of you??
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
There is nothing in nature that indicates she has any more ‘right’ to be alive than a fetus. Natural miscarriage proves nothing. Mortality exists across the lifespan. It is amusing that the ‘once born’ club want to arrogate to themselves alleged rights which they deny to others. Should you do unto her what she would do unto others? If you were to ‘dispose’ of her I would not shed a tear, but there would be adverse legal consequences for you. Thus, although she is a worthless pro-choicer for fetus killing, I think you should not dispose of her. In tit for tat morality it may be ok to dispose of her. However, what I and others think is irrelevant. Ultimately it is your choice. I am not pro for you disposing of her but I may be pro-choice for your choice. There is no contradiction in that, apparently.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Those who defend liberty remarkably well in other areas frequently fail miserably on the abortion issue by saying that even though they recognize the fetus to be human and alive, it’s nevertheless an “intruder,” an “aggressor,” and the mother—because of her rights—can throw this intruder and aggressor out of her uterus. This argument must accept throwing out and killing an “intruder” whether one ounce, or seven pounds and one ounce, hardly a consistent position for those who say every individual by his very nature has a natural right to life and liberty. The fetus, of course, neither aggressed nor intruded. The mother and father placed him there.
Even the United Nations, hardly an example of Protestant fundamentalism, classical Catholicism, or individual liberty and the free market, stated in its 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child that “the child, by reason of its physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth.”
In 1967, the first International Conference on Abortion met in Washington, D.C. Twenty scientists with various backgrounds concluded “the majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of the sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage and the birth of the infant, at which point we could say that this was not a human life. The change occurring between implantation, a six week embryo, a six month fetus, a one week child or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation.”
The Declaration of Geneva of the World Medical Association states: “I will maintain the utmost respect for life from the time of conception until death.” Politically, medically, and legally the consensus seems to be that human life does exist from the time of conception. ~ Ron Paul
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
Everyone is ignoring the obvious. Human life begins BEFORE conception. Sperm and eggs are undoubtedly human. And they are undoubtedly alive. I hope we can agree that protecting them all would be ridiculous. I personally find it just as ridiculous to protect a zygote.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
I disagree. Genetically, gametes have only 23 chromosomes. You have 46. So genetically not the same. Once fertilization occurs, a human being with distinct 46 chromosomes is conceived. Now there is human life. Now that human life is protected by its mother in the womb during when it is most vulnerable.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Are your 23 chromosome gametes something other than human?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
They’re half cells, they’re incomplete, they aren’t human.
They may be part of human function,
but they aren’t human.
“Life starts at erection lol txt it<3" <— basically what I'm getting from this omg.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
If they aren’t human, then please identify which form of life they belong to by species, and whether or not they represent living matter.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I just have to remind everybody that religion is supposed to be separate from state but it really isn’t, is it? Bringing the Bible into a debate where church is separate from state doesn’t really justify your opinion with any facts…it just gives you a convenient “I’m right, so there” type of response. The fact is, if abortion became illegal, think of the amount of freaking babies there would be. I guess that’s good for the white babies, but that’s less than half of the population of babies that would take up the orphanages. That’s a lot of babies without homes. We already have issues that root down to overpopulation. Everything would get worse…economy, crowds, corruption with our food, homelessness and then the government would have to fund it all. A woman should have the right to an abortion within reason. A first time mistake, rape, serious birth defects or mental illnesses…it should be legal to abort an unborn fetus to a certain extent. No 16 year old going in there for the 4th time in 2 years B.S..
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
Alright then, who is going to make the calls on whether it is ok to have an abortion or not. Even if you make up some law about it, people will always find a way to sneak around it. You can’t have one type and not the other.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
People will always find a way to sneak around everything. You guys should watch Morgan Spurlock’s 30 Days, episode Prolife/Prochoice. No matter what side you’re on, it is a real eye opener. Or you can just argue your point (not directing toward the one person that responded but the others that may) and not bother viewing a bit of my evidence that supports my opinion. I’m used to people doing that with me so I wouldn’t be surprised.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A 2yo is so disruptive and causing such heartache for his solo mother that she wants him killed, and people support her “right to choose” to kill her own child in the following ways (paralleling many “pro-choice” arguments):
* How dare you pass judgment on the woman, when you have no idea what she’s going through?
* You’re a male, so you have no right to comment.
* It’s the right of every 2yo to be wanted.
* No one’s forcing you to kill your own 2yo.
* Keep your church out of my home!
* We’re not pro–killing-2yos, we’re pro-choice.
