At this point, when your party’s nominee is asking you to hand in the towel in your Senate race, it can’t be a comfortable place.

Report from the Washington Times:

Mitt Romney, who as the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee is his party’s de facto head, called on Tuesday for Rep. Todd Akin to drop out of the Missouri Senate race.

“Todd Akin’s comments were offensive and wrong and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country. Today, his fellow Missourians urged him to step aside, and I think he should accept their counsel and exit the Senate race,” Mr. Romney said in a statement from his campaign.

Mr. Akin this weekend questioned whether women get pregnant from “legitimate rape,” saying their bodies had ways to reject those pregnancies.

Those remarks have become a major political headache for the GOP, and most of its top leaders have called on Mr. Akin to withdraw as the party’s Senate nominee in Missouri so that the party can pick another person to run.

In a purely hypothetical sense, I have to ask, why are even the staunchest pro-life supporters unable to completely articulate reasons why they believe there should not be exceptions for rape? Even Ron Paul, an ardent pro-life politician, stumbled on this topic. I don’t think it is that hard to defend as simply that you don’t believe in ending an innocent human life, period. That is, it doesn’t matter how that life was created, we should not snuff it out in a second act of violence following the rape.

Is that so hard to say in these situations in which Akin found himself?

Not everyone will agree and reporters will press further, but do pro-life politicians not know these questions are coming? Come on! Akin is just the latest example of someone with a strong view on a particular topic yet he is unable to fully explain it in a coherent, reasonable manner. Not to mention the science doesn’t back him up.


  1. Just too complicated for any government agency or politician to figure out thus it should be left up to the woman to make the FINAL call.

    I base my opinion on the fact that rape is both the most over reported crime on the book and at the same time rape is the most under reported crime on the books.

  2. I disagree with Akin’s pro life stance, and so I’m clearly prejudiced. Nevertheless, it greatly disturbs me that a man so ignorant of science and facts is running for one of the most powerful offices in the land.Obviously there are those who wish to make political hay of the idiotic statements made by the man, but shouldn’t the emphasis be on his suitability for office based on his lack of knowledge about subjects he has great influence upon? Why is that not the key point? And, BTW, he is not the worst example of our leadership not being the best and the brightest.

  3. You have drawn a circle around a murky male difficulty. Ponder it some more. I know I cannot do this, being female I’m on the outside, lacking the feel for what turmoil Akin is expressing. There IS a there there, and I hope someone can get at it.

  4. “I don’t think it is that hard to defend as simply that you don’t believe in ending an innocent human life, period. That is, it doesn’t matter how that life was created, we should not snuff it out in a second act of violence following the rape.”

    My thoughts exactly. I’m iffy on some issues, but not this one. Killing an innocent human is never okay…

    • But life does not begin until you get a social security number in this country anyway.

      At that point in time I think we can all agree although a few may hold life begins sometime before the number is issued. How long before seems to be where the confusion lies.

  5. This is all nonesense.
    the man quoted what some doctor or doctors told him. I believe that those attacking him are doing so because he said the baby should not pay for the rapists crimes.
    That is true of they are GOP or DEMMIES.

    • Patricia,

      I think you are missing the point here. In his statement, he said there is such a thing as ‘forcible rape,’ which also means that he thinks there is such a thing as non-forcible rape and that he actually thinks there are rape victims out there making illegitimate claims.

      Also, since he thinks that a womans body has a way rejecting a fetus when they are raped, then what he is REALLY SAYING is that he thinks that every woman who has become pregnant from rape, wasn’t actually raped. THAT’S THE OFFENSIVE PART!

      • Neil:

        Nah. The medical idiocy is really the “stupid part.” That’s not offensive, since it just shows that he’s an idiot.

        The real “Offensive Part” was his actually saying (a) rape doesn’t cause pregnancy, (b) so if you’re pregnant, it wasn’t a “legitimate rape,” and that means (c) women who get pregnant from rape are lying abut being raped.

        • Problem here is that is “no” really meant “no”, we would have been extinct about the time Adam & Eve lost their lease.

      • Well the world being round was offensive just a few years back. I think the guy has an MD to back up his statement. I don’t agree but it’s not my call.

  6. First of all, when Akin said “legitimate rape,” he was not saying “legal rape,” as he is trying to say now. It is obvious that when Akin said “if it is a legitimate rape” meant that most rape charges are not legitimate, and that women are lying when they say they were raped, in order to justify an abortion.

    But for ONCE, Nate, I agree with you. If you are claiming that a person is a person at the time the sperm hits the egg, then it is always murder to abort the product of rape, incest, malformation, lethal threat to the woman,disease, etc. If you are anti-abortion, you should be against ALL abortion, not pick and choose.

    (1) The reason anti-abortionists make all these exceptions is that they know they will lose if they stand by their morals. The American public does NOT want to ban all abortions.

    (2) People who claim to be “anti-abortion” and then come up with exceptions are really PRO-CHOICE. The problem is that THEY want to be the one TO MAKE the choice of when abortion is necessary, not the woman with the pregnancy she does not want. [Yeah, that’s what we need in this country–more hated and unwanted children.]

    The Constitution is about individual rights–not a Nanny State that makes decisions about your body. People who want legal Prohibition to run other people’s lives are simply not fans of the Constitution of the United States of America.

    • Aristotle considered the embryo to gain a human soul at 40 days if male and 90 days if female; before that, it had vegetable and animal souls.

      Now that is way before the social security card was issued but Arie was a pretty smart fellow.

        • Well I’m sure he is past the 90 day stage but some might take a bit longer to develop.

