Protect All Human Life

8396 Responses




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.


8,396 responses to “Protect All Human Life”

  1. Chrispy

    Life begins at conception. People know this fact, instinctively, and scientists and doctors know this fact, medically. The conscience of those who would dispose of/murder a child, is salved by the inability to see a head and eyes, limbs, and a torso. This is the attitude of millions, when it comes to genocide, poverty, and starvation, in other countries, or even in the U.S. As long as we don’t witness it, we can deny the reality of it, and the associated pricking of our consciences, or at least our hearts.

    It also makes no sense that there is not a (more) concerted effort to match a pregnant woman, whose baby is unwanted, with couples who would intervene, by paying medical bills and expenses, in order to adopt that child. Life is wasted by a lack of taking responsibility, and the erroneous notion that it’s inconvenient. This is why Planned Parenthood (and its sympathizers) trump up the exceptions, such as cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. The majority of cases are young, irresponsible woman AND men, who have these murders funded with taxpayers dollars, and who enjoy absolute confidentiality, which means the parents are purposefully kept in the dark! Parents just aren’t “cool people,” and wouldn’t understand what a teen is going through, or so they think.

    Abortion is murder, which is the highest of moral issues, ESPECIALLY when we’re talking about the beginning of one’s life. The “viability of the fetus,” imposes impossible conditions for sustaining life, and is a devilish argument, by itself. It’s like asking an adult to live on the moon for an hour, to see how you fare.

    The woman’s “right over her reproductive health,” is euphemistic language for the right to kill, behind closed doors and wombs, another person. Such a woman has an obligation to NOT get pregnant, if she is intent on eliminating an “offending” fetus.

    »crosslinked«

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 12

    1. Devil's Advocate

      “The woman’s ‘right over her reproductive health’, is euphemistic language for the right to kill, behind closed doors and wombs, another person. Such a woman has an obligation to NOT get pregnant, if she is intent on eliminating an ‘offending’ fetus.” ~ Chrispy

      If such a woman has an obligation to NOT get pregnant, then abortion is simply the last line of defense.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8

      1. Shocked

        wow! I just don’t understand that line of thought. Abortion-a line of defense?! You make out babies to be the offenders. For living? For breathing (some of them actually do before they die)? wow, I am at a loss for words.
        I think what was meant by “an obligation to NOT get pregnant” if you don’t want an “offending” fetus was a reference to BEING RESPONSIBLE and not having sex if you don’t want to have a baby. But I am sure that is way out there considering the previous line of thought about being able to “prevent” life that already exists. Thats not prevention of life (by definition). Thats called termination of life. Its called murder. Just the same as ending a life once they are out of their mother’s womb is called murder (or is it ok for mothers to “prevent human life” that is unwanted–as their “last line of defense” against their children getting in the way of their happiness?).

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

        1. Sabs

          Ok–once these people have their kids and are incapable of taking care of them, and require assistance, are you the one to help them out? I am all for banning abortions, but where is the support once the kid is born? We dont like social services.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  2. DonaldDriver

    To take this to an extreme case, which I hope exposes some chinks in the Ron Paul pro-life camp’s armor, we should look at severe chromosomal problems. Aneuploidy is a condition where the child does not have the proper number of chromosomes, which is 46 in humans. Trisomy-21 (Down Syndrome) is one of the more familiar. Some (trisomy 18) have much more drastic effects. Many will not survive until 1 year of age.

    In the world of EMTALA and guaranteed medical coverage which we enjoy in the U.S., these can be multimillion dollar ventures. I am not saying that a parent cannot choose to have that child, but if they are volunteering to end that pregnancy, it is extremely responsible. I use the term Ron Paul pro-lifer because Paul supporters are ostensibly limited government proponents, but you apparently think there is no bottom to the government wallet when it comes to situations like this

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

  3. Brad

    I suspect i missed the mark with my last reply as it faded away. Abortion is not our business. How about death by aids or cancer etc is that not the same thing?
    There are several cures for cancer since the 1920′s, i suspect that is one of the reasons JFK was killed. “It is all the same culprits, money, power, control.”
    Go Ron Paul don’t cave in or give up your Presidential race, I won’t believe a thing til you are “President Paul” in 2012! You have the power of the people!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

    1. DonaldDriver

      I have to tell you that statements like these make me think that Ron Paul attracts more than his fair share of lunatics. JFK was killed because of a hidden cancer-cure? Non-partisans who read this site are going to read statements like this and think less of Dr. Paul because of this nonsense. Healthcare is the most important topic in politics today aside from the related issue of debt. But big pharma has so many avenues to make money that I don’t think they are suppressing cures. I really want to know people’s science credentials before allowing any of these statements to fly unchallenged. So what are your science credentials Brad?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  4. bluejean

    A woman’s reproductive freedoms begin with her behavior. I am a young woman, and I have been responsible with my decisions to create or not to create life. Why are women so bent on the destruction of life for their own specialized rights? I believe in equality for men and women, with out cobdescending laws and policies that represent me as a brainless, hormonal woman who seeks to justify her own helplessness and stupidity. In my own private life I see that my body has the capacity to harbor and bring forth life, an amazing responsibility! Why are women not taking the ability to procreate seriously? I am responsible to seek a legitimate form of birth control, no excuses! Women around me seen to put so much of their time and resources into creating an image, but will not go down and get the pill or behave like in a responsible, healthy manner to try some other form of birth control. I guess spontanaity and biology are paramount over doing the right thing, religion aside.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

    1. DonaldDriver

      Can’t argue anything that you said – but it still doesn’t solve the question of what to do if the woman or girl or guy for that matter does not use contraception, and an unwanted pregnancy results.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  5. K-V-O

    In an age when overpopulation is looking to be a devastating factor in the quality of human life, why are we so concerned for all human life? Quality, not quantity should be the issue. Animals in the wild will (and this IS documented) will induce an abortion of the fetus if they know it will not be healthy, or know that the resources needed to care for it are not present. Not to mention all of these issues are seemingly based on a religious argument. Did I miss the memo about no longer having separation of church and state in this country? You’re a citizen when you get a birth certificate, not before then. While I support Ron Paul in his fiscal and economic policies, I cannot lend him my full support if he will impose laws and sanctions against those seeking to exercise their reproductive freedoms. And for those of you that want to argue on behalf of the unborn, guess what? They most certainly didn’t ask you to.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7

    1. Shocked

      I think it is a religious argument because it is a human rights argument (a right to life argument) and if God creates all life then it is directly related to people’s faith. The reference to separation of church and state–I believe that was intended to prevent the state from infringing on religious rights, not vice versa. We were founded on a Christian faith and its intertwined throughout the Constitution. And while animals inducing abortions IS documented, there is a significant difference between animals and people–God made us different on purpose. Otherwise, we could argue it is ok to go out and kill others that compete for the same resources that we do, or maybe our own toddlers (if male) so that the mothers will be more receptive to procreate sooner, or abandon our smallest children (already born) to conserve precious resources for our other children, etc.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7

      1. DonaldDriver

        Show me the passage where the Constitution talks about Jesus. There is mention of God in Declaration of Independence, but the Constitution is pretty religion-free. And by the way, God could also refer to Allah. Muslims, Jews, and Christians all pray to the same God. They are all Abrahamic traditions who merely place different weights on the various human prophets. If you’re going to use religious doctrine to dictate reproductive policy, make sure you include the Quran and Talmud as well. Fact of the matter is that all rights are given to man by other men. Our Constitution was written by men, as was the Quran, as was the Bible.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

        1. Shocked

          The Constitution does not mention Jesus. But the men who wrote the Constitution believed in a Creator who valued life, perhaps my focus should have stayed there. And I stand corrected, not all of them (or even a majority) were considered “Christians”. But if we all pray to the same God then it makes sense to say that He created us and values life. And I am sorry that you believe all rights are given to man by men. We have nothing that is not given to us by God. Why should any of us have the right to end a life that we think is an inconvenience or of poor quality? And where are the boundaries (especially when they keep getting moved farther back–partial birth abortion)? I agree with Paul- it opens the door for euthanasia, genocide, etc. If all life isn’t valued, who gets to decide which lives are valued? I feel I have an obligation to fight to protect those who cannot protect themselves and I am thankful several others feel the same way because I am not above needing protection myself.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

          1. DonaldDriver

            Two things: one – we don’t all pray to the same God, because there are hundreds of other religions out there, including big ones like Hindu and Buddhism which follow other Gods. Taking the teachings of the Old Testament would marginalize the views od their adherents. Two – I have mentioned previously that we condone killing for the death penalty, for killing innocent civilians in the Iraq war, for killing Trayvon Martin. We allow the killing of dozen children at a time when infertile couples go and have 15 eggs fertilized (conception) and then only implant two of them, killing all the others. We all accept the killing of Native Americans while we expanded westward. My point is that men decided when killing was deemed appropriate. God had no say in the matter. Men wrote the laws, and men enforced the laws. You might want to convert to the Quaker faith if killing bothers you – it seems to have followers who walk the walk much more so than most other Christian sects.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

          2. Idontgetit

            A number of people seem to forget that others believe in different Gods. Christianity is the largest religion in the world… BECAUSE “Christians” stormed the globe forcibly and violently taking over any area which did not believe the same (colonialism). I wonder how many were killed in those “Christian” missions.

            DonaldDriver, thanks for bringing up the death penalty and other “justified” killings.

            Shocked, if you believe abortion is murder, you also have to believe every other form of taking life is murder. If you don’t you are a hypocrite. And BTW, isn’t a human right a right to marry whomever you choose?

            You constantly say, “I think” and “I believe.” Go ahead and do that. I respect your choice to believe in whatever you do, but with that, I expect you not to force your beliefs on me or my lady bits. And I expect the same from my government.

            And another point, hypothetical situation: What if the US decided to put a limit on the amount of children a family could have because of overpopulation, like China did? I’m betting you would be all upset about taking away a woman’s right to have the family she wants. Well, why can’t you look at it from the other side? I get your beliefs drive you, but I would expect there to be some, even a smidgen, sense to fully evaluate a situation. But maybe there isn’t.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

          3. wren

            And in China, female babies are dumped down wells because every family wants their one child to be a SON…so how’s that one child law working out for them?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    2. mchammer

      Are you suggesting we are no more than animals in the wild who don’t have the ability to reason? What kind of person are you to think it’s just ok to kill another person just because they are not exactly like you? Does that make them any less human? No, they are just as much human as you or me.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. wren

        I agree with you completely, I’m so tired of people giving me the ‘it’s done in nature’ excuse for their bad behavior. Animals eat their young, rape their children, fight with each other for dominance and territory, male animals rape other males to show dominance (like some men in prison do), females sometimes reject their young for no apparent reason…..the list goes on. Animals are not holy, they have no conscience. The animal kingdom is wild and unpredictable and should be respected as such but we as humans should not be trying to emulate it.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  6. DonaldDriver

    To take this to an extreme case, which I hope exposes some chinks in the Ron Paul pro-life camp’s armor, we should look at severe chromosomal problems. Aneuploidy is a condition where the child does not have the proper number of chromosomes, which is 46 in humans. Trisomy-21 (Down Syndrome) is one of the more familiar. Some (trisomy 18) have much more drastic effects. Many will not survive until 1 year of age.

    In the world of EMTALA and guaranteed medical coverage which we enjoy in the U.S., these can be multimillion dollar ventures. I am not saying that a parent cannot choose to have that child, but if they are volunteering to end that pregnancy, it is extremely repsonsible. I use the term Ron Paul pro-lifer because Paul supporters are ostensibly limited government proponents, but you apparently this there is no bottom to the government wallet when it comes to situations like this.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. mchammer

      Yep. And if their 15 year old daughter gets terminal cancer, why not just kill her immediately and save the expenses. Isn’t that so responsible?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      1. DonaldDriver

        If you want to pay for the treatment, you can do whatever you want. You big-government Nannie statists think that it is within your rights to extract wealth from others?