* We want to make 2yo-killing safe, legal and rare.
* If we make laws against this, then those who are rich enough will be able to hire a hit man to kill the toddler, while the poor could not afford this, so such laws would discriminate against the poor.
* Unless you are prepared to adopt this child, you have no right to tell the mother that she should not kill her.
* If we don’t make it possible for the mother to kill her 2yo safely, then she’ll do it unsafely and possibly put her own health in danger.
* Laws against 2yo-killing would violate the woman’s right to privacy, which judges tell us is in the US Constitution.
* It’s speciesist to give a Homo sapiens 2yo so much more protection than a chimpanzee 2yo.
* You’re opposed to killing 2yos only because you’re a religious fanatic.
* The child was conceived by incestuous rape, and her existence is a continual reminder to her mother of what happened, so she should die because of her father’s crime.
* Stem cells could be harvested from this 2yo that could help cure many horrible diseases and disabilities—you religious fanatics want to stop this scientific research and cut off all hope of a cure for Alzheimer’s, heart disease, Parkinson’s, quadriplegia and diabetes.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
Nemesis,
This is an exaggeration….No one would think to kill a breathing child. Except evil creeps that beat them to death…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Really? Well what about women who think to kill and dismember 10yo children? As in the case below of little Zahra Baker, murdered by her stepmother in North Carolina. Have a look at the child’s photo in the first of the two links below. Tell me why someone would want to kill Zahra. And should we respect that “choice”? Zahra was a bubbly, happy child, despite being disabled, having lost her leg after beating bone cancer. That is, until her father, an Australian, met a woman from North Carolina online. She gets to walk free in 18 years. So no, it’s not just fetuses that women kill and dismember.
http://www.zimbio.com/Elisa+Baker/articles/AoJyXtOvgX7/Zahra+Baker+Murdered+Dismembered+N+C+DSS+Fully
http://www.zimbio.com/Elisa+Baker/articles/3F5n4a1sqpb/Elisa+Baker+Pleads+Guilty+Dismembering+Killing
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nemesis,
Men kill children too. Many kill other peoples children. You are comparing apples to oranges. These children are the ones that pro-life should be worrying about and protecting. They are the true victims. And unfortunately people who do this do not want children and have no conscious. So forcing more people to have children that are not wanted is to encourage more of the abuses toward children.. Yes?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would like you to consider the following quote from section II of the Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey, decided in 1993. The references to other cases have been omitted so as not to disrupt the flow of thought. It answers the question of why the woman decides.
Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Our precedents “have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.
These considerations begin our analysis of the woman’s interest in terminating her pregnancy, but cannot end it, for this reason: though the abortion decision may originate within the zone of conscience and belief, it is more than a philosophic exercise. Abortion is a unique act. It is an act fraught with consequences for others: for the woman who must live with the implications of her decision; for the persons who perform and assist in the procedure; for the spouse, family, and society which must confront the knowledge that these procedures exist, procedures some deem nothing short of an act of violence against innocent human life; and, depending on one’s beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted. Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition, and so, unique to the law. The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
KD,
This is what makes America great. None of us on this forum are representing the government and can freely express different opinions based on opinion, science and belief, theory and lack of anything. Bringing God into a discussion is not mixing church and state. I am sure in court, God will not be mentioned. But in this forum we debate, if you do not like the religious views of abortion that is entirely up to you. Doesn’t that make you feel empowered. It will not however stifle free speech.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
~A woman should have the right to an abortion within reason …t should be legal to abort an unborn fetus to a certain extent. No 16 year old going in there for the 4th time in 2 years B.S.~
If you are going to endorse her having 1,2 or 3 abortions, then what is your problem with her having 4 in 2 years? You don’t like liberty? If abortion is not evil then a woman should be able to do it as often as she likes. Don’t disregard that some women get pleasure and a power trip from the killing. (If you dispute that, then I refer you to the case of Irene Vilar and her admissions).If abortion is not evil then why shouldn’t women be able to do it for a thrill kill or to go on a power trip? If it is evil, then is it your position that a lot of evil is not ok but a little bit is? Why is it that 4 corpses are not ok but 2 or 3 are? Your position seems to be analogous to people who would argue that gassing Jews should be legal to a certain extent and a few million is ok but 6 million is over the top.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
A few days ago, May 2, there were people on this site saying men do not rape women to get them pregnant and that they would like references to sites on this issue. Here you are.