          I also do think he is not alone in his beliefs concerning what happens in a women’s body during rape. I really have no knowledge concerning this instant matter however I do know rape is often cried out after a short talk with the parents of the girl who did at the time thought it was a good idea but after said talk changed her mind. I am mindful, the door does swing both ways.

    • “The Constitution is about individual rights”

      Does the unborn child not get any of the same constitutional rights? I think that is the heart of Ron Paul’s strongly pro-life stance in that the government must protect the rights of the weakest individuals who cannot speak up for themselves. That, of course, would be unborn children.

      • Nate, care to state just when the unborn get the entitlement. I take it you don’t agree completely with Arie. (60-90)

        • My views are irrelevant to this discussion. But since you asked, I’d take the “err on the side of life” defense. Once conceived, 9 months later a baby is born if left undeterred by man or nature. Given that simple fact, I don’t think we can deny these rights to another innocent US citizen once conception takes place. If our rights don’t come from government, as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, then we own the rights the second we exist as a being.

          Whether we exist inside or outside the womb is irrelevant since even children of several years in age cannot “survive” without adult support, just like a baby in the first or second trimester cannot either.

          Thus, it is our duty to protect the most vulnerable in society. We do this for countless groups including the elderly, the mentally handicapped, etc… Why do we make an exception for the very young?

          • “Because it’s not our call, it’s her call.”

            Thus, by your statement, we do not own our rights until they’re bestowed upon us by another human at a time of their choosing. Until that point, we’re disposable like an appendix. As a result, none of our rights are guaranteed and can be stripped at anytime.

            • Hmmmm. . .

              Who was the female comedian who said,

              “if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”

            • Well not until you get that social security number, there isn’t much you can do. Hell you can’t even get food stamps to feed you but now thanks to the generous taxpayers, you get that number as soon as you come out of the shoot.

      • Nate: Do American soldiers deserve to die?

        Pass all the laws you want. You are not going to stop war, and you are not going to stop abortion.

        Nobody likes abortion. Surprised?? Nobody likes abortion. But it’s going to happen, because some women DO sometimes find themselves in situations they cannot deal with. No matter what rules old white men want to make.

        I suppose you want to go back to the time when well-to-do women with unwanted pregnancies went to have “miscarriage vacations” abroad–and the rest went to back alley butchers.

        • “Do American soldiers deserve to die?”

          You’re trying to equate voluntarily joining the military and involuntarily being conceived. Doesn’t compute.

          We have laws against robbery, littering, murder, etc… Do those laws stop those things 100% of the time? Of course not. By your logic, if we can’t eliminate something 100% of the time, it should be legal.

          It isn’t about whether someone likes abortion or not, it is whether the unborn child has any rights in our society.

          • Hey Nate if we try to help everybody we are going to be able to help no body. Sorry but here are some things that can’t be changed and and unborn unwanted embryo is sadly one of them. Been going on now for over 5000 years with no end in sight. 2nd strongest instinct in the human male, mate. Laws of man vs laws of nature and nature always wins in the end.

          • Nate: Not at all. I’m not “equating” anything.

            My point was, well, shit happens.

            I don’t want soldiers to die. There are better ways to handle international problems. But you and your buddy Willard seem to want to send our guys into every country in the world, to force them to follow our rules (and enrich our corporations, of course).

            Likewise, and I thought I was pretty clear about it, nobody “wants” abortion.

            And you go on to make my point EXACTLY. You can have all the laws you want. You will NOT stop robbery, littering, murder, or abortion. What you are suggesting is that we send middle class and poor women to back alley butchers, because AS YOU SAY, no law is going to stop it.

            Old white men love to make laws that couldn’t possibly have an effect on them.

          • How about iraqi soldiers, or iraqi civilians, or the occupants of hiroshima or nagasaki.
            “PRO-LIFE” is such a terrible euphemism. I know they want to be for the unborn, instead of against women, but it is dishonest to say you are “PRO-LIFE” and still be able to justify death.

            • our effort an resources should be placed where we get the most bang for the buck if we are using taxpayer’s money. It is most certainly not on the pro life march as no matter how much money we throw at this problem, it isn’t going to change. Just like the war on drugs.

          • “unborn unwanted embryo is sadly one of them”

            You say “sadly” like you indicate that you wish it wasn’t that way. Why use the term “sadly”? Your posts clearly indicate you don’t think there is anything sad about it, just a clump of cells.

            If you have no qualms with abortion, why not trumpet the virtues of it at every opportunity instead of using the term “sadly”?

            • Nate:

              The same reason you don’t seem to want to celebrate the deaths of American soldiers. NOBODY likes abortion, even Billy. To twist Billy’s words like that is really beneath you.

              If a woman AND her doctor feel that it wold be detrimental for her to continue a pregnancy, do we really need a second opinion from Dr. Nate?

            • Because in my day I went with girls that underwent the procedure. Never knocked up by me always a lot of tears before and after.

            • Billy:

              I’ll go you one better. I had a three-year relationship and the woman invited me for the weekend and SWORE that she was infertile and told me NOT to use condoms. Amazingly, she was horny all weekend. A few weeks later, she excitedly announced that was pregnant, claiming NOT to know how that happened (oh, my!). I did not ask her to have an abortion, even though I knew I was in big trouble. She later said she’d be sure to get all the child support she possibly could. And I didn’t even ask her to end the pregnancy. It was her body and her decision.

              Months later, “after a lot of tears before and after,” she had a miscarriage.