        I don’t know if understand how healthcare works – but the parents are not paying for that Edward’s Syndrome child (Trisomy-18). We all are through higher premiums. Insurance companies are in the business of making money. That is what they do, and they do it well. If this care costs $2 million, but this family pays only $9,000 per year in premiums, then guess where the balance comes from? Everyone else who shares that insurance carrier. Luckily, in most cases then government picks up 40% of the tab through employer based health insurance – the largest tax expenditure in the country. Now we all end up paying for that through lower wages, and an ever growing Federal deficit.

        So MCHammer, I agree that in a world of endless money that you liberals inhabit, no one should think twice about the cost of anything. But some people are trying to be fiscally responsible.

        Are any of you pro-lifers actually small government Ron Paul backers? I may on the wrong site. Is there another Ron Paul running for president?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. h

    Hi Everyone, — Lets all give RON PAUL job offers ! ! ! ! In every state! What I did, which we all can do, is;;; Write In Ron Paul’s name on all our local Ballots whenever there is an incumbent with no one running against them. I wrote in RON PAUL’s name for MULTIPLE Judgeship’s and Town Counsel and for Mayor where I live. Lets give the man JOB OFFERS from everywhere! What a hoot if RON won Magistrate Judge jobs in all 50 states! Surely the MEDIA could No longer ignore THAT! When the Write-In Tally of RON PAUL votes is more than an incumbent Judge or Mayor that has NO OPPONENT running against them ……….. well the effect in the news Nation-Wide would be Hilarious ! ! The man who predicted this economic melt=down and WON IOWA and was ignored, I feel we owe it to him to show Da Love!!! Yeah!

    Please copy and paste this on ALL these Comment boards!! Lets give RON PAUL a job offer in every state so that he can move where ever he wants after this boon-doggle of Ignoring him is over !!!! HELP +++ HELP === Lets DO this!!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  8. Free American Woman

    I will make this simple…all “FREE AMEICAN WOMEN” should have the RIGHT to do with their bodies as they feel is needed…BUT…not at the cost of the taxpayer! To make abortion illegal would be wrong and against everything that “FREEDOM” stands for! Women have made to much progress to be thrown back to the stone age by anyone especially the federal goverment!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6

    1. mchammer

      First of all the fetus is a separate organism than the women and it is not part of her body. Second, I have posted this many times, and Donald Driver is the only one who has responded to it.

      “I would like to point out that the whole argument over whether abortion is a woman’s right to choose is completely invalid. It all depends on how you view the “fetus”. If you believe that it is a living baby no one in their right minds would say its ok for a women to decide to kill it. It also works the other way. If you believe it is only a clump of cells in a woman’s body, it is obviously a woman’s right to have it killed and removed.”

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. calgirl58

        mchammer: how do you suppose an sperate entity would survive without its mother?? Ummmm no. At the does not mean I support abortion……but that baby is a part of that women….her egg, her placenta and it would not survive outside the womb.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        1. mchammer

          How about 3rd trm abortions?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          1. DonaldDriver

            yes

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    2. DonaldDriver

      I agree with you whole-heartedly. The Ron Paul healthcare issue page gets very little meaningful discussion – but you bring up a separate but related issue about funding for this procedure. Despite the fact that I am pro-choice, I am not claiming that taxpayers should foot the bill. IF medicaid is still a functioning system, however, I think that abortions should be part of the overall list of allowed procedures. If your BlueCross policy allows it, fine – if it doesn’t, you’ll have to come up with the funds on your own. For me, someone looking at the economics of the situation, when is it smart to pay for an abortion instead of 18 years of social welfare programs on the back-end? Not many politicians have been elected who state that they’re going to reduce or eliminate medicaid, medicare, social security, food stamps, etc.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  9. DonaldDriver
    1. mchammer

      A perfect example of how the media can take a small mispeak and blow it up into headlining news. Reminds me a little bit of Chick fil a.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. DonaldDriver

        I see the Akin thing as two-fold: there are people who have very little scientific knowledge who claim ridiculous things like Akin did. Since most Americans do not know any better, a lot of the misinformation is not challenged. I am addressing the fact that the woman’s body does not have the ability to decide when to accept or reject a fertilized egg. The other issue is that there is a huge swath of America that is going to react passionately to bizarre claims of legitimate vs illigitimate rape. It is an issue that I believe is a net-loss to the Conservatives, and plays into Democrats’ hands. It isn’t like ethanol – which really gets Iowa farmers fired up, but the rest of the country does not really care about enough to move their voting position. Both sides care about abortion, but women outnumber the people who vote against abortion in all cases, even in cases of rape or incest.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  10. Devil's Advocate

    About 50% of all pregnancies are miscarried*, and criminalizing abortion makes them all possible homicides. Think before you enact.

    *http://www.wisegeek.com/how-common-are-miscarriages.htm

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

    1. Laura

      Ignorance!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  11. anyone

    In other words….Protect All Human Life!! Except woman, they don’t count! They’re just incubators!

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 10

  12. anyone

    •In the Dominican Republic, a pregnant 16-year-old girl with acute leukemia is denied the chemotherapy she desperately needs. Not only is abortion illegal in her country, but so is any medical treatment that might terminate a pregnancy. The girl dies.
    •In Peru, a 13-year-old girl is raped by a neighbor and becomes pregnant. Peru allows no abortions even for rape or incest, so the girl throws herself off a roof in an attempted suicide. She survives with a horrible spinal injury, but doctors refuse to perform surgery for fear of harming the fetus. The girl is left a quadriplegic.
    •In Brazil, a 9-year-old girl is raped repeatedly by her stepfather, and becomes pregnant with twins. The Catholic Church attempts to block her access to abortion, and when that fails, they excommunicate the girl and her mother. The abortion proceeds, but note that if Paul Ryan were in charge, that would not have been possible. And instead of just excommunicating the girl and her mother, he’d put them in jail. (“If it’s illegal, it’s illegal,” he has said in answer to the question of whether women could be jailed for abortion.)

    This is pure evil. And this is the world that Paul Ryan and several other forced pregnancy, anti-woman fans want.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 11

    1. Brad

      Anyone, you have some real issues of unbelievable curcumstances please get with the program?
      Please vote Ron Paul then after you catch your breath please shut down the AMA, the FDA and the brainwashing that there is no cure for cancer. Unfortunately few know there were at least 4 people curing cancer back in the 1920′s but do to the Rockafelar’s, Rothchild’s, Morgans etc the cure’s have been surpressed. “Cancer cures suppressed” proves this with Essiac herbal tea 1922, Harry Hoxsey 1924 herbal cancer cure (out lawed), Maxamillion Gerson cancer cure, Royal Raymond Rife’s cancer cure through frequency and state of the art microscope 1920′s-1934.
      It makes no sence to cure or treat cancer with radiation and chemotherapy that actually causes cancer. Pro life is everything perhaps cancer is # 1 as millions have died needlessly over greed for the past 90 + years. “Thrive” on ‘you tube’ shows and explains everything from how the banks control us with the big corporations. Mark my words this is the generation of no big pharma, clean & free energy and 20, 30, 50% less pollution. Watch “Thrive” then we can all make a differance. “Vote Ron Paul!” President Paul!
      Cheers, Brad from Canada

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

    2. DonaldDriver

      Brad – and smoking doesn’t cause cancer, and we didn’t land on the moon.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

    3. mchammer

      I love how people like you take the extreme examples that make up less than 1% of abortions. There are thousands of abortions every day, and the large majority of them have nothing to do with rape or incest, but no, you don’t want to talk about those ones.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

  13. anyone

    There’s a story on CNN right now about a woman whose rapist sued for “Parental Rights.” This is exactly what I have predicted. Amble on over and check out the comments section-the amount of people, mostly men, who actually believe that a rapist should have parental rights. This is the despicable outcome of outlawing all abortions. NO man should be able to use a woman’s body in this manner. Outlaw abortion and rapists will be screaming for parental rights. Rape is difficult to prove and women are always doubted, most rapes go unreported and convictions are extremely rare in relation to actual rapes committed. Those who would completely outlaw abortion are basically legitimizing and legalizing rape as a reproductive strategy. Any man could rape any woman to procreate. This is where we are in 2012?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

    1. DonaldDriver

      Amen anyone

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  14. Sense-Maker

    Here’s my concern: All the people who claim to be SO pro-life also support :
    - wars (um…. lotta life gone down the tubes on that one, folks…. but who’s counting with all the focus against abortion?)
    - the death penalty
    - gun carrying (and slinging)
    - selective Bible quotes (rather than adhering to the TOTALITY of the “Old Laws”)
    - NO health reform to take CARE of women forced into carrying babies to term
    - a lack of equality for women
    - a lack of care for poverty-stricken people (preferring it seems to just let poor people DIE – as in ‘not so pro-life)
    - and the list goes on and on and on

    While Ron Paul may have some good points on the economy and food, this is a critical issue and why I am now seriously looking at Jill Stein – a super long shot, but at least someone who gets the big picture and isn’t bought out by corporations – or whatever they’re calling them now…..

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

    1. mchammer

      Wars: The soldiers choose to go to war and they know what they’re getting into.

      The Death Penalty: Not saying it’s right, but those people did something to get killed, while the aborted baby has never even had the chance to live.

      Lack of care for poverty-stricken people: Mobody supports this while plenty f people support abortion.

      Lack of equality for women: (sigh) once again I’ll show how womens’ rights has absolutely nothing to do with this.
      “I would like to point out that the whole argument over whether abortion is a woman’s right to choose is completely invalid. It all depends on how you view the “fetus”. If you believe that it is a living baby no one in their right minds would say its ok for a women to decide to kill it. It also works the other way. If you believe it is only a clump of cells in a woman’s body, it is obviously a woman’s right to have it killed and removed.”

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

      1. DonaldDriver

        But MCHammer, if that is your real name, you know as well as I do that there is a fervor for these issues that sense-maker brings up. People are not complacent about those things. War is something most republicans rally around, and it makes them feel good about themselves. The human lives that are taken got what was coming to them. Never mind that they didn’t actually do anything to the U.S. to deserve our wrath – it makes us feel good to rally around the flag – it pumps up our chest like few other things do. So don’t downplay the fact that this is a popular form of killing.

        Now as a Darwinist, I am not a pacifist, and I understand that there are bad people out there. I have a consistent mindset: pro-choice (pro-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-killing during war if that war makes our country either more prosperous or safer, pro-gun rights). Sense-maker is saying that your position is highly hypocritical, and s/he’s right.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    2. joe blow

      People in ware are generaly there because they are otdered to be ther from people that opose people like Dr. Paul
      Death pen. people knew they were comitting crime that warrent that punishment b4 hand
      What in the world does carrying a gun have to do with death?
      Dr. Paul has real reforms on health that do not make us all pay for the bill.
      Where is this lack of equality for women in this arguement? and if the arguement there leads to a lack or equality for men is it any better?
      Dr. Paul does not show a lack of care for the poor he say its up to the states and comunitys to do that not the GOV. It should be up to the people of each state.
      My view is that is human sacrafice to achive a better life, after all a fetus dont grow to be a cat, dog, ball , rock , or plant.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

      1. DonaldDriver

        And I am a defender of State’s rights, but I guess the question on any federal involvement in anything is whether there are rights that should be granted to all U.S. citizens. If Mississippi decides that blacks should not qualify for public education, for example, should federal law supersede? If Utah decides women cannot drive any longer, should federal law step in? What if Alabama did not want women to be able to vote? Why should the federal government get to create an amendment over-ruling the state of Alabama?