Forced pregnancy is an international war crime since 2002. The war crimes definition is that captors impregnate captives and keep them in captivity until birth. Forced pregnancy or reproductive coercion, by rape and by birth control sabotage is part of domestic violence and intimate partner violent abuse even in the US. Here are several sites for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity
http:/www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_sabotage
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2896047/
Also, google “forced pregnancy,” “coerced pregnancy,” “reproductive coercion,” and “pregnancy coercion” for yourselves.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
slmccoy,
Thank you for sharing this. It seems many people so not wish to believe it. Unfortunately it happens more than is recorded. What they also miss is many woman who are subject to forced pregnancy still love their children, and the children also become a tool used to control women.. Good post!
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
I am surprised, ISSP, that you have not objected to simccoy providing a wikipedia link. However, simccoy has made a good point.
Rape of women is best understood in terms of Darwin’s ‘second theory’, i.e., the theory of sexual selection. It is not about power. Rape is a strategy used by beta males to overcome female choice, and its goal historically has been impregnation.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Nemesis,
I have been too tired to double check any resources as of late. But good catch. I do not use wiki-anything to support anything. As far as rape goes if we knew all the answers to the reasons behind it we could probably stop it. But each rapist may have a different motive and it’s not like we can get inside the brain to determine the dysfunction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We miss you when you’re not here. Or at least I do. And you’re obviously not getting enough sleep. Although, as regards that, who am I to talk. Maybe you should be having some of your ginseng. My understanding is that it’s supposed to be energizing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Nemesis,
Yes, sleep is something I get very little of. Ginseng does have energizing properties. Maybe that is a good idea, sometimes I am so busy I forget to eat as well. lol I would have you add me on Facebook but I do not want to put my name on this forum..most of my friends are against abortion so you would fit in well…not to mention I have Ron Paul all over my page. I will try to get in here…I enjoy sparring with you as well!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
” …many women … still love their children …” ~ ISSP
Yes they do, don’t they. Soooo much. As one mother wrote, ‘poignantly’, to her victim, on a pink valentine, at the clinic, on Mother’s Day, after she’d aborted her:
“To my little angel, Please understand that you are better off in the hands of God than mine at this moment.” (This is hard to debate.) “I smile when I think of you, even if I cry. You have given me reason to be strong and wise and responsible. You will always be my baby. I will see you in heaven, sweetheart. Love you! Love always and unconditionally, your mommy.”
I just feel so much respect for pro-choicers after reading that!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Nemesis,
Do not judge lest ye be judged…..
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Here’s a comment made by a woman with a poignant perspective relevant to this complex issue:
http://messymiddle.com/2012/05/10/an-open-letter-to-pastors-a-non-mom-speaks-about-mothers-day/
Happy Mother’s Day to all women who labor hard and thanklessly, not only to bring new children into the world, but to raise and care for them as well…
… even when some of them aren’t their own.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Whether or not life begins at conception does not matter.
Whether the Z/E/F has DNA separate from the parent does not matter.
What matters is that the Z/E/F is inside a woman.
If someone enters into your property, do you have a right to tell them to leave? If they refuse to leave, do you have the right to remove them, even if it causes harm or death to them?
Yes, you do. A woman’s body is her property, and she has the right to make the Z/E/F leave. She has a right not not be forced to let anyone use her body against her will, whether it is a fetus or Ron Paul himself.
Even if they do not have any ill-will towards her, it is her body, and not anyone elses.
Like or Dislike:
6 
9
I sense a lull in the Force…
Time to continue other pursuits. I’ll listen in *yawn* and limit response to new items as they are posted. Until then, please don’t assume qui tacet consentire videtur…
..zzzZZZzzz…
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
The Bible “condemn[s] the taking of human life without justification (Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 6:16-17; Matthew 5:21, etc.). From this it logically follows that if Scripture establishes the humanity of the unborn child, then abortion-on-demand cannot be morally permissible. Hence, the key question is not “Does the Bible expressly forbid abortion?” but “Does Scripture treat the unborn as human?” When framed this way, it becomes clear that Scripture indeed establishes the humanity of those in the womb.
Scripture affirms the humanity of the unborn child.
1. Scripture uses the same language for the unborn as it does other children. Luke’s gospel uses the word “baby” or “child” (Gr. brephos ) to describe John the Baptist prior to his birth. We are told in 1:41 and 1:44 that the “baby” (brephos) leapt in Elizabeth’s womb. But one chapter later (2:12,16), the already born Christ child is also referred to as a “baby” (brephos ). Since brephos is commonly used to describe infants and older children (Luke 18:15, Acts 7:19, 1 Peter 2:2), Luke’s use of the word for the pre-born John the Baptist is not without significance.