              NOBODY celebrates the termination of a pregnancy. I stood by her in the hospital, while the obnoxious doctor made the lady feel like dirt because she had become pregnant without being married. A true Christian. At a time when her life was crashing, this pompous, self-righteous, insensitive, hateful prig found an imaginative way to make her feel even worse.

              Old, rich, white men are often like that. Get back, honky cat.

            • Interesting for sure but I think that’s the way it goes for the most part. Never happened to me but luck, not skill. I was married about 5 years before we had our first and only kid. Didn’t do anything one way or the other concerning having another but it never came. Now she sits like a vulture in a tree just waiting for the time she can retire. LOL

          • Abortion is not really complex. In fact, it’s quite simple to resolve. The answers to 2 questions is needed to resolve the abortion debate:

            1) What is it?
            2) Can I kill it?

            For Example: Just suppose that you have a 5 year old. One day, you’re standing at the kitchen sink washing dishes. Your 5 year old comes up behind you and says “Mommy (or Daddy), Can I kill this?” Now your back is turned because you are washing dishes. What would be the first question you would ask? Instinctively?

            WHAT IS IT?

            If “IT” is a cockroach – you probably wouldn’t have much of an objection to killing it.

            If “IT” is the neighbor’s kitty -…you probably would have an objection to killing it.

            And if “IT” is a defenseless and totally innocent Human Being – you definitely would have an objection to killing it.

            The Answer to the question – (Can I kill IT?) depends on a “Predicate” question (What is IT?)

            Everyone in the Abortion Debate agrees that abortion “kills something”. Both sides agree on that! But whether or not it is Right to take the Life of any living thing depends entirely on what that “thing” is that is in question.

            So ——> What is it? A fish? A frog? Or a Developing Human Being in the womb?

            • “a Developing Human Being in the womb?” Is that the same as a human being? Both I and the law say no it is not.

            • Exactly, where do you place the start line. Well you know where I put it, just as soon as you get your Auschwitz tattoo aka SS#. Up to that point all entitlements are for the mother.

  7. “There you go again,” Nate.

    Regarding the battle against “bound” delegates, you quoted the first half of the headline–and cut out the part that said it was simply going to the next level.

    This time, you apparently didn’t watch your own video to the end. At the end, Santorum notes that Dr. Paul has only a 50-50 rating from the National Right to Life, about the same as Harry Reid.

    To Dr. Paul, abortion is a State issue, not a federal issue–as he says in the video you suggested.

    Elsewhere, he has said, “While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.”

    Furthermore, at the beginning of February, 2012, Dr. Paul was interviewed by Piers Morgan, and said he would support abortion if the woman had been raped.

    • Not a federal issue, I’ll drink to that. Let the states sort it out they all seem overstocked with money to spend on this issue. After all, it’s that states that have to support most of these unwanted kids even before they get the SS#. And for the most part you could send your kid through Harvard Medical school 3 times over for what they are going to cost the taxpayer.

    • From the source:

      “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.”

      “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.”

      I concur with Dr. Paul yet you’re all attacking me like I’m the outlier here. Something which I expected as soon as I opened up this topic. You are both Paul supporters, how can you support this whacko man and his antiquated pro-life views?

      • Nate:

        First of all, you are distorting his views. Dr. Paul does NOT want a national ban on abortion, and as noted elsewhere, he told Piers Morgan that he would SUPPORT abortion in cases of rape.

        I agree with Dr. Paul on most things. In just about every other issue, whether it’s war or our silly drug laws or other restrictions on individuals, Dr. Paul is right on. I happen to think he’s wrong on this one, but it is understandable, since he is an “OB,” unlike that “SOB” Akin. It also does not count against him, because he is running for president, and he says it is NOT a national issue, so he would do not be passing federal laws about the issue. QED.

        • I’m not running for President either but you’re sure counting it against me. I knew opening this issue would occupy my afternoon which is why I avoided it like the plague since I cannot let this particular issue go unchallenged despite my best efforts to occupy my time with something else (like work).

          I understand there is a lack of respect for human life in the world. It is sick and evil. I like the opportunities to stick up for those who cannot stick up for themselves. After all, isn’t abortion the ultimate form of bullying? Something society seems very interested in these days.

      • Because he would never use the federal government to impose said views on the rest of us like so many others do. It’s not . “What we says goes” like so many other politicians

  8. I agree for the most part with the sentiments expressed by this site. But I think Akin’s comments are not that difficult to understand. He was merely pointing to the difference between legitimate cases of rape as opposed to claims of rape when consensual sex has actually occurred, ad we do have occasions when that happens. He said he as told by a doctor that the stress of the rape situation causes the woman’s system to shut down, so to speak. He did not say that there is legitimate rape. And he is right, there are very few pregnancies that result from rape and stress most certainly does play a role in a woman’s ability to conceive.

    I think it’s regrettable that his own party is playing gotcha politics and making a person an offender for a word.

    • Sounds good but I’d like to hear from someone like Dr. Paul on said subject matter. He may be a bit more qualified than the rest of us.

  9. Abortion is about 1 thing and 1 thing only – self preservation at someone else’s expense. Women (and also men) want the right to be in place so they will not be responsible for the costs (both monetary and personally – even rich people get abortions) related to raising a child. Some may say they do it for the benefit of the child, for either health reasons or personal monetary reasons, but really – would that mean the handicapped and kids born to poor parent(s) have less value than those born without handicaps or with a trust fund? And exactly how is the child benefiting from the abortion?!? Someone explain please. Some may say, the way the child was conceived was too horrid for it to have value – so do we really want to say that value of a child is based on having loving parent(s) conceive it?