        It comes down to rights that the Federal government wants to make sure all its citizens possess. Now I do think that the federal government destroys properly working systems all the time. I think its involvement in public education has been disastrous, for example. There is no doubt in my mind that if states are given the power to make abortion illegal, the entire bible-belt flips overnight. I think there will be a net loss of talented women to the states that do not restrict access to abortion, and in the end the bible belt loses economically.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  15. Johnny Appleseed

    Don’t know why we’re still arguing about this issue. The truth is that it is not an attack against an undeveloped fetus, this is an attack against women. Women deserve the choice, it is their body, their life, and not yours. Men run big government, now I know there are women in government, but the head honchos. Willing the shots have never experienced a pregnancy first hand, nor have they been pressured by their boyfriends to not use contraception.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7

    1. mchammer

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. “I would like to point out that the whole argument over whether abortion is a woman’s right to choose is completely invalid. It all depends on how you view the “fetus”. If you believe that it is a living baby no one in their right minds would say its ok for a women to decide to kill it. It also works the other way. If you believe it is only a clump of cells in a woman’s body, it is obviously a woman’s right to have it killed and removed.”

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

      1. DonaldDriver

        MChammer, that is exactly what a large swath of people are saying – that it is a living thing, but that it is still okay to kill it. Some won’t admit it in these terms, but I will. I can argue this from an intrusion of government standpoint, an economic standpoint, a biblical standpoint, by pointing out hypocrisy in when it okay to kill other humans, etc.

        I come back to the stance that if Republicans are smart, and that’s a big if, they will do what Ronald Reagan did, and downplay this issue – don’t magnify it. Social conservatives have hi-jacked the conservative party, and people like you are making things worse, not better, for the general electability of right-wing social conservatives (like Paul Ryan) and Ron Paul.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        1. mchammer

          Let me ask you this. In all of the other cases of people killing other people the person being killed has done something that the other person thinks it is ok to kill them for. What has the baby done that the mother should kill her own child?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

          1. DonaldDriver

            You’re right about that – I don’t even question the fact that the baby is collateral damage in all cases of abortion. They did nothing to deserve their fate – I’m not sure if any pro-choice person here can pull off a cogent argument about that, I’d like to hear it if they can.

            My point is that it does not matter. We’ve gone back and forth enough that I think you know my position: it is a necessary evil from an economic standpoint, and since men cannot get pregnant, we should try our hardest to put ourselves in a woman’s position, and figure out how hard it would be to completely change our life plans because we couldn’t keep our pants zipped in high school. Your earning potential drops, the 15 year old you impregnated in your car doesn’t graduate high school, and we all as taxpayers pay for expensive social programs to support the child and the two high school dropouts. On top that, it is not the government’s place to legislate based on religious beliefs – very un-Ron Paul of you guys to defend a government’s power grab by taking a woman’s right to decide when to have a child away. Furthermore, I argue from the standpoint that we as a society have already decided that it is okay to kill in many different scenarios. Apparently an innocent bystander who has not yet left the birth canal makes the list of acceptable things to kill. I think my last angle was that there are plenty of kids on the planet who are already living and breathing who could use your compassion. Adopt a kid from Cuba. Give money to UNICEF. Go and rally against senseless murder of innocent Syrians. Final point is that I think this is a net loser for the electoral college. Despite the fact that it fires up the social conservative base, most of the country is against making abortion illegal in the case of rape and incest. You are helping Obama get elected with this position.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

          2. Devil's Advocate

            Choice is always the first victim of fate…

            “I don’t even question the fact that the baby is collateral damage in all cases of abortion. They did nothing to deserve their fate – I’m not sure if any pro-choice person here can pull off a cogent argument about that, I’d like to hear it if they can.” ~ DonaldDriver

            LOL, and exactly did they do to deserve their conception?

            Life in utero is subject to many contingencies, not the least of which is the bearer’s choice to deliver it, if they can. About 50 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.* The Criminalizing abortion makes every miscarriage (aka spontaneous abortion) a death under suspicious circumstances.

            Do those who miscarry (including their doctors) deserve to be subjected to criminal investigation?

            *http://www.wisegeek.com/how-common-are-miscarriages.htm

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

          3. DonaldDriver

            Devil – I’m not sure you understand my post, or maybe the thread. I’m pro-choice in all instances. I agree about miscarriages – happens all the time. You do raise an interesting question about the responsibilities of a pregnant woman all of a sudden. What if she decides not to seek out proper prenatal care, no B-vitamins, is poorly nourished, is an alcoholic, etc. and she miscarries? Can she be held culpable? Great question. One more reason why I’m pro-choice. But your response puzzles me. The baby did not choose to be conceived, but now that they have been, they are being killed because of circumstances outside of their control. There’s nothing fair about it, and nothing pretty about it. I am conceding a point to the anti-choice crowd by being honest and calling abortion what it is – the taking of a human life. Once again, I am pro-choice in all respects.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          4. Devil's Advocate

            “… it is a necessary evil from an economic standpoint…” ~ DonaldDriver

            Here is the root of your false premise. Abortions are not a necessary evil, because they do not produce a good (necessary or otherwise); can you provide a positive that results from one? Here you suggest some monetary benefit, but this is basically a reheated version of whether or not to have children in the first place; there is a cost relative to having (or not having) children, but it is not an exclusively monetary one.

            The claim that a life conceived deserves a better fate than death is arbitrary at best (given the statistically high rate of miscarriage), and certainly not a persuasive argument for removing the choice of those, who bearing that life alone, will face the consequences of their choice. That is the premise to begin with, whether the individual bearing the burden of responsibility for that life is allowed to choose, or have that life thrust upon her against her will.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

          5. DonaldDriver

            There was definitely some thrusting involved, but not always against the pregnant girl’s will. It appears as though we’re both on the same side of this issue, but I am standing by my assessment of abortion as an unfortunate act which is perpetuated because our biological impulses to have sex are more powerful than our pastors’ and priests’ words. If the word evil makes anyone uncomfortable, I merely suggest that in the case of a pregnant 13 year old girl, both choices may be unpleasant. For some girls, abortion is less-unpleasant.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      2. joe blow

        If a fetus is a future baby then it should have the rights of a baby, if it is legally considered a “cell formation” then it is property. If it is property then it belongs to its makers without express consent otherwise. Which would mean both makers should have to agree. Personally, I say its human sacrafice to make one life better.(give any reason that does not achive that goal)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        1. DonaldDriver

          You’re entitled to your opinion. The good men who wrote the constitution did not grant the unborn the same rights as the living. This conversation is taking place in the forum that it should – but I think it’s a net loss for the Republican party, because most people do not agree with your extremism. Rape, incest, and the health of the mother are widely defended as reasons for terminating pregnancies.

          I do want you consider the situation that I have proposed several times now and no one here has touched. There are infertile couples who have a dozen eggs fertilized. That’s referred to as conception. That’s when life begins. Only a few of those babies are inplanted into the woman’s uterus, and the rest are discarded (killed). Do the groups that you align yourself with attack those doctors too? Or just the doctors who are providing abortions in the traditional sense. There is no difference. I’m not advocating violence against these doctors, on the contrary, I say leave them both alone. This is a woman’s choice, and to a lesser degree – the father’s choice.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          1. mchammer

            “The good men who wrote the constitution did not grant the unborn the same rights as the living.”-DoubleD

            They also did not grant african-americans or women the same rights did they?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          2. DonaldDriver

            Not for suffrage, but I’m pretty sure you were not allowed to kill women even in 1787.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  16. Gonzo

    People need to be educated, there doesn’t need to be a law against it, yes its wrong to kill a baby, its a human life, blah blah blah, i bet when you make an egg you dont say im aborting a chicken for breakfast do you? no, we call it an omelette. since when did chickens become better then us? chickens are good people…they don’t go around starting wars against there own or polluting the earth or stupid crap like that. Or hey, what about mosquitos or flies? we kill thousands of mosquito’s and flies everyday…cause there pests…but no ones fighting for the them, or what about cancer? i don’t see any of those stupid ribbons on cars ‘save the tumors’. the sanctity of life is bullcrap people. we made it up. when life begins is COMPLETELY arbitrary and i laugh every time i hear people arguing about it, you could say life begins when you were a itch in daddies pants, you can say life begins when the egg is fertilized, you can say it begins when your father/mother was born, you can go further and say when the first humans were roaming around thousands of years ago was when it began, you can say it began when the earth reached our sun and began to orbit, you can say it began when the universe began, because its one continuous process people, so i believe that women/couples, should do what they want, let people be people, thats there business!

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14

    1. William G. Sharp

      Gonzo, your chosen name suits you. You said people need to be educated, this is very true, but they most certainly don’t need to be taught any of the crap you’re shoveling. Chickens are good people? I hereby nominate you for a posterior orifice award.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

      1. Gonzo

        lol i accept your award, but people aren’t ready for the crap i’m shoveling, chickens are good people was a joke lol just saying that were unique creatures that dont seem to follow some great examples of nature like if we try to save every human life possible then we choke ourselves, were fastly becoming overpopulated.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9

        1. William G. Sharp

          Gonzo, sorry it took me so long to respond to you, but I feel that I owe you an apology. I don’t have much experience at posting comments, replies, and such. I didn’t get that you were joking, so my reply was a knee jerk reaction. Being too serious is one of my faults. Actually, I’ve been concerned and vocal about the overpopulation problem for more than 30 years, but the abortion issue is touchy. I am pro-life, but definitely not pro-overpopulation! Obviously, a majority of the world doesn’t believe in birth control, in any form. The reasons vary worldwide. The media doesn’t address the issue, nor the government, because the more people there are, the more profit there is for Big Business, as the middle class continues to dissolve into poverty. So, how many Americans really give a damn? Answer: Not Nearly Enough!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    2. Scott

      Clearly, you’ve not spent any time around chickens.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  17. Jane Doe

    I personally believe that if we taught children more about how to be sexually responsible and respect each other and our own bodies we would be catching irresponsible abortions to begin with… but there are many sides to this..

    If a women is pregnant and gets the crap kicked out of her and the baby/ and or mother would possibly parish with a fuller term pregnancy then I think an abortion would be necessary. Or if a women would have a baby hooked on drugs, would it be better to have another under loved, under cared for child in our world? Would it be better to send the soul back to ke Akua for another life to be born into? On the other hand, if a women comes in and is mostly healthy and was just being irresponsible, then no it’s not right but who can we have regulate something such as that. Who is to say though? It’s always going to be a tough call and a heated subject.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

    1. DonaldDriver

      Jane I think you expressed this well – as a professor of mine said, this is a debate with friction that creates more heat than light. I really don’t think anyone is going to change their mind on this topic even after days of arguing the merits of each side.

      I will say that biology is more powerful than all other forces (the flesh is weak) – and you always have unwanted and unintended pregnancies – even good Christians. Teenagers do what teenagers do.

      Not only am I for keeping abortion legal for cases of rape, incest, and the mother’s life – I would go one step further in a very callous/economical manner: if this woman/girl is unable to care for this child due to economic constraints, this is the responsible choice. Even more callous – if she has the child at age 14, I am sure her earning potential will be reduced on average. It is difficult to do as well in school/college/the work force when you give birth in high school or middle school. The taxpayer should not be obligated to fund your decision to have a child when you couldn’t support it.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

      1. mchammer

        I agree with you that therewill always be unwanted pregnancies, but that does not mean abortion should still be legal. Is that 14 year-olds earning potential more important than the life of her child?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

        1. DonaldDriver

          Raising kids is not cheap – and the poor have more abortions than the wealthy proportionately. If you are a libertarian, or a fiscal conservative, you have to acknowledge the fact that we pay as a society for this girl’s/woman’s unwanted pregnancy. I’ve written this multiple times now – but we pay for the child’s healthcare, food stamps, daycare, welfare, etc. That would add up to real money if you mandate that all pregnant girls have their babies. I agree it’s callous, but someone needs to see the big picture here – meaning the financial realities of raising children.