The Old Testament, meanwhile, uses variations of the word “child” or “children” for both the born and unborn, and in several instances applies personal language to the conceived embryo. Job said (3:3), “May the day perish on which I was born, and the night in which it was said, ‘a male child is conceived.”‘ [Hebrew word gebher [man child] is used here to describe Job at the point of conception. The word is often used for adult males, but is applied here to a conceived embryo.]
As Beckwith observes, “This passage connects the individual born with the individual conceived.” Job is clearly using personal language to trace his humanity back beyond birth to the act of conception. The Psalmist, using similar language (51:5), writes, “In sin did my mother conceive me.”
2. Scripture shows that God knows the unborn personally. The Bible does not speak of the unborn child as an unthinking, unfeeling tissue mass, but as a person with whom God interacts. Jeremiah 1:5 quotes Jehovah as saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you.” The Psalmist declares (22: 10), “From my mother’s womb you have been my God” and later marvels at God forming his “inward parts” and “weaving” him together in the womb. He concludes by saying, “My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in secret …. Your eyes saw my unformed substance” (139:13-16).
Now some try to dismiss these passages as applying only to prophets or other special persons. But Scripture does not discriminate on the basis of status. Job, for example, says of his slaves and maidservants (31:15), “Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?”
3. Scripture teaches that God not only knows the unborn, but endows them with purpose long before birth. The Angel of the Lord tells Samson’s parents, “The Child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death” (Judges 13:7). Elsewhere, the Apostle Paul tells us (Gal. 1:15) that he was “set apart in the womb” to serve Christ — something not likely to be true of a mere tissue blob or “potential” human. But perhaps the most vivid example is that of the incarnation: Christ enters our world as a conceived embryo and hence fully identifies with the whole spectrum of human existence from conception through death. As the writer of Hebrews tells us, “In all things He had to be made like His brethren that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest” (Hebrews 12:7).
4. Nonetheless, some have questioned the use of these passages to establish the humanity of the unborn. Concerning those passages that describe the unborn in personal terms, one author writes, “Such references designate individuals not only before birth but before conception… and so they are not really to the point.” But passages such as Jeremiah 1:5 do not claim that unborn children exist prior to conception, but only that God knows and has plans for them before they are conceived. As Beckwith points out, “This is certainly possible for an eternal God who knows all things simultaneously and is not bound by time or space.” (See, for example, Ps. 90:2; Isa.46:9-10; Col. 1:16-17.) In short, Divine foreknowledge cannot be used to dismiss the full humanity of the unborn child.
These examples, while not exhaustive, sufficiently prove that Scripture treats the unborn as human persons. And since the Bible clearly forbids killing people without justification, we can logically infer that it condemns abortion-on-demand as well.”
http://www.priestsforlife.org/speakersmanual/ch4theologicalcasebible.htm
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
LOL *sigh*
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
So you are not going to attempt to rebut the priests arguments? Ok. Their logic is quite compelling isn’t it?
What do you think of Mary’s choice, given that she had not consented to becoming pregnant and there is no evidence that she had planned to have a baby any time soon?
Does the Bible shed any light on whether or not Mary was pro-choice? And would she have been better off if she’d had an abortion. If she was pregnant with Jesus today, would it be right to respect her choice if that choice was to have Jesus chopped up in her womb and vacuumed out?
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
….zzzZZZzzz….
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Devil’s Advocate,
….zzzZZZzzz….
LOL
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
What that means is that she is unable to persuasively rebut the priests.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Nemesis,
EVERYTHING is a part of Gods plan, what he had in mind for you I am not sure. But…if a person is to be born there is no law or lack of law that would prevent it. You nor anyone else in this existence can change his plan. The arguments you have posted are not relevant. Talking about Paul prior to his birth did not change the course that had already been mapped out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
~The arguments you have posted are not relevant.~
Tell that to the Pope, Ms Sanger. They are the arguments of the Catholic Church and you are unable to rebut them.
That’s because you are a pro-life bigot.
And if everything is a part of God’s plan, and that includes preordained evil, are you not implying that God is evil?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
I meant ‘pro-choice’ bigot.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
~current abortion and fetal homicide laws clearly assign the property rights in utero to the owner of the uterus~
Current. Big deal. Unpersuasive. That deserves as much respect as when the property rights in utero of the Black slave fetus were assigned to the slaveowner.
Moses assigned the property rights in utero to the husband. Thus, at one point, Joseph ‘owned’ Jesus.
But of course the State’s law is superior to Biblical law?