    There have been over 50 million abortions in America since 1973 (rough estimate on stats I’ve seen). Here’s something interesting from the census:

    “For those under 18 and between the ages of 18 and 44, growth rates were much slower. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of people under 18 grew 2.6 percent to 74.2 million people, comprising 24.0 percent of the total population.” Just pulled this off the site

    About 75 million people under 44 in the country. 50 million+ abortions since 1973. Dude – those born after 73 are survivors of a holocaust – just look at the numbers. Almost 1 in 2 of an entire generation aborted.

    Whatever side you’re on, you have to see this thing is out of control and has to be stopped.

    • Josh:

      Not at all “out of control.” In fact, you may be surprised to learn that the incidence of abortion has gone down steadily since Roe V. Wade.

      But to repeat again, NOBODY likes abortion. Sometimes a woman and her doctor find it necessary, and while it’s regrettable, even deplorable, it happens. It will continue to happen. The question is whether it should be done in a clinic, or in a back alley.

      • If there have been 50 million+ abortions since Roe v. Wade, and there were more per year before, “the incidence of abortion has gone down steadily since Roe V. Wade.” I took a look and here’s what I found:

        This shows the #’s from the CDC on that site:
        1973 – 615,831 (people who are not among us, and would be turning 40 next year)
        1974 – 763,476
        1975 – 854,853

        And the numbers keep climbing every year to a peak of:
        1991 – 1,388,937 (people who are not among us, most of whom would be turning 21 this year)

        The numbers do decline down to the most recent:
        2008 – 825,564 (kids who would be going to kindergarten next year, and some smart ones this year – this doesn’t include California, New Hampshire and 1 other state)

        So yeah, i guess you could say that numbers are declining. There is an interesting stark drop from 1997-1998 of about 300,000 per year – i think someone changed the way they were counting….that’s just too strange of a number to happen all at once.

        But let’s just accept them as accurate and still say that parent’s choosing to end the life of their children at a rate of 800,000 per year (not counting California) is out of control. These are people who would be among us but aren’t for the single reason that the parent(s) didn’t want the responsibility, for whatever reason they came to their conclusion – handicapped, money, rape, incest, mistake, break-up, whatever they still said ‘i choose me over you.’ Abortion is only about one thing, self preservation at the expense of someone else. We don’t need that in our society, especially at a rate of 800,000 people effected every year.

        There are things many of us probably think should be illegal, but would not want a government empowered to enforce to that level, but when thing reach a low estimate of effecting 800,000 people per year it is something that should be done….or undone in this case.

      • It is true that everyone has a choice to do a wrong thing or a right thing. But just because they have the choice to do something doesn’t mean its right or that every choice should be legal. BTW – pregnancy is not a choice. Just ask any couple who’s tried and failed to conceive a child, pregnancy is not a choice its a chance occurrence.

        • Josh:

          Grasping at straws.

          Reminds me of the new story of Job, in which God isn’t such a jerk. God says, hey, I have to admit that you have been a wonderful servant. I will give you whatever you want. Job says, I want to win the lottery. God says, done.

          Days pass. Weeks pass. Months pass. Job is getting more and more upset. Finally, Job looks up at the sky, with his arms outreached, and shouts, “My Lord, you promised that I would win the lottery.” Loud, low voice, returns in a sort of embarrassed tone, “you. . .have. . .to. . .buy. . .a. . .ticket.”

          To say that it’s not choice because sometimes you DON’T get pregnant is Akin logic. The rest of the world sees “choice” as an issue about pregnancy, not trying really, really hard.

          • The point is that its not about ‘pregnancy’ or ‘being pregnant’ – using those terms is dishonest about what people are really meaning. I’m sure that with most parents who don’t want to be pregnant anymore, its not about the water weight, lower back pain, morning sickness, weird cravings, hormone swings and various other things. Its that they don’t want to raise a child or deal with a child.

            Most of the time you don’t need surgery, or drugs, to end a pregnancy. It will run its own course.

            The deal is that parent(s) don’t want the responsibility of a child. Freedom from parenthood is what people are wanting, not freedom from ‘pregnancy’ or ‘being pregnant’. This is about self preservation at someone else’s expense.

            • Isn’t that what life is all about? If the wealth of the world in finite then if you win someone has to lose.

            • Not really, things that happen at someone else’s expense end up failing in the long run…simply because you will run out of people to take advantage of. Its similar to what Thatcher said about socialism – the problem is you run out of other people’s money. Capitalism on the other hand is about ‘mutual’ benefit. I bought this computer because it benefited me, i bought it at a price that i deemed acceptable, the company who made it sold it at a price that was beneficial to them…mutual benefit.

              Anything one sided always eventually fails. Whenever anything ends up using more than it gives, it fails – read the Declaration of Independence – that’s why we declared independence. We weren’t benefiting from England and they were benefiting from us (taxation w/out representation…..) England’s global dominance failed because things were out of balance for too long.

              No absolutely not to someone having to lose so someone else can win. That’s not life, sports and games maybe, but not life.

            • Sounds good but then there is that little 16 trillion dollar debt that we Americans have run up in order to sustain a rather lavish lifestyle compared to the people we borrowed it from. Going to be interesting to see how that plays out.

            • Josh:

              Oh, that makes it so much simpler. We are dealing with bad people who don’t care about anything, right?

              I was under the impression that we were talking about real human beings with real problems in the real world.

      • Billy

        I think you need to correctly interrupt what you really are. Are you Pro-Choice or Pro-Abortion?