          I also say that if you feel the need to save kids, send your money to Guatemala, Peru, Mali, etc. There are kids dying of malaria, AIDS. Pour your positive energies into those pursuits. Kids die every day because we put our finances ahead of their well-being. We are over-weight in this country. We should all be ashamed and send the excess food to North Korea so that they can eat too. Oh wait, it’s not our job to feed the world, to treat the world’s ill? Then let’s advocate personal responsibility – and if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, either by the morning after pill or by an abortion, allow her to do the responsible thing. Unless you are personally going to write a check to raise her baby, you don’t get a vote.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

          1. mchammer

            So she can’t afford the baby… why not just kill it? I agree with Nemesis that abortion is closely related to infanticide, so if a woman has a baby but then realizes she cannot afford to raise it, why not “allow her to do the responsible thing”? Again I love how youput abortion in soft terms, like “the responsible thing”, instead of saying what it really is.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

          2. DonaldDriver

            MCHammer – yes, she should be allowed to kill it. If you have read any of the other things that I’ve written, I have not minced words. Abortion is killing a living thing. I still need a response from you guys about why your financial security is more important than the lives of kids in Africa who are dying from hunger. You want to be sanctimonious about this cause and you’re so rich that you have a computer – and kids are dying with flies on their faces. You need to prioritize and get some money wired to Somalia. You don’t know these unborn in the U.S. any more than the dying kids in Somalia. Why the bleeding heart here, but you are able to remove yourself from any obligation to those in another country? I am sure that the women who choose to abort have a far harder time with the choice than you pretend to. You want to be a good Christian, I get it, but as I said, re-direct your compassion to another cause – there are plenty. Women deserve to have the right to choose when to become a mother. The government should not be legislating morality.

            For you constitutionalists in the audience, the founding Fathers did not grant rights to the unborn. Or did I miss that passage where they spoke about the rights of the unborn?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

          3. mchammer

            Look, the difference between the two situations you mentioned is that in the case of the starving kids in Africa noone is going to say that it is acceptable and it is not the result of any specific people’s decisions. With abortion people, like you, are actually supporting it, so that is why I am here protesting it.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          4. DonaldDriver

            But these largely Muslim women decided to have 10 kids in the middle of a desert. The kids had no say in the matter. If they could, they might have said – hey, looks like there’s more sand here than plants. Is having a child the best idea?

            So I do think you should open up your checkbook for these kids – they are here on the Earth, for a while at least, and need your compassion as much as the unborn in our country. I think you would get the same satisfaction by diverting your positive energies into that cause. Or Latin America for that matter.

            Don’t get me wrong, I think all anti-choice people here are well-intentioned, but for reasons I have already explained, I think making abortion illegal would be a huge step backwards for women in America.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

          5. mchammer

            How many times do I have to say it? THIS ISSUE HAS NOTHIING TO DO WITH WOMENS’ RIGHTS.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

          6. DonaldDriver

            You have to keep on saying it – because you haven’t convinced any pro-choice people of it yet. It’s all about a woman’s right to decide when to become a mother. That child is going to turn her life upside down. The father, maybe maybe not. Watch Maury Pauvich for any length of time and you will shudder with fear and change your mind completely about abortion. These episodes where you find out who might be the father are frightening. I have to support those kids, when every father there is trying to figure out how to shirk his responsibilities.

            We are a bit more sanitary about it here, but in China, and I’m sure many other countries, infanticide is still practiced – at least in recent history. We live in country with free healthcare for everyone – illegals, everyone. We live in a country with free public education, free food via food stamps. If you can’t work, you can get social security disability insurance forever. These are all awesome benefits. The government takes good care of us. Thanks taxpayers. In other countries that cannot afford all of these things, and when a child would be a burden that they could not support, I am certain that babies were killed throughout history. I think abortion is a shame, and there is no way to sugar-coat it, but from a pragmatic standpoint – it is a necessary evil, and my vote on the issue is one for the women.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      2. joe blow

        so… lets change the laws that make tax payers suport it…. hmm kill a baby of change a law, where are we going as a country people?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    2. mchammer

      @JaneDoe If a woman has a baby hooked on drugs how does that make that baby any less human than you? Does that give you the right to kill it?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

      1. DonaldDriver

        There was a case out in California I believe where a woman who was a crack-using prostitute had ten kids or so. A doctor offered to pay to have her sterilized. If she accepted that offer, that would make both the doctor and crack/whore immensely responsible in my mind. And no further kids would be aborted, because she is an unfit mother by most people’s standards.

        If that same doctor offered to pay for an abortion if the woman asked for it, I would support (and encourage) that decision too. Not the baby’s fault, but as a society, we sometimes have to make hard decisions. The good people of California have enough of a social safety net to support as it is.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  18. Nemesis

    Why should a woman’s right to kill cease when a baby is born? What is the scientific basis for believing that birth makes offspring human when it wasn’t human a microsecond earlier? Breathing is not the defining criterion for being human, or a ‘person’. Animals breathe. An adult dog or cat has greater consciousness than a new born. Neither is being located outside the mother’s body the criterion for being human, or a person. Is an embryo in a dish a person?

    Abortion ‘rights’ and infanticide rights go hand in hand. It’s illogical to allow abortion but not infanticide. Think of the suffering of the woman, siblings, carers etc if a woman is denied the right to kill a severely disabled infant. And what about a woman who has a mixed race baby as the result of an affair but the mixed race staus of that baby is not detected until birth? What about her suffering and the suffering of siblings and other family members if she is forced to let that baby live? Don’t try to claim that these babies can just be adopted out. There are finite resources. Mixed race babies have lower ‘market value’ than e.g., pure Aryan babies and disabled babies have lower market value than healthy, able babies.

    We are moving towards a future society in which women’s right and/or the State’s right to kill these babies will be an accepted norm. Allowing abortion ‘rights’ is essential to getting to this future society. To permit infanticide would be illogical if abortion was prohibited.

    I see the arguments for infanticide of animal liberationist, philosopher and bioethicist Professor Peter Singer as quite cogent. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/unspeakable-conversations.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm for a disabilty rights activist’s perspective on Singer.) I also see those arguments as essentially Nazi-like. The German Nazis of 1933 – 1945 only prohibited abortion in Aryan populations. In multi-ethnic populations, such as the US, and post 1945, the local Nazis have usually been in favor of abortion.

    To be pro-choice is basically to be a Nazi or a fellow traveller with Nazis. Today’s Nazis have evolved since 1945. They don’t all call themselves Nazis. Many are libertarians.

    DonaldDriver, in response to your comments about you wanting a party that is fiscally conservative but has the toughminded perspective that you advocate on social issues, there is the following US political party:

    Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10

    1. kenley

      I just wanted to comment on the statement that you made about a woman having an affair, and wanting the baby to be terminated because of the race, Personally i think thats a very selfish thing to do. If a woman were to make a choice to have an affair then she should live with the consequences of her actions. Terminating a pregnancy is not the answer to any problems, what is meant to happen will happen and life should be one of them.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

    2. Braeden Roche

      so “NEMISES” you are saying that i kill jewish people??

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      1. mchammer

        No, but he is saying you kill babies.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        1. Braeden Roche

          hahahaha lol i actualy laughed at that one i am a male human being it is impossible for me to kill a baby as a fetus.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

    3. DonaldDriver

      Nemesis – I agree that the destinction between an unborn baby at 34 weeks and a baby actually born at 34 weeks is incredibly arbitrary. I agree that both are living humans. We do have elected officials, justices, etc. who have decided that it is legal to have an abortion, but that is illegal to kill an infant. No one wants to discuss why one is appropriate and one is not.

      Again, my bottomline is that there will always be unintended and unwanted pregnancies. Always. As a society, we cannot afford others’ mistakes. If the woman/girl does not want the child, and is unable to care for the child, the taxpayer should have to fund their hospital bills, their formula, their daycare, their foodstamps, etc. Get rid of all these support programs, and make them all church/privately funded enterprises, and I will have a very different stance. The reality is that this is an issue older than the bible, and even in the bible, I believe abortion is discussed as a “sin” with punishment for it on par with things like stealing, and not murder.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

      1. mchammer

        “I believe abortion is discussed as a “sin” with punishment for it on par with things like stealing, and not murder.” -Donald Driver; Yeah it’s just like stealing. Stealing lives.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

        1. DonaldDriver

          I didn’t write the bible, just reporting what I heard. Point is, the biblical contributors of the time did not see abortion as serious as we are making it today.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      2. nothinggirlJane

        I completely disagree. There are thousands of people who are perfectly willing to discuss why one is considered ‘right’ simply because it is legal, while the other is illegal.

        I would much rather bear the tax burden of a live child, then have my tax dollars go to subsidize this cleverly disguised Genocide.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        1. Celroc Amaul

          Please forgive my bad netiquette (replying to an older post)… But I agree with nothinggirlJane. I find that I would much, much rather take on the tax burden of the living children than I would paying for abortions. So much so, actually, that I find myself willing to donate to the cause. As a response to the argument over who is going to pay for the children that would have been aborted, I think that maybe if we did enough little things (donate a jar of baby food to a food bank, or clothes to low-income families, et cetera) we could show that we’re really willing and able to care for the children, and even set the grounds to do so a little bit.

          Just my 2 cents worth.

          Mr. Amaul

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    4. DonaldDriver

      Nemesis – I looked at the link for Libertarian National Socialist Green Party – I don’t think you understand their platform, or mine.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  19. williamjn

    also. that arguement of hey i dont have the money to support a child. two things. one you should have not have had done the act with out knowing the consequences. also. one more thing. just because a baby will be economically hard to take care of does not mean that you kill it. there are so many more options to take.
    there is also one more thing. lets say im poor and im living with my parents and have no job. so what, because im economically hard to sustain my parents are to kill me or kick me out. no. its called responsibility. many people want act like adults but they do not want to assume responsibility of being a father or a mother. it is not our fault that you have a baby. you made the choice. even if you did not plan it you should have counted the cost of what it would do if you did have sexual relations.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    1. DonaldDriver

      On Fantasy Island, I would agree with you. If we lived in a world where parents paid for their children and their children took care of their elderly parents, then I fully support you.

      The reality is that girls who are poor and 14 and have kids will likely need a support web generated by the taxpayer. Her child is going to cost the taxpayer food stamps, medicaid, welfare, etc for two decades. The fact that she will likely have to drop out of school compounds the toll. Her earning potential drops and we all pay for it.

      If these people shun all forms of governmental support, God bless them! But I think we all know even good Ron Paul-loving patriots have no problem taking social security and medicare when the time comes.

      You just have to think a few steps beyond the personal responsibility level to see that we cannot afford these kids’ very irresponsible choices to have sex at 14 without using birth control. But truth be told, not many kids at 14 are all that responsible, and they’re not really thinking too much about financial considerations at the time.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  20. williamjn

    just so you know. 1% of women who abort their babies have been raped. that leaves us with 99% of people aborting for selfish inane reason. And you want to legalize abortion? , so if thats your arguement on why it should be legal, then in my opinion, your ignorant, second. a baby is a baby, killing it is not ok, your murdering a human being and justifying it by folly arguements such as, its not fully grown, or it doesnt look like a baby and other completely crazy ideals. but at one point we all looked like that. and so therefore thats a bad arguement. and finally. 100% of all pro choice are alive. thats something.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

    1. Braeden Roche

      i fully agree with this

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

  21. Braeden Roche

    I honestly don’t have a view on abortion, I myself do think that is wrong but it does depend on the circumstances of the pregnancy eg. if the woman was raped, then she should have the right to choose if she wants to keep the baby.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

  22. Nemesis

    I hope pro-lifers are not getting inspired by Paul Ryan. Shame on you if you are. Paul Ryan is actually worse than Romney. He may be anti-abortion but his priorities are totally warped. Ayn Rand ideology can be more brain damaging than illegal drugs. Thus, he stands for attacking Medicare and child health care while pursuing a belligerent, militaristic foreign policy that will send the US broke while advancing the agenda of terrorists. In contrast, Ron Paul has pledged that he would cut a trillion dollars in his 1st year without touching Medicare or child health care initially and while still being committed to national defense spending.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

  23. God's Daughter

    First off I think abortion is absolutely WRONG! How can you sit there and kill an innocent baby? Some people have no hearts when it comes down to this type of decision. I understand the debate about if you were raped, but it is not the baby’s fault. Baby’s are human just like we are and even when they are being aborted these babies feel the pain.

    The Bible says Thou shall not kill and when you are killing these babies it is murder! Which means the people that do these abortions should be in jail as much as the rest of the so called “murders” should be.