I vas only followink mein orders.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
God arranged the murder of his own son. He God also sent the plagues and when people did not listen, every first born son died. The passages you used are addressing people that are living and referring to them when they were in the womb. If God breathes life into the non-living….and gives them a soul…this would imply the unborn do not get a soul until they are born and there is a verse that says they are Gods soul. I do not think anyone is capable of killing Gods soul…
It really depends on the interpretation. Do not call me a bigot again. It undermines your intelligence and I know you are better than that.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
One more thing…everyone was conceived. If your mother says I remember you kicking me in the ribs she is talking past tense. No one is saying that a fetus does not exist nor has anyone said that a fetus is not alive once it is viable. So exactly what are you implying. The Bible and science do not agree on many things. But looking at both will give us a broader perception. Wrong or right the decisions made by an individual will be owned by that individual and that is how it should be.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
The catholic church has killed many people in the name of Christianity. That did not make what they were doing right. Catholics also dictate other peoples spiritual relationships with God, this is something I do not tolerate. I do not embrace the catholic religion….
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
“Catholics … I do not tolerate.” “Do not call me a bigot again.” ~ ISEESTUPIDPEOPLE
I’m a proddy dog too ISSP, and have been since before I was born. I took conversion classes to become a Catholic when I was a boy, but discontinued after the priest dropped his hand on my thigh.
Like you I don’t embrace the Catholic religion. Faith, to quote Ayn Rand “is the negation of reason.” However, I’m not prejudiced against Catholics. I take their arguments seriously.
Here is a link to a perspective which is essentially the same as the Catholic, arguing that abortion is murder, but from a protestant:
http://www.belmonthouse.co.uk/Abortion/is_abortion_murder.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
~nor has anyone said that a fetus is not alive once it is viable~
I doubt that’s true, but I’ll let that ball go through to the keeper.
What biological process suddenly makes the fetus ‘alive’ when it becomes viable? By what set of rationalizations do you delude yourself that it’s not ‘alive’ prior to becoming viable? Please don’t serve up some crock about ‘natural rights’. Science please!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Nemesis,
“By what set of rationalizations do you delude yourself that it’s not ‘alive’ prior to becoming viable? ”
You are the one that says it’s ok to squash your sperm under my shoe. That tells me that the life of your sperm means nothing even though it is a live. Just because it is not developed and missing a brain and body it is a live. So the only thing that you are protecting is the egg?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lol what? Nemesis, Mary was WAY different.
She had an angel come down and tell her it was the son of God.
Not exactly a fetus to get aborted when you hear this news. e.e
Some people aren’t even Christian in any way. Why should they listen to what your religion has to say about their choices?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
What religion should people listen to? My religion may be more permissive of abortion than you think. You only assume you know what my religion is. Perhaps it’s because I’ve started quoting Scripture. You want abortion limited to fetuses I presume? Notwithstanding that, you perhaps already embrace many of the central tenets of my religion. You know the difference between right and wrong, but you choose to support killing anyway. I am certain that abortion is murder, but the only thing that gets killed in abortion is the progeny of pro-choice believers like you. How can that sacrifice be a bad thing? LMAO.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Nemesis,
I am for teaching our future Americans to make moral choices, not making law upon law upon law. We need to get back to the basics and teach our children morals and principles that will stay with them into adulthood. Sometimes looking for a solution is a more effective way of solving an issue than creating more crime. But then maybe Americans wish to pay to feed and house all women that do not want to carry a child to full term… hmm…I wonder how much that will cost us. Instead of finding ways to curb the spending people are finding more expenditures. Maybe making abortions cost more might work as a deterrent except in extreme emergencies. Who knows…I do not see this issue being resolved anytime soon. I have to go to work…another all nighter and then I have so much to do tomorrow…maybe I will stop back in the morning…..later…
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I’m almost too tired to post. Busy, but I think not as busy as you. Most of my friends would identify as pro-choice, if pressed on the matter. Not that they would necessarily think of themselves in terms of that label. The issue simply doesn’t register for them. They would be shocked by my posts. You are correct that the abortion issue will not be resolved in society any time soon.
Look after yourself. You can only have so many all nighters and then it catches up with you. Follow the ’5 point plan’: structure; preparation; relaxation; exercise; assertion. Make sure you eat regularly.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Nemesis,
I will take your advice.
constitutionalistfreak@gmail.com
send me an email and I will give you my regular email or facebook.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
That’s very nice of you and I appreciate it. Won’t be for a little while yet but I shall certainly do that. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1