        In order to think that Abortion is OK or Permissible, and then to simply call Abortion a “Choice”; you would have to begin with the “belief” that the Entity within the womb is NOT “already” a FULLY Human Being.

        I’m also Pro-Choice for the woman. She can CHOOSE not to conceive. If she gets pregnant against her CHOICE, she can CHOOSE to carry the child to term and then keep her baby. Or she can CHOOSE to give the child up for adoption so he/she will be loved and cared for. But she can’t CHOOSE the quick way out of a difficult problem by taking the LIFE of that little baby in the “Name-of-CHOICE”. That’s NOT Pro-Choice – that’s “Pro-Abortion!”

        The ONLY result by CHOOSING Abortion is a dead baby. Thus, this mindset is “Pro-Abortion”. Choosing LIFE has many more options. Thus, the “Pro-Life” view offers REAL Choice.

        Your argument assumes that the Entity in the womb is NOT “already” FULLY Human.

        • Hey DT, we haven’t even gotten to the second hand smoke issue yet. I go along what the supreme court has stated. That makes me pro choice in the general accepted meaning of the term. Sex is instinctive. For many it requires little or no thought. The only choice is go or no go and it usually seems like a good idea at the time without any further thought on choice. The law as written give the woman choice down the line and for months after. Now you want to take the choice away. You are giving far greater rights to something than the law as written gives.

          • Billy

            PRO-ABORT and PRO-CHOICE people need to “intelligently” understand what the surface level definition of what “PRO-CHOICE” means. This can only lead one concluding position that PRO-CHOICE is not really “Choice” at all.

            In other words, what are the “CHOICES” that we support by claiming the Pro-Choice position – AND – what does that “CHOICE” do? Actually? To NOT speak about “individual” CHOICES Scientifically, Philosophically or even Genetically is Very Disingenuous, considering that a “Choice”, such as Abortion, will harm and/or kill another individual. To rely on a LAW, demagogued by the Media and the Pro-Abortion Lobby – and passed by “corrupt” Politicians for Votes – and upheld by a “Circus” of a Supreme Court – shouldn’t dictate your individual values or belief system. To me, this is taking the easy-way-out. Moral Relativism doesn’t EXIST. It’s a self-refuting argument which commits Intellectual Suicide.

            To me, the Pro-Aborts Idea of “CHOICE” >>> NO “Choice” for the MAN >>> NO “Choice” for the “Person” in the Womb >>> NO “Choice” for the TAXPAYER >>> NO “Choice” for the PARENTS of a pregnant teen. In reality, a Pro-Aborts “IDEA of CHOICE” is only a Sad and TOTALLY Distorted “One-Way” Option which has only ONE Result. DEATH!

            • “individual values” I’m not a woman. I respect individual values but my values may not be her values. Not all guys have the same values either. My wife married a guy who could provide her with an environment where she could bring up her kid the way she wanted. She did not become pregnant until after we had the house with the white picket fence. (it was paid for too LOL) We had one kid, and that kid now has two kids with a jerk for a husband that is on his 3rd wife and 4 kids. See, different individual values for women.

            • Billy

              True. You may not be a woman, but you’re a Human Being. Abortion is a Human Rights Issue – not a Woman’s Rights Issue like Pro-Choice women (and men) make it out to be. If it truly were a Woman’s Rights Issue, then all Pro-Choice women would have to become Pro-Life. After all, over half of the fetuses aborted are female.

              And besides, the slippery slope “values” argument you’re making defending Abortion is exactly that. A slippery slope of Moral Relativism. Once Human Life is “cheapened” or devalued by any civilization …well… just ask the Jews of WW2 or the early American Slaves what that could lead to.

              Pro-Abortion people shouldn’t be so quick to confuse an objective claim with a subjective argument. Nor should they so foolishly attempt to refute Scientific Facts with Personal Preferences and/or Opinions. To Ignore the Empirical Scientific EVIDENCE on Human Life within the womb, by expressing an Opinion or a Life’s Story to “defend” something so callous as Abortion – borders on “approving” on what took place in Auschwitz.

            • There are very few counties in the world that outlaw abortion all together and even in these countries the number performed is right up there with the US figures per 100,000 women. Thus even if you were to win, you would lose of be building a lot more jails. Outlawing abortion would be just like prohibition.

              I just can’t see where there would be big money in outlawing abortion though.

            • Goethe

              I think you meant “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament” which was coined by Liberal Pro-Abortion activist, Florynce Kennedy. I won’t waste my time discussing Ms. Kennedy and her views. They’re totally subjective…

            • DT:

              OMIGOD! I said “got” instead of “could get.”

              How could I make such an error??

              But it really doesn’t matter WHO said it or the exact wording.

              The point is that men pontificate on something about which they know NOTHING.

              I ask you again: Do YOU know anyone in the real world–someone you know–who had to deal with this issue?

              Or is it enough for the old white man to decide for someone ELSE without any experience?

            • Maybe for some but how would we ever know. We do know that many a man has argued in court to keep the pregnancy going but the judges have ruled, “it’s not your call”

            • We don’t argue facts, we look them up and sometimes we are mistaken for sure but never deceptive as we are not politicians.

        • DT:

          Nonsense. Billy has been totally consistent.

          He says abortion is a horrible thing.
          He says it’s going to happen no matter how sanctimonious you are.
          He says that women struggle with the issue.
          He says that women THINK about it, and anguish about it.
          He says women WILL have abortions, either in a clinic or in a horrible place.
          He says that abortion is a choice that YOU want to be the one to make.