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11

    1. DonaldDriver

      I am a big fan of Mr. Paul, to a large degree because of his consistent philosophy of limited government. I think this issue is one in which he falls short though. The government should not take away liberties and freedoms (the freedom to choose when to have a child.)

      It is unfortunate, but I have to say that I defend a woman’s choice to end a pregnancy. I have a science background, and I absolutely agree with Mr. Paul that life begins at conception. I still defend a woman’s right to an abortion. The day that we remove the public safety net for women with babies that they cannot afford (medicaid, food stamps, welfare checks, social security disability insurance, etc.) then I will stand behind making abortion illegal. Until then, if a woman chooses to a financially responsible things and end a pregnancy that she cannot afford, or bring a child into the world that she is unable to raise, then that is her choice.

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 14

      1. mchammer

        How can you think life begins at conception, yet the woman has the right to kill it? People like you try to make it seem not as bad by using terms such as “a woman’s choice to end a pregnancy” instead of what it really is. A mother killing her defenseless child. And the worst part is it is usually for selfish purposes.

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 11

        1. DonaldDriver

          I don’t think it’s an honorable thing to do, and I do think it is killing. I also feel that if a woman chooses to do this, I am not going to judge her, and you shouldn’t either. The government should not make abortion illegal.

          I’ll also give you a for-instance that I’d like you to think about. Couples who have a hard time conceiving will often have several eggs, a dozen or more, fertilized in a petri dish. Not all 12 will be implanted. Let’s say 3 are implanted, and 9 are discarded. That is murder. Go protest that. I want to know Ron Paul’s position on that. These couples who cannot conceive think it is their right to fertilize 12 embryos, and then kill 80% of them? In fact they’re putting money ahead of human life, otherwise they would fertilize one egg at a time, implant it, and hope that one embryo grows. If not, pay to have it done again. Talk about selfish destruction of human life.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5

          1. mchammer

            How is that any different from abortion? And if you believe that life begins at conception how is abortion different from murdering a 20-year old man? Do you think that this is also ok?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

          2. Nemesis

            He hasn’t answered, so can I try on his behalf? Am holding my nose now, as I adopt the mindset of a pro-choicer.

            It depends who is killing it. Is it the mother who is killing it, or someone else? A 20-year old man is still just a bunch of cells. The brain is not even fully developed. It’s not until about 25 years old that the frontal lobes are fully developed in a male, and only a little bit earlier in a female. A 20-year old man or woman is not fully formed, even if it has superficial resemblance to as human. By this reasoning, it should be the mother’s choice to do with a a 20 year-old man whatever she wants. It’s not actually a person. It started out as part of a woman’s body and remains part of a woman’s body, even though it is no longer in her body.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

          3. DonaldDriver

            MCHammer – I don’t claim to have a lock-tight rationale for this arbitrary distinction for when it is legal to kill. As a country we have decided that it is okay to kill people who have committed crimes, to kill someone who enters your home, to kill people in other countries, even innocent civilians, who we disagree with for a variety of reasons. As I said before, we even give a free pass to those infertile couples who fertilize a dozen embryos and implant 1 ro two, flushing (killing) the rest of the human lives. Obviously Thou Shalt not Kill is not an absolute, but a creed which people generally accept. But we are a secular society, and one based on laws. Currently, we have decided as a society to allow abortion (killing) of unborn babies. I agree that some of these abortions are done out of convenience. The fact remains that in our spectrum of instances when killing is allowed, arbortion is still on the list of approved killings. I believe that women should have the choice. I am a big advocate of birth control too, because obviously that would help prevent this very harsh alternative.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

          4. nothinggirlJane

            You believe that abortion is Killing but don’t want to judge a woman for choosing to kill her child??

            Wow, all of those poor murderers imprisoned and wrongfully judged by others. Why on earth knew killing someone should be someone’s ‘Choice’?? o.O

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

          5. DonaldDriver

            Correct. As I said, we as a society have decided there are numerous times when killing has been deemed acceptable. As a society, terminating a pregnancy has made the list.

            Any of you on Ron Paul’s website should be advocating smaller government. Having the government take away the right of a woman to decide when to become a mother is a governmental power grab. It’s amusing when you ally yourselves with liberals when you want the government’s power on your side.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      2. joe blow

        I belive Dr. Paul said his personal stance then said its not the fed’s job to regulate, thus leaving it to the states, and I think the states have to pass these laws based on propositions which are voted on by the people.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. DonaldDriver

          I am for strengthening state’s rights, but my worry is what if the state of Alabama decides that blacks are not longer allowed to go to school. Mississippi decides that only whites can vote. Utah decides that women cannot drive any longer. The question becomes what are the rights that all citizens of the United States should be granted. I do not doubt that the entire bible belt would make abortion illegal very quickly. I think that many women would leave those states, to the economic peril of the south. It is a major policy shift, and the states that would outlaw abortion will send economic shock waves around the country. If Missouri is willing to sign a piece of paper that says we are willing to forgo any federal money for medicaid, food stamps, education, and welfare – I would go along with this.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    2. DonaldDriver

      And I don’t buy the Biblical rationale either. Many of you (pro-lifers) believe wholeheartedly in the death penalty. Many of you are big neo-cons who think we have the right and duty to tell other countries how they should run their countries. The killing of Iraqi’s for Lord-knows-why would be an example. I have also heard pro-gun types declare how wonderful it is when an illegal alien was shot while leaving a neighbors house while stealing a t.v.

      Now if you are opposed to all three of the killings above, congartulations on your fealty to ‘Thou Shalt not kill’ commandment. If you think any of them are acceptable, shame on you for thinking that you know when killing is appropriate. The Pope is anti-war, to his credit, but many Catholics are all about killing in the Middle East. Very weak reasoning.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

      1. mchammer

        I am personally against all of the killings you mentioned above. But there is one difference between all of those and abortion. For the death penalty the criminal has been accused of some awful crime, usually murder. The illegal alien stole a T.V., which obviously isn’t a good reason for murder, but at least he has done something that gives an excuse for murder. The Iraqi soldiers that Americans are killing are fighting and trying to kill the Americans too, even if it is only in self defense. The fetus has done absolutely nothing wrong, and is perfectly innocent, even if it hasn’t gotten a chance to live outside its mother’s womb, which btw should be the safest place for a child. There is absolutley no reason, no excuse,for the killing of an innocent baby.

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 10

        1. DonaldDriver

          MC I know we’re not going to agree on this – you’re smart enough to know your points, and I know mine. I don’t like your mindset that you get to decide when it is appropriate to kill. I assume many of you are arguing this from a Judeo-Christian standpoint, emanating from God’s Daughter’s post quoting scripture and commandments. I do not respect the excuses you make for when it is appropriate to kill. We have killed in our country for political reasons (Civil War), for land grabs (Manifest destiny), etc. You justify these killings, and you won’t honor the wished of a woman who feels it is in no one’s best interest to start a family. If this woman cannot afford the child, it is the responsible thing to do.

          By the way, in the animal kingdon, if a rabbit is poorly nourished, it will not even be able to conceive. Nature has figured out a way to make sure that its offspring will be born into a viable situation. We are doing the same thing, albeit by some rather barbaric means.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

          1. Nemesis

            You don’t like mchammer’s mindset that he gets to decide when it’s appropriate to kill? I think that means you don’t like the mindset of the American people. Unless the figures have changed from those in the last Gallup Poll that I saw, the majority of the American people oppose abortion on demand.
            You are in the minority. Dr Paul and mchammer are in the majority.
            And although you don’t like mchammer’s mindset that he gets to decide when it’s appropriate to kill, presumably you do like your own mindset that you get to decide?
            It appears that you think that killing crims is wrong, but it’s ok to kill babies as long as they haven not yet been born?
            You sound like a Romney supporter.
            There’s too much killing.
            It’s the mindset that killing is ok that leads to atrocities like what happened the other day at the Sikh temple.
            That guy’s attitude was pure status quo GOP.
            I’d be surprise if he wasn’t a Romney supporter.
            Romney used to support killing unborn babies before he decided it was an electorally losing proposition didn’t he?
            Hey, if you support killing unborn babies, why not also kill a preemie? Are you ok with that? Doesn’t infanticide happen in the animal kingdom?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

          2. mchammer

            Look, I did not say that I think that is ok to kill in any of these situations. In fact I’m pretty sure I specifically said that I don’t think it is ok. All I said was that In each of the the circumstances the person who is being killed did something that made the killer think it was ok. In abortion all the baby did was get concieved.
            In the large majority of abortions the woman didn’t get raped so maybe the parents should be responsible enough not to to have sex if they’re not emotionally, physically, financially, etc., ready enough to have a child or they should just pay the consequences for their actions.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

          3. Nemesis

            The parents do not need to refrain from sex. They simply need to practise contraception. The widespread availability of effective methods of contraception has liberated women from the risk of unwanted pregnancy. Combining different forms of contraception reduces the chances of unwanted pregnancy to negligible. The parents should therefore be able to have sex as often as they want.
            In the tiny minority of cases in which a pregnancy has resulted from rape, the woman should not have to keep the baby after it has been born. The rapist should be required to provide for the upkeep of the baby. In the event that the rapist is unable to do this, then the burden should be passed to the rapist’s family. If the rapist has no surviving family, or cannot be located, then as last resort the State should assume responsibility.
            A woman should not be inconvenienced by the rapist’s baby for any longer than nine months on average, unless she chooses otherwise.
            If she choooses to be involved in an ongoing way in the life of the baby after it is born, that should be facilitated.
            It may be the rapist’s baby, but it is not the rapist’s baby only. It is also her baby.
            A woman’s desire not to be inconvenienced by a baby should be respected, but never given precedence over a baby’s life.
            The reality is that she and the rapist are having a baby together, and will always both be its parents.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

          4. slmccoy

            The notion that rape ends with rape or rape pregnancy with birth is utterly uninformed. Because fetal cells and isolated chromosomes leak into the pregnant woman’s blood increasingly across her pregnancy and massively in childbirth, it is possible to find male chromosomes in the blood of a woman who has given birth even 27 years after the birth – they are from isolated chromosomal leakage. These chromosomes may be either beneficial or detrimental because they may make the woman more resistant to or more liable to certain diseases and even cancers, and which they are depends on the particular nature of the chromosomes. This means that, in a case of rape pregnancy, no matter how innocent you wish to make the embryo/fetus, it is physically, biologically an extension of the rapist still inside the woman and, if she gives birth, that rapist’s extension could still be harming her and possibly threatening her with death as much as a quarter of a century later. Just as if the fetus had innocently planted a bomb in its mother’s blood.

            The woman would be better off committing suicide than living with the rapist’s chromosomes in her blood sitting in wait and then destroying her health.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

          5. Nemesis

            A good post, Simccoy. Not quite persuaded but I still think it’s good. Very interesting. Can you recommend anyrelevant papers that are concise but still suitable for the lay reader?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

          6. joe blow

            Unlike animals we have the ability to say whats right and whats wrong. But people not being responsible in the first place created the issues most of the time (not incest and rape) so to make their lifes better its ok to kill a baby because they made ba choices? Heck I’m a felon I made bad choices where is my second chance? I wont even ask to kill anyone for it!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      2. nothinggirlJane

        You might try asking those you are conversing with if they are for the death penalty, before you resort to wide stereotypes to base your logic on.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        1. DonaldDriver

          Do you support the death penalty? Do you support the war in Iraq? Do you feel we were justified killing the Indians on our way West in the 1800s? Do you think Zimmerman was correct when he killed Trayvon Martin?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    3. slmccoy

      If God is not a rapist, how can a rape pregnancy come from God? Decide who it is you worship and love your own God with all your heart, soul, and mind, but do not demand that others worship your God if your God is a rapist, because in this nation, rape is not just a state crime, but also federal crime.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      1. Nemesis

        Where is the evidence that Mary was consensually impregnated?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      2. nothinggirlJane

        O.o …are you….on drugs?? Who on here is demanding Anyone worship Any god????