          • Goethe

            What Billy says is TRUE, but WHY is it True?

            I’m always amused by how Pro-Aborts try to use the term “Pro-Choice” as something benevolent, good, or right. If the “CHOICE to KILL” were applied to Human Beings outside-the-womb, as THEY apply it to the Human Beings inside-the-womb, I’m sure people would be morally outraged.

            Which really – can only lead a person who rationally “thinks” about the Abortion Debate – to come to a “sad” and “true” conclusion regarding the Pro-Abort and their “attacks” toward people who attempt to provide the person-in-the-womb a voice. It’s always EASIER to Kill “someone”, who can’t SAY anything.

  10. Stop saying nobody likes it and it is deplorable. You obviously have no issue with it or you wouldn’t be ardently defending it saying things like whatever “rules old white men want to make.”

    You are trying to have it both ways. You think it is deplorable yet anyone who disagrees with it has no right to.

    If you do find it deplorable and regrettable, why are you attacking me so fiercely?

    • Nate:

      Because you are the one trying to make the rules. Unlike the great majority of people in America, you are saying that YOU won’t allow ANY abortion EVER under ANY conditions.

      I am not attacking you because you are giving your view. I am attacking you because you are trying to ENFORCE your micro-minimal minority viewpoint on EVERYONE else.

      Abortions are bad. Abortions are deplorable and regrettable. But shit happens, dude. Deal with it.

        • The point throughout has been that NOBODY FRICKEN WANTS ABORTION TO HAPPEN. (Hello? Is this thing on? Is this thing on??)

          Your holier-than-thou attitude makes you no more convincing, Father Nate.

          The point is that abortions happened BEFORE Roe V. Wade, and they will continue to happen AFTER Roe V. Wade, if it comes to that. The only difference will be that some women will be forced to endure months of anguish that her doctor thinks is detrimental to her–and many women will die by trying to do the job themselves, or going to somebody’s cousin or a total stranger.

          While you cry crocodile tears for the potential life, you have not said a single word about the frantic woman and her situation. As a man, her untenable life situation simply is not your concern, right?

          • Yeah but whatever she goes through it wasn’t near as bad as what the embryo went through. Just had to post that. I know there is nothing we can do for the embryo as this is completely up to the woman who is carrying it. We can however do a lot for the woman and I think we should. Her choice.

            • Billy:

              Well, yeah, and then there’s that.

              Assuming you (a) don’t give trust a woman to make decisions, (b) don’t a crap about a her well being, (c) want to control her actions, and (d) don’t care about individual rights when it comes to making decisions about one’s own life, there is the issue of the forced pregnancy and birth. Should we pay the woman to carry the unwanted child, since it was our proclamation to do so?

              Then we have an unwanted, possibly hated kid, who is likely resented, more likely abused, and most likely be a threat to the rest of us, eventually.

              We should have a rule that MALES may only pontificate on this issue if they have already adopted an unwanted child. If you have adopted an unwanted child, I’ll be happy to listen to you. It’s called cred. Skin in the game. Otherwise, why don’t you go tell the Mars Rover how to do it’s job, instead.

            • Hey Rom Paul is a libertarian. I support Ron Paul. Romney and Ryan are control freaks.
              I don’t have to support them. Like the Surfisher, I can move to almost anywhere on the planet. Now that could change as most countries have a minimum asset requirement to move there.

          • Goethe

            Potential Life is an Abstract Term. We don’t live in the Abstract. A Potential “X” is an Actual “Y”. The Question is What is the Entity in the womb – Actually? A fish? A frog? Or a developing Human Person – that same as an infant or toddler?

            When a woman decides to have sex to become pregnant, NO woman sets out to create “Potential Life”. Likewise, when a woman decides to have sex, but doesn’t set out to become pregnant, but she does – that LIFE is NOT a “Potential Life” simply because she didn’t want to become pregnant. It’s Life! Human Life. There is no such thing as creating a “Potential” Human Life.

            You could potentially create life, that is, create a potential FOR life. When a man and a woman get married and have sex, there’s potential, by their conduct, for Life to be created.

            You could also create a Life with potential – one that has the possibility of developing into potentially something good or noble.

            But that’s really the end of your options. You either potentially create a life or you create a life with potential. You never create a “Potential Life”.

            Pregnancy doesn’t create a “Potential Life”. If so, then the problem of that “Potential Life” could be solved simply by having a Potential Abortion.” Since a REAL abortion is required to end REAL pregnancy (and not a potential one), a REAL life must be involved. (and not a potential one).

            It’s like saying, “I just had a potential thought.” What could that possibly mean? Having a potential thought? You either had a thought or you didn’t. And maybe your thought has some potential for the future or it doesn’t. But you can never have a potential thought.

            Actually, a woman “becomes” a Parent when she “becomes” Pregnant. Just ask a pregnant woman. Does she “take care” of herself to “actually” care for her offspring in the womb? Doesn’t she take vitamins to help nourish the child? Doesn’t she become more “health” conscious in what she eats? Isn’t she more “careful” in what she does?

            The LIFE within her is NOT a “Potential Life”. It is Life!

            PRO-ABORTS, as I call them, like to use the “acorn” analogy when arguing for Abortion Rights. They like to say that an acorn is a “potential” tree. However, they are wrong with that Analogy.

            Even though an acorn is NOT a tree, it IS still an OAK. The Fact is that NOTHING else will be “added” to the acorn, to make it an Oak Tree. The acorn has everything “programmed” into it to become an Oak Tree. This “Inherent Capacity” means nothing MORE will be added.