        …..I can’t even find the slightest strand of logic in that statement in order to develop a suitable argument o.O

        Yep! God is a rapist. He forced all those men to rape those women. They had no choice at all, He was controlling their bodies!!! They were, literally, holy zombies of illegitimate procreation!!!
        …moving on….

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    4. DonaldDriver

      slmccoy – Weirdest post I’ve ever read. The only rapist chromosomes that ever enter the female are as sperm. Unlike viruses, which are capable of infecting our cells (HIV/Herpes/Influenza), sperm does not possess this ability, except for the ability to enter a woman’s egg at conception. So you’re undoubtedly wrong about this. Some viruses can insert their RNA/genetic material into their host’s cells, and cause cancer, for example (see cervical cancer and the vaccination of young girls if you want to see a relevant topic discussed centering around this topic). But this whole rapist/26 year effect – you’re plain wrong. Abortion should absolutely be allowed in the case of rape. Keep religion out of politics. We’re a secular nation Dr. Paul. Sharia law has no place in the U.S.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

    5. DonaldDriver

      Nemesis – I think you follow my argument, but I’m not certain, so I’ll re-explain it to you. You are hypocritical if you decide that it is okay to abolish abortion, but you do not spend an equal amount of your time and energy protesting the death penalty, war, Trayvon Martin’s death, and infertile couples who discard embryos which are not implanted. There are a whole lot of women out there who want to keep abortion safe and legal, and these social platforms are detracting from the more important national interests, namely the debt and jobs numbers. This is an election-loser for Republicans. Women feel very passionately about this, and they vote. It’s not quite Medicare or Social Security, but it’s an issue that I believe hurts the fiscal conservative. Is there a party out there that is fiscally conservative but does not feel it is the government’s job to legislate morality (drugs, sex, abortion)? That’s the party I’m looking for. I’d give Ron Paul a solid B-, but he’s the best option out there.

      If you need a cause to trumpet, there are millions of kids starving around the globe. Give money to your church and other organizations to help feed and vaccinate these kids that are already here on Earth.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  24. Nemesis

    Mchammer, it seems to me that, of all occupations, it is only politicians who are more overrepresented in the ranks of pedophiles than priests are. Thus, no one can accuse me of being an apologist for priests. I detest child abuse. However, it has been argued often that abortion is the ultimate in child abuse. I am interested to know if you believe that the unborn is not fully human or a person because he or she supposedly does not ‘breathe’.

    The passage below is from Priests for Life, and attributed to Gregg Cunningham and Scott Klusendorf:

    Genesis 2:7. the argument for “breath” (nephesh). The argument [of abortion advocates] goes that the first man, Adam, became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Since the unborn don’t ‘breathe’ until birth, they are not fully human. This argument is utterly vacuous.

    First, it is scientifically imprecise to say that the unborn do not ‘breathe’ until birth. From conception forward, the unborn child receives and transfers oxygen, though not through the lungs. What changes at birth is the mode of breathing: instead of receiving oxygen through the placenta, the child begins to breathe through its lungs. Hence, the argument can be made that birth does not mark the beginning of human respiration.

    Second, if the ability to sustain oxygen through the lungs is what indeed makes one human, then all those dependent on ventilators and oxygen machines would have to be classed as non-human.

    Finally, the analogy between Adam and the unborn child does not fit. The creation of Adam was a unique historical event in which God formed Adam from inanimate matter (dust) and then breathed into him the “breath of life.” The unborn child, on the other hand, is a living entity from conception. Hence, the passage does nothing to discredit the humanity of the unborn.

    (For a complete analysis of these and other key pro-abortion theological arguments, see Francis Beckwith, Politically Correct Death, pp. 141-150.)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

    1. mchammer

      Nemesis you should know by now that I believe that the unborn is fully human, despite what pro-abortioners say. I completely agree with the passage from the Priests for Life.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

    2. slmccoy

      Breathing oxygen from a respirator is still breathing. Taking in oxygen via the blood is not.

      Actually, it is clear throughout the Bible that genuine post-natal breathing was the criterion for being a nephesh, a person. That is one reason why Jesus said, “The flesh is nothing. The words which I speak to you, they are life.” Words come from breath, an indication that they are voluntary. You are not supposed to be judged for what goes into you, i.e., by what you eat or what is done to you, but only by what comes out of you voluntarily. The problem is that babies do not come out of a woman voluntarily unless she has a choice not to have them.

      Rape pregnancy does not occur voluntarily, and one can argue that pregnancy does not occur voluntarily if one uses contraception. Yet for some reason, abortion opponents think that the woman should be forced to die, become psychotic, be permanently paralyzed, have her blood polluted with alien chromosomes for life, have her sex organs torn apart in birth, be made permanently incontinent, etc., i.e., to be judged in this world, just for something she did not do voluntarily.

      If their attitude were real Christianity, I would not be able to be a Christian. But fortunately, we are told, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” So I just treat women as I would have them treat me.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      1. joe blow

        No but the if the woman chose the do the act the led to the baby i would say its prety voluntarily, after all she had a choice of birth controle options, or to say no. (unless rape or incest)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  25. BeckyRAT

    As a woman who has already had her pregnancy, and now has a beautiful, 4 year old son, and very well understanding the whole concept of woman’s rights, I don’t think they should be allowed abortion, UNLESS it is 1. the ‘mother’ was raped, or 2. It comes down to no choice, and to save the mother’s life, an abortion must be done.

    If you’re to stupid not to close your legs, you need a wake up call. Wasn’t that one of our major teachings as a child? Take responsibly for your actions! Skirting out of your duty is against the teachings YOUR parents should have taught you!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10

    1. mchammer

      I like your point of view, except for the last part of the first sentence. First of all, how will you know if the woman is raped or not? There are too many ways to get around that. Also where will you draw the line to where it’s life threatening or not? Anyways that’s not my main problem with this statement. Do you believe that the fetus/baby is the mother’s child during the pregnancy? If so, I don’t know why, under any circumstance, she should be allowed to kill it. As a mother, if it came down to you or your child’s life, would you save yourself or your child? I’m pretty sure any mother in her right mind would choose her own child. And if the baby is conceived through rape? Well it’s not the baby’s fault that happened, so why is it ok to just kill it?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9

      1. J

        You’re kidding, right? Your main concern is that too many women will CRY WOLF about being raped just so they can have an abortion? Dear god, you really hate women.

        No, not every woman would sacrifice herself for her child and if you want to make a moral judgment about that, that’s a separate issue.

        And when it comes down to it, you’re blaming women for being raped. It’s not the child’s “fault” that the mother got raped – so it must be the mother’s fault, and by default this woman who is a victim of horrible violence has a duty to carry this parasite to term. No mention of the fact that it’s THE RAPIST’S FAULT. Where’s your mention of HIS responsibility in cases like these? It’s HIS child too, no? So after committing a horrific act of violence, during which he didn’t even protect his precious life-giving semen (as women have the duty to protect their ovaries, eggs, etc SO THAT they can fulfill their main and only function: reproduction, so men should OBVIOUSLY be just as concerned with their reproductive material, right?) he can just WALK AWAY from this child he’s conceived and leave the woman to a lifetime of responsibility for a child she never wanted and was forced upon her VIOLENTLY.

        So: women need to simply accept everything that happens to them because not only is it probably their fault if they got raped (or they’re lying, musn’t forget about that possibility!) they, being the ones who carry children, have some kind of social responsibility to let a bunch of cells that were non-consensually implanted into them feed off of their body for 9 months — why?

        Her rapist doesn’t want the child either, obviously – but since it doesn’t have to feed off of his bodily resources in order to sustain its life, he’s off scot-free. Why no mention of the fact that since IT IS HIS FAULT that the baby was conceived that he should get ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY?

        Oh right. Men can’t carry children. So not only can they walk away where women cannot, if people like you have their way, women will be forced to be a prisoner in their own bodies because they are simply nothing other than baby-factories.

        I have honestly never seen an argument like yours, and I’m thankful because I don’t think I could handle feeling this amount of repulsion more than once.

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 7

        1. mchammer

          You are just putting words in my mouth. I never said that it was the woman’s fault she got raped in any way. And I specifically said that the first part wasn’t even my main concern. It’s obviously the raper’s fault, but why does that mean that the baby has to die?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

          1. Nemesis

            Why does that mean the baby has to die? Among other reasons it’s possibly because in this era and society, women are deified. Women worship themselves, and having the power of deciding life or death allows the woman to play God. It’s a big power trip for women. If a woman tried to kill someone her own size, she’d risk retaliation but she has much more courage in picking on someone tiny, weak and defenceless. As discussed in a previous post, some women have admitted publicly to enjoyment in the act of feticide. There is an element of sadism involved, and they get a ‘rush’ from the killing. Also, there is the motive of ‘pay back’and to punish the baby and the baby’s father for what the baby’s father has done. But essentially, the baby has to die so that women can have the experience of playing God and so that society can continue deifying women. That’s why the baby has to die.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

          2. slmccoy

            One could argue that the zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo, fetus is carrying the genes of the rapist as a weapon. In pregnancy, there is microchimerism for both woman and embryo because the cells of each and also isolated chromosomes leak into the bloodstream of the other. This increases across the pregnancy and culminates in tremendous leakage during childbirth.

            As a result, women who give birth have a huge number of cells and isolated chromosomes from the children in their blood, and these stay there. In the blood of women who have given birth to male children, there has been found evidence of male chromosomes as much as 27 years later, and it is thought that such isolated chromosomes can remain in a woman’s blood for a lifetime.

            These fetal cells and isolated chromosomes may be either beneficial or detrimental to the woman, as different chromosomes could help her resist certain diseases and cancers or make her more liable to them, depending on their nature.

            So it would be possible for those cells or chromosomes to make a woman more liable to a serious disease or cancer the next year, 10 years later, or even 25 years later, just because she continued a pregnancy.

            In this way, the rapist could continue controlling a woman’s body to her detriment for her entire life and could eventually kill her.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        2. Nemesis

          ” … women will be forced to be a prisoner in their own bodies because they are simply nothing other than baby-factories” ~ J

          The “simply nothing other than” part of the argument is not true. They can still be of use to society in other ways. Forcing women to be baby-factories and a prisoner in their own bodies doesn’t preclude them from having any other role or function.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

        3. nothinggirlJane

          Norma McCorvey, AKA Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, attempted to gain a legal abortion in Texas by claiming she was raped, though she was not. It was after this and other methods failed, that she hired a lawyer.

          She is now a staunch Pro-Life advocate, by the way.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      2. joe blow

        Laws to enforce this would have to be enacted, ie. file a rape report, if he was aquited and the abortion did ocure she should face murder charges, purgery, falsafied reports,ect.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    2. DonaldDriver

      Becky, I’m 100% behind you. Nemesis and MCHammer have no concept of what it would be like to give birth to the child of the man that raped you. Absolute disconnect from commonsense. I am a Ron Paul-backer largely because of his stance on foreign affairs, the Fed, gold, debt, etc – but I am not a Creationist, and not a religious person in general. I don’t think any woman takes the decision lightly. But I think it’s a no-brainer to concede that abortion should eb allowed in the case of rape, incest, and the woman’s health. Beyond that, good luck getting elected.

      If Ron wants to be consistent with him limited government stance, he should keep the government’s nose out of a woman’s reproductive freedom. That’s my opinion. And I have more of them.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

  26. giliard

    Brazilian forensic medicine. Classroom studies of metaphysics.
    This is our true Brazilian law, please translate English-Portuguese.

    http://www.ebah.com.br/content/ABAAAAIRgAK/medicina-legal

    “(…)…4.2.4 Perícia para saber se a criança nasceu com vida ou não

    Para se detectar o infanticídio, há que se fazer a perícia e descobrir se a criança chegou ao menos a RESPIRAR. Pois pelo nosso Código Civil, só há vida quando houver a RESPIRAÇÃO da criança.

    Na criança – A perícia vai constatar a causa da morte, se a criança nasceu com vida ou não. E se a criança nasceu com vida quanto tempo ela viveu até ser morta.

    A perícia no recém-nato serve para constatar se nasceu com vida ou não. A perícia pode ser de natureza RESPIRATÓRIA e não RESPIRATÓRIA. A perícia de natureza RESPIRATÓRIA pode ainda ser pulmonar e não pulmonar.

    Os peritos irão realizar docimasias, que são as provas sobre a vida do recém-nato. Estas docimasias podem ser realizadas através dos exames de pulmão, para verificar se a criança RESPIROU e nasceu com vida.

    Os exames nos pulmões podem ser feitos da seguinte maneira:

    volume – prova de retração pulmonar;

    cor – o pulmão que não RESPIROU tem cor pálida;

    superfície – o pulmão que não RESPIRA é liso, mas quando RESPIRA a superfície fica irregular;

    consistência – se o pulmão não RESPIROU a consistência é dura;

    peso específico – se não houver RESPIRADO o pulmão afunda quando submetido à água.

    Pela docimasia hidrostática pulmonar de Galeno é possível constatar se o pulmão da criança chegou a RESPIRAR. Essa docimasia é dividida em quatro fases:

    1a. fase – num recipiente com água é colocado o bloco com a traquéia e os pulmões da criança. Se este bloco sobrenadar, significa que há ar nos pulmões e a criança RESPIROU.

    2a. fase – só coloca o pulmão no recipiente com água.

    3a. fase – só os lóbulos dos pulmões são colocados na água.

    4a. fase – não se obtendo êxito com os pulmões e nem com os lóbulos, pequenas partículas do pulmões são colocadas na água. Se estas pequenas partículas sobrenadarem significa que a criança RESPIROU.

    Se em todas as fases os testes forem negativos ( não sobrenadarem) , dir-se-á que a prova de Galeno foi negativa…(…)”

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  27. Giliard

    Look ———> “(…)FIRST INTAKE OF BREATH(…)”

    1980s: pro-choice since Bible defines life starting at birth

    Bill Clinton was struggling over the definition of human life. He asked his pastor, Vaught, whether he could provide some insight.
    Vaught was one of the leading abortion opponents among Little Rock clergy, but he said he shared some of Clinton’s ambivalence, having personally witnessed “some extremely difficult” pregnancies. He was not convinced that the Bible forbade abortion in all circumstances.
    The minister went to his Bible to reconsider, after which Vaught determined that in the origina Hebrew, “personhood” stemmed from words translated as “to breathe life into.” Thus, he averred, the Bible would define a person’s life as beginning at birth, with the FIRST INTAKE OF BREATH. He reportedly told the governor that this did not mean that abortion was right, but he felt one could not say definitively, based on Scripture, that it was murder.
    In all of his discussions about abortion thereafter, Clinton relied on his minister’s interpretation to bolster his pro-choice position.

    http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_Abortion.htm

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

    1. mchammer

      Wow. One guy claims the Bible is proabortion. It MUST be true then.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

    2. giliard

      mchammer
      yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssss !!!!!!!!!!!
      ha ha ha
      ——————————————————–
      27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

      28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

      29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;
      ——————————————————–
      http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Numbers&chapter=5&verse=

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      1. mchammer

        Can you please explain what this has anything to do with anything?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

      2. giliard

        Number 5, 27-29 ———> Chemical Abortion

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        1. mchammer

          Ummm no. This is about infertility there is no fetus/baby mentioned at all.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

    3. BeckyRAT

      So what is it that I felt when my son was kicking me in the ribs? Surely that can’t be life, oh no! That was just some stupid muscle reflex, huh?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      1. slmccoy

        If you felt it kicking, it was definitely not a 4-week-old embryo.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. nothinggirlJane

          So, now ‘Life’ begins somewhere between ’4 week embryo’ and kicking int he ribs?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  28. mchammer

    Devil’s Advocate/slmccoy/iseestupidpeople/nemesis
    I am interested to know what your views on planned parenthood are.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. Devil's Advocate

      If you want to be a parent, you need to plan for it.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

      1. mchammer

        I meant the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

        1. Nemesis

          When the attraction between men and women is sufficiently strong, it frequently results in unplanned pregnancies. If men and women don’t have sex the first time they meet, and the opportunity is there, it suggests that the chemistry is not right. Women are innately programmed to select for the fittest and most attractive mates. They don’t do a very good job of it. Something frequently goes awry, and losers keep multiplying. However, to advocate for planned parenthood over unplanned parenthood not only has overtones of Statism but reeks of eugenics and planned parents may not necessarily be fit parents.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

        2. Nemesis

          ‘Planned parenthood’ is based on some pretty dodgy assumptions. How ‘planned’ are those pregnancies in the cases in which the putative father is not really the father, although he may think he is? I’m referring to cases in which the real father is e.g., the next door neighbour. That’s a very substantial proportion of pregnancies. And that includes the pregnancies of just as many religous as non-religous women. They may be ‘planned’ but without a man having any part of the planning. Further, for both religous and non-religous women, those pregnancies are very unlikely to result in an abortion. Very unlikely to result in an unnatural abortion. I don’t know about miscarriage rates. However, just as the reason breasts exist is for breastfeeding, the reason sex exists is to have babies.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        3. Devil's Advocate

          … as did I…

          “Planned Parenthood Federation of America
          Mission Statement: A Reason for Being

          Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual’s income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual’s right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.

          Based on these beliefs, and reflecting the diverse communities within which we operate, the mission of Planned Parenthood is

          to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual

          to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services

          to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality

          to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications”

          http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/vision-4837.htm

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

          1. mchammer

            Do you really believe all this? Planned Parenthood’s only “mission” is to make money. They prey on the poorer and younger part of America. They give out condoms for free that don’t work most of the time so that a bunch of teenagers end up getting pregnant. Then they offer “counseling” to them, which is really just brainwashing them to get abortions. Then after they get an abortion,when they are grieving and upset, they abandon them and organizations like the Catholic Church end up having to help them through it.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11

          2. Nemesis

            The notion of each individual regardless of sexual orientation etc having a “fundamental right” to manage their own fertility is interesting. Is this “fundamental right” of gays, retards etc a “natural right” I wonder?
            I agree with you that the “counseling” is probably really just brainwashing to get abortions. Do the counsellors get commissions? There’s a lot of money to be made in abortions.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

          3. Devil's Advocate

            In terms of practicing what they preach, I find Planned Parenthood’s promotion of responsible sexual behavior through education and health services to be more credible than the Catholic Church’s promotion of God’s mission statement to, “be fruitful and multiply”.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

          4. Nemesis

            ~In terms of practicing what they preach …~

            He’s got you by the short and curlies there mchammer. Not trying to defend Planned Parenthood but how is a chaste ~ whoops, I mean celibate ~ priest practicing what he preaches if he doesn’t have sex with women? When do altar boys ever get pregnant?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

          5. nothinggirlJane

            Funny how Abortion is the only ‘help’ they offer pregnant women. They offer no adoption services or counseling at all. They make Billions every year, minus the millions they spend to keep the truth as hidden as possible.

            That’s an awful lot of money at stake.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

          6. joe blow

            I think the people that work for them should read what they are for, I have used them for help 3 time, yes they seem to provide some edu. but they seemed pressed on abortion, I found more helpfull information online when I needed it, and condoms are pretty cheep online anyway, pretty useless place IMHO.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. slmccoy

      mchammer -

      My sister and I were Planned Parenthood babies. My mom and dad planned both of their children. They got contraception at PP. They were responsible about using it and were great advocates of contraception and family planning, which were provided widely by PP. They decided in each case when they wanted to have a child and succeeded in each case. They would not have been able to do this without the help of PP. They were grateful for PP all their lives, as it allowed them to be able to have children only when they wanted to and in the amount they wanted, which allowed them to educate their children properly and equip them for responsible adulthood and take care of their families and, in retirement, themselves. The same thing is true of my maternal aunt’s children. We’re PP family. You want me to hate PP? Forget it.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

      1. nothinggirlJane

        Wow. It was very nice of them not to abort you.

        No one here is saying that ‘planning’ on having a child before having it is a bad thing.

        But of course, you likely already knew that.

        But if you think that PP somehow Helped you to be here, think again. YOu were worth a LOT more to them if your mother wanted them to abort you.
        money makes the world go ’round.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        1. DonaldDriver

          Nothing – you are magnifying the strength of this group and completely buying into the conspiracy theory. I guarantee you they do not push abortions – but they assist people with the reality that most of them are having sex before they can afford to have a child.

          20,000 years ago on the plains of the American midwest, if you got pregnant at 14, the tribe took care of the child collectively. Now, your parents may help you (if they don’t disown you, or kill you if you are a Muslim) but more often than not, the US taxpayer comes to the rescue.

          If PP helps us minimize the number of 14 girls who give birth when they are not ready, more power to them. If parents and the Church did a better job discouraging sex outside of wedlock, we wouldn’t have this problem.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

          1. mchammer

            You guarantee they do not push abortions? How can you guarantee it? It’s how they make their money.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          2. DonaldDriver

            And yet surgeons rarely break their patient’s knee caps when they come in for a visit so that they can fix it the next day. And they also make money through birth control and counseling. I would want some proof of wrongdoing before anyone here accuses a group of forcibly performing abortions on unwilling patients. That is pretty extreme/desperate.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      2. joe blow

        funny they pushed abortion 3 seperate times for me

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        1. DonaldDriver

          That is something I’d like to know more about. They gave you no other advice or resources. How did you frame your situation? You got pregnant three times out of wedlock? Do you have health coverage? Why weren’t you at your regular doctor? Did you know any of the men that impregnated you?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          1. mchammer

            This has nothing to do with the fact that she is proving that PP does push for abortions unlike slmccoy who is just assuming.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          2. mchammer

            This has nothing to do with the fact that she is proving that PP does push for abortions unlike slmccoy who is just assuming.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          3. DonaldDriver

            I still want an answer from Joe Blow – Nothing is proven. I know a PP clinic here that talked 387 girls out of having an abortion. That was in one day.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  29. mchammer

    Now getting back to the actual topic of this page, I would like to point out that the whole argument over whether abortion is a woman’s right to choose is completely invalid. It all depends on how you view the “fetus”. If you believe that it is a living baby no one in their right minds would say its ok for a women to decide to kill it. It also works the other way. If you believe it is only a clump of cells in a woman’s body, it is obviously a woman’s right to have it killed and removed.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

    1. nothinggirlJane

      Well….if it was just a clump of cells, then it’s not a pregnancy. There is nothing to kill, and therefore, really no reason to remove anything at all.