            If we follow the logic – because the acorn has the “Inherent Capacity” (programmed into it) to become an “individual” Oak Tree, the same is TRUE for the Entity in the womb. In human development, the “conceived” 2-celled human Blastocyst, becomes a human Zygote, which then becomes a human Embryo – and so on. It has the “Inherent Capacity” (programmed into it) to become an Individual Human Being just like in other “stages” of human development. (fetus to infant, to toddler, to child, to teenager – and so on) In a nutshell, NOTHING MORE WILL BE ADDED to the “conceived” Entity to make it what it was “designed” to be – in this case a Human Being.

            • You are trying to make one size fit all and that just ain’t true. Women have sex for all different reasons. (Money, it feels good, he likes it, for children, makes her popular with the boys etc, etc.)

            • DT:

              Nonsense. There is nothing “abstract” about “potential life.”

              You want to say that humans swim around in the testicle. I don’t.

            • Goethe

              I never said any such thing. Putting words in my mouth is very unsanitary. However, I’ve debated enough in the Bio-Ethics arena to understand that the Pro-Abortion “subjective line of reasoning” is the ONLY DEFENSE a Pro-Abort can make. Thus, if you wish to discuss abortion, I would ask you to maintain your composure, gather your thoughts and type rationally. Calling all my comments “nonsensical” is just another way of saying you really don’t have a Scientific, Philosophical or Genetic answer to this very important issue.

              As to YOUR “unscientific” comment accusing me of saying that human beings swim around in the testicle – SCIENTIFICALLY speaking, Sperm and Ovum, LEFT TO THEMSELVES, will die. They do NOT possess the “Inherent Capacity” to be a Human Being. Only when they undergo the CONCEPTION or FERTILIZATION Process, do they become “Individual” Human Beings and Human LIFE begins to develop.

            • DT:

              Fair enough. I was being facetious. You’re saying the sperm has to be OUT of the testicle to be a human. Har.

              But, ok. You want to get away from abstractions.

              Let’s do that.

              Have YOU, personally–YOU–had ANY contact–directly–with a woman who has been so desperate that she chose an abortion?

              Old white men love to pontificate about things about which they have no experience.

            • Goethe

              What difference does that make? If I had “contact” with a woman who has been so desperate that she chose an abortion – directly, indirectly, personally or otherwise – does that make the person-in-the-womb any LESS Human?

              As to “experience” – Does being “born” qualify as “experience”? I developed from a blastocyst, into an embryo, into a fetus, into an infant, into a toddler, into a child, into a teenager, into an adolescent, into an adult. And soon, I’ll qualify as a senior adult and I’ll die when it’s my time. So yes. I do believe I have “experience” as a “developing” Human Being.

              When you think about it, it’s quite a shame that aborted Human Beings don’t get to have that “experience”. It’s TAKEN AWAY from them – in the Name of “CHOICE”.

              It still puzzles me. Why do Pro-Aborts support such blatant “Discrimination” against PEOPLE-in-the womb?

            • DT:

              No, that DOESN’T count. Because it’s irrelevant to the discussion.

              You know, to Joe Schmo on the street, the war in Afghanistan might seem like a hayride.

              I admit that I have NO idea what it’s like.

              I admit that I have NO idea of the pressures and pain that cause soldiers to commit suicide. But it happens all the time, and and it will CONTINUE to happen until the circumstances causing it are somehow resolved. And, you know, we DO have a law against it. Would you throw him in jail for “attempted suicide”??

              AND I am not going to pontificate on the soldier’s choice, because I have NO idea what his situation is.

              YOU can say suicide is horrible. You can say that it should NEVER happen. You can pass all the laws that you want, but it’s going to happen as long as soldiers are so desperate and exasperated that they feel they have no other choice.

              I do NOT want soldiers to commit suicide, I do NOT women to have abortions, but it’s not MY choice.

              And I know you’re going to play games with this, too, but my point is that people sometimes find themselves in untenable situations.

              Can you at LEAST admit that you do NOT comprehend what would drive a woman to abortion?

            • You’re too funny, Goethe.

              Didn’t the soldier make the “choice” to join the military? The People-in-the-Womb don’t get a “choice”, do they?

              Again – your argument ASSUMES that the People-in-the-Womb are not already FULLY Human Beings.

            • DT:

              Twist it all you want. You KNOW that I wasn’t talking about the “choice” to join the military. And by saying that, you are suggesting that he deserves whatever happens after that choice.

              You know very well that I was comparing the soldier’s “choice” to the woman’s “choice.” And my purpose was to say that people often find themselves in situations they can NOT handle. And no amount of your disapproval is going to change that.

              But you are being totally disingenuous, so I don’t plan to give you a straight answer on anything else until you answer my question of whether you PERSONALLY know anyone who has been in abortion crisis.

              Yes or no, Biff.

            • Goethe

              What I’ve come to realize is that Liberals and Pro-Aborts ALWAYS “play” with words – and they try to “steer” the Abortion Discussion with subjective reasoning, personal experiences and personal preferences. It’s just their way of “pretending” that REALITY isn’t really important.

              In today’s society, with the obsession toward the “Culture of Death” and all the Desensitization toward Human Life in ALL stages of development – we should, in turn, DECLARE the “womb” to be the most DANGEROUS PLACE to be, if you are a Human Being!

              The bottom line is that we can do BETTER than ABORTION! PREGNANCY is something that can be “managed” without anyone being KILLED!