      If it’s not a baby, then it’s not a pregnancy.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      1. mchammer

        I’m not saying thatit ‘s a clump of cells. I completely agree that it is a baby. There are however plenty of people who don’t believe it is a baby and therefore think it’s ok to “dispose” of it.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    2. joe blow

      I disagree if its a clump of cells then its property and BOTH property owners have a say.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  30. Nemesis

    God help the American people! There is fate worse than Obama. As Hitler said in April 1945 of what would ultimately become of the Germans: “They have proved themselves too weak and it is a law of nature that they will be exterminated.” Write Ron Paul in or vote for Gary Johnson but it will be a futile gesture. Looking down the barrel of a Romney presidency now. How much is the resultant invasion and occupation of Syria going to cost? Not to mention what the war on Iran will cost. There goes the economy. The GOP caused the Global Financial Crisis and are a party of war mongerers. Ron Paul was the only hope and it now appears that hope is gone.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

    1. slmccoy

      Though we disagree on pretty much everything else, your characterization of the GOP and what a Romney presidency would lead to is exactly the same as mine. I guess when people who are at logger-heads manage to agree on something, people need to pay attention.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      1. Nemesis

        You are absolutely right in your opinion of the GOP. The GOP are statists to the core. I preferred Bush to Gore, and was glad when the Supreme Court rigged it so that the ecofascist was defeated. But Bush was economically incompetent and a sadist. Of all the GOP candidates this time, Ron Paul is the only one who I’d prefer to Obama. Obama doesn’t have any record of outsourcing American jobs to Chinese and Mexicans etc, unlike Romney. He took out bin Laden. And he’s reined in spending growth somewhat, and has been a huge improvement on Bush.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5

        1. slmccoy

          I agree on your comparison of Obama, Romney, and Bush. I did not support Bush, though I did not like Gore, either, because I had a really bad intuitive feeling about a Bush presidency, which turned out to be validated. This business of outsourcing US jobs to make ever larger profits and pretending that profits would completely disappear if companies had to pay living wages is complete rot. The whole Iraq thing was fake and the record of daily press statements by Bush/Cheney over the first two months of it alone shows that, and going for a big nation-building project in Afghanistan instead of going after bin Laden was wrong. Obama’s getting bin Laden was gutsy and a brilliant use of elite forces. I feel sorry for him that he has had to keep us in Afghanistan to make up for mistakes he didn’t make.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

          1. Nemesis

            Notwithstanding that Bush was a very low calibre of a human being and arguably the worst president of all time, I still believe that Gore would have been worse. However, there was no excuse for re-electing him. That reflected very poorly on the American people, particularly in view of Kerry’s status as a decorated war hero and Bush’s record as someone who sent others into harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan without ever having had the courage to do so himself during the Vietnam conflict. I respect McCain. However, I can’t respect Romney. Outsourcing jobs to foreigners suggests to me that Romney has either a hatred of the American people or very little regard for them.

            I agree with you that Obama was gutsy in taking out bin Laden. In contrast Bush and the GOP left bin Laden to enjoy his freedom. Considering that he wan’t exactly in hiding, but instead was living semi-openly with entourage of multiple wives and children, how plausible is it that the GOP didn’t know about it? They are not that incompetent. The links between Bush and the bin Laden family are well documented and go way back. It makes me feel sick that the Taliban are likely to return to power in Afghanistan after US troops leave. It was a regime that prohibited girls from going to school after they are 8 years old. It was a child abuse regime. I don’t have a problem with the fact that Obama is continuing to fight this evil enemy. However, if Bush had put the troops into Afghanistan that he put into Iraq, the war would have been over long ago. All that Bush and the GOP achieved in Iraq was that they made the job in Afghanistan more difficult, destroyed secularism and acted against America’s interest by wasting America’s resources and furthering the aims of both al Qaeda and Iran, who were desperate to have Saddam removed from power.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        2. nothinggirlJane

          Bush, like Romney And Obama are all controlled by the Bildeberg Group anyway. They may take us down slightly different paths, but we will end up in the same place in the end. A one world government and the end of democracy.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. mchammer

    What happened to everybody???

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. Devil's Advocate

      Nothing new to respond to…

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. slmccoy

        Yes. I think data saturation had occurred, and then we had people trying to advertise products and that sort of off the wall religious post appeared. But hey, hello!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    2. Nemesis

      They got tired of seeing Ron Paul being undermined by those of his so called supporters who think a woman’s purported ‘right’ to choose is the most important issue facing America today. Or they went and hid in terror of the sky falling in after the fear-mongering on this site about the Supreme Court and the individual mandate. What warped priorities. What a waste of energy. Good luck with Mitt and Condosleeza. You think Obama is the biggest communist going? How can people be so stupid …

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. nothinggirlJane

        Idk, ending Abortion is pretty much the thing I care about most….I guess with more people turning on the murdering populace, the more vehemently their need to fight back.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. nothinggirlJane

        wow…I suddenly realize how long this conversation has been going on. I admire your stamina and patience.

        Yeah, I don’t have that. …this is only a suggestion:

        http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/never-argue-with-stupid-people.jpg

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  32. giliard antunes

    Please translate portuguese to english:
    .
    “(…)…o espírito só é acoplado ao corpo físico quando o nascituro aspira o primeiro hausto de ar vivificante; após aguardar durante toda a gestação o momento de reencarnar, o espírito se apossa do corpo no preciso momento em que a criança enche de ar os pulmões.(…)”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dy3cljMBnw
    .
    “(…)A prova do nascimento é fornecida com a comprovação da respiração pela docimasia (hidrostática de Galeno, hidrostática de Icard, química radiográfica de Bordas, gastrointestinal de Breslau, auricular de Vreden, Wendt e Gele ect.) [05].(…)”
    http://jus.com.br/revista/texto/12237/a-figura-do-nascituro-no-ordenamento-juridico-brasileiro
    .
    “(…)O artigo 2º do Código Civil dita que a personalidade civil da pessoa começa com o nascimento com vida; mas a lei põe a salvo, desde a concepção, os direitos do nascituro (pessoa por nascer, já concebida no útero materno). Onde o nascimento com vida caracteriza-se pelo ato do nascituro respirar. Desde a concepção o nascituro tem seus direitos assegurados pelo ordenamento jurídico, com a condição que nasça com vida. Antes do nascimento o nascituro não tem personalidade jurídica, mas tem natureza humana (humanidade), razão de ser de sua proteção jurídica pelo Código Civil (19).(…)”
    http://jus.com.br/revista/texto/6462/inicio-da-vida-humana-e-da-personalidade-juridica
    .
    ”(…)
    24. Em que momento se opera a união entre a alma e o corpo na criança?
    Resp. – Quando a criança respira; como se recebesse a alma com o ar exterior.
    25. Como, então, explicais a vida intra-uterina?
    Resp. – É a da planta que vegeta. A criança vive vida animal.
    29. A união entre a alma e o corpo opera-se instantânea ou gradualmente? Isto é, será necessário um tempo apreciável para que essa união seja completa?
    Resp. – O Espírito não entra bruscamente no corpo. Para medir esse tempo, imaginai que o primeiro sopro que a criança recebe é a alma que entra no corpo: o tempo que o peito se eleva e se abaixa.
    (…)”
    “Revista Espírita: Jornal de Estudos Psicológicos”
    número de março de 1858
    http://www.febnet.org.br/site/livros.php?SecPad=370
    ——————————————————————–
    The Spirits’ Book by Allan kardec – Table of Contents:
    .
    http://www.spiritwritings.com/kardecspiritstoc.html
    .
    344. At what moment is the soul united to the body?
    .
    “The union begins at the moment of conception, but is ONLY COMPLETE AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH. From the moment of conception, the spirit designated to inhabit a given body is united to that body by a fluidic link, which becomes closer and closer up to the instant of birth; the cry then uttered by the infant announces that he is numbered among the living.”
    .
    351. Does a spirit, in the interval between conception and birth, enjoy the use of all his faculties?
    .
    “He does so more or less according to the various periods of gestation; FOR HE IS NOT YET INCARNATED IN HIS NEW BODY, but only attached to it. From the instant of conception confusion begins to take possession of the spirit, who is thus made aware that the moment has come for him to enter upon a new existence; and this confusion becomes more and more dense until the period of birth. In the interval between these two terms, his state is nearly that of an incarnated spirit during the sleep of the body. In proportions as the moment of birth approaches, his ideas become effaced, together with his remembrance of the past, of which, when once he has entered upon corporeal life, he is no longer conscious. But this remembrance comes back to him little by little when he has returned to the spirit-world.”
    .
    353. The union of the spirit and the body not being completely and definitively consummated until birth has taken place can the fetus be considered as having a soul?
    .
    “The spirit who is to animate it exists, as it were, OUTSIDE OF IT; strictly speaking, therefore, it has no soul, since the incarnation of the latter is only in course of being effected; but it is linked to the soul which it is to have.”
    .
    359. In cases in which the life of the mother would be endangered by the birth of the child, is it a crime to sacrifice the child in order to save the mother?
    .
    “It is better to sacrifice the being whose existence IS NOT YET COMPLETE than the being whose existence is complete.”
    .
    (Observation: The mother is a complete being, because the mother breathing!!!
    The fetus (embryo) has water in the lungs.!!!)
    .
    136. Is the soul independent of the vital principle?
    .
    “The body is only the envelope of the soul, as we have repeatedly told you.”
    .
    – Can a body exist without a soul?
    .
    “Yes; but it is only when the body ceases to live that the soul quits it, previous to birth, THE UNION BETWEEN THE SOUL AND THE BODY IS NOT COMPLETE; but, when this union is definitively established, it is only the death of the body that can sever the bonds that unite it to the soul, and thus allow the soul to withdraw from it. ORGANIC LIFE MAY VITALIZE A BODY WITHOUT A SOUL, but the soul cannot inhabit a body deprived of organic life.”
    .
    – What would our body be if it had no soul?
    .
    “A mass of flesh without intelligence; anything you choose to call it, excepting a man.”

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3

    1. mchammer

      First of all, not all of us are masters of the Portuguese language and Google Translate sucks, so wouldn’t it just be easier to translate it once for everyone? Now lets move on to the English portion.

      #344, 351, 353, & 136
      Who says that the soul is not connected to the body until birth? Who says he is not yet incarnated in his body? God? I think not. Where is the real evidence supporting your claims?

      #359
      “It is better to sacrifice the being whose existence IS NOT YET COMPLETE than the being whose existence is complete”
      Again, why? Says who? How come it is better to kill the innocent fetus who has never done anything wrong? Not to mention that te fetus is the women’s child. What kind of mother would sacrifice her own child’s life to save her’s? The answer is either one that is completely disturbed, or one that has been lied to about abortion by one of the people who works for abortion clinics whose only concern is making money.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

    2. giliard

      Kardec was a French philosopher (year 1804 – 1869)

      Translate from french to english: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Kardec

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    3. giliard

      Look the “The Spirits Book”, published by the French educator Allan Kardec on April 18, 1857.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirits_Book

      is good to know…
      SPIRIT is the Latin word, SPIRIT is the to breath of life.

      Remember Genesis: “(…)And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.(…)”

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  33. Devil's Advocate

    An Overview of Abortion Laws (current by State)
    http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. NorthPanHandle

      Guttmacher institute? Straight from Planned Parenthood. Oh, this is real small government thinking, to be citing PPH Big Government statistics, total joke.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

      1. slmccoy

        Any person who implies support for small government thinking yet opposition to the right to control one’s own sex organs without the interference of the state should think seriously about that internal contradiction.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

        1. nothinggirlJane

          there is a Vast difference between your sex organs, and a fetus with it’s own unique DNA, heart beat, blood type, movement, reflexes, etc. It may be IN your uterus. But it is NOT your uterus.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    2. Devil's Advocate

      “A note on sources: The Guttmacher Institute is a nonprofit organization which researches sexual and reproductive health issues. Though Guttmacher’s mission is to protect and support reproductive choice, its numbers are respected and cited by both sides in the abortion debate.”
      http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/329/abortion-laws.html

      So how about PBS?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

  34. slmccoy

    Why are these advertisers on this site? I have counted two ads now.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Devil's Advocate

      Perhaps because the ‘pro-life’ arguers have lost their staying power?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

      1. NorthPanHandle

        And this is why the latest poll has shown the majority of Americans are pro life??? 50% to 41% You must be pro-lie! Really should study up to at least sound like you know what you are talking about.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

      2. Devil's Advocate

        … and yet your same source found, 52% of Americans believe abortion should be available sometimes ~ Gallup Poll. May 3-6, 2012. N=1,024 adults nationwide

        … and 64% of Americans agree with Roe v Wade, and 55% of Americans have a favorable opinion o f Planned Parenthood ~ Quinnipiac University Poll. Feb. 14-20, 2012. N=2,605 registered voters nationwide

        … and 31% believe abortion should be legal in most cases, compared to 23% who believe it should be illegal ~ Pew Research Center. April 4-15, 2012. N=1,494 adults nationwide

        http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

        BTW – I hate doing your homework for you, so please cite your sources next time…

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

  35. CypeBrealry

    [url=http://buycheapviagraonline24h.com/#11006]buy generic viagra[/url] – cheap viagra , http://buycheapviagraonline24h.com/#18221 cheap generic viagra

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

1 61 62 63 64 65 71

Leave a Reply