            • DT:

              This isn’t a “liberal” issue. It’s “libertarian” issue. And if we had an objective panel, they would surely say that I have tried VERY hard to try to get you to comprehend the opposing argument, even conceding and stipulating your main point, while you have just repeated talking points that are totally irrelevant to what is left to be discussed.

              Face it, Biff, it ain’t “conservative” to pile on regulations and restrictions onto other people’s personal lives.

            • But this one is important as it’s a win-win. The doctors will make even more money on the botched abortions and the government can send even more people to jail who botch the abortions. Even try them for murder and make millions for the poor starving lawyers. WE can add more judges and social workers as we take away any children the woman seeking an abortion has. This is just too big to let go.

            • Billy:

              And that’s just the legal part.

              If they have abortions probibition, that won’t stop abortions anymore than prohibition of alcohol did. That means the drug pushers will have a whole new profit center. And the unemployment figure will go down, since you don’t need any schooling at all to be a back-alley butcher.

              The great thing is that if abortion is illegal, that means nobody officially knows they’re there, so if they disappear, no one will be the wiser. After all, they’re just women, so no biggie.

            • Anything legal means smaller government and a smaller tax bite. If it’s illegal bigger government and a bigger tax bite. So why wouldn.t the government want abortions to be illegal?

            • Right.

              If you want big government and bigger debt, make more things illegal.

              If you want to cut government and pay off debt, keep them legal and TAX them.

              Look at the money we bring in from alcohol and gambling.

            • DT:

              And now we’ve shifted to “pro-aborts” versus “anti-rights.”

              “Words. . .words. . .words. . .
              Slanders, sir: for the satirical rogue says here
              that old men have grey beards, that their faces are
              wrinkled, their eyes purging thick amber and
              plum-tree gum and that they have a plentiful lack of
              wit. . .”

            • Goethe

              Doesn’t “Pro” equal “For”?

              Pro-Abort and/or Pro-Choice People need to “intelligently” understand what the surface level definition of what “PRO-CHOICE” actually means – and then focus upon what that position inevitably reaches…a dead Human Being!

              Feminist Naomi Wolf, a PRO-ABORTION advocate, once wrote – “We are in jeopardy of losing something more important than VOTES. We are in jeopardy of losing, what can only be described, as OUR SOULS. Clinging to a Rhetoric, where there is NO Life and Death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of SELF-DELUSIONS, FIBS and EVASIONS – and we “risk” becoming callous, selfish, and casually destructive men and women, who share a CHEAPENED view of Human Life.”

            • Cheapened human life, somebody should have told that to Truman. Gee he made Attila the Hum look like a choir boy

            • DT:

              And that is exactly the point. You seem to want to paint women as brainless drones whom old white men must order around.

              Women do NOT take these matters lightly.

              The DO anguish over things.

              And the fact that a pro-choice woman would be so intelligent and sensitive and cautionary, even when she knows that some clod will probably use it against her, doesn’t that make her argument for her right to decide that much STRONGER???

            • I just might be a “clod” here but I’d never let on. Then again never is a long time so I would pass on marriage. Just a potential time bomb I would avoid. Friends for life no problem but when the relationship starts the friendship ends.

            • Sorry Billy. [Are you old enough to remember the soap opera, “Young Doctor Malone”?? I digress.]

              Anyway, I was referring to DT’s comment.

              He is trying to use Naomi’s Wolf’s words against her when she has the decency and circumspection to remind her compatriots that even in the face of horrible charges of “baby killers” and other such pro-life pornography, she says it is important to remember that women are traditionally the defenders of life, and that they can’t let the crudity and hysteria of old white men make them calloused.

              Wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone on the anti-abortion/anti-woman/pro-fetus side were to once acknowledge that women have brains, and there must be a situation that we must fix if women find pregnancy intolerable?

              And likewise, wouldn’t it be wonderful if they really DID know of a way to “manage” the problem of hated/unloved/abused/neglect/UNWANTED children–and were willing and able to do anything about the issue? Or even acknowledge it?

            • DT:

              I was so pissed off by your repeating platitudes, I missed your last line before.

              This is the FIRST and only time you have strayed from your talking points.

              And it is FINALLY another point on which you and I can agree. You said:

              The bottom line is that we can do BETTER than ABORTION!
              PREGNANCY is something that can be “managed” without anyone being KILLED!

              And this is the very point that Billy and I have been trying to get you and Nate to face.

              If you can tell us how a pregnancy (which is hated so much that the woman wants to end it) can be “managed,” we can come to full agreement, and then begin making fun of Barry and his vice president, the whitest man in America (before Willard came along).

              Anyway, if you can explain this “management” and how it would work, you’ll win.

            • Easy, any woman that has sex is locked up sedated until it can be confirmed if conception has taken place. If not she is free to go. If yes, she stays and is placed on 24/7 watch with shrink sessions every day. That’s just the start.

            • Billy:

              Even today, one doesn’t choose his war, he just chooses whether to join, and then like a pawn, he is placed on the game board. So that’s not a choice at all.

              At least during Vietnam, you could decide whether to go to Vietnam or skip to Canada.

              Now, you join and suddenly, you’re in any number of wars, including Iran, if Willard is elected.

            • Oh he can’t get over there quick enough so as to reward all those defense contractors that invested in his run.

            • Billy:

              Speaking of which, I heard an interesting tidbit today. You know how I pointed out that the United States is the dog that is whipped around by the tail that is Israel?

              It gets even more convoluted. Today, I heard that American gambling billionaire Sheldon Adelson launched the newspaper, Yisrael Hayom, three years ago and gave it away free, so that it would become the most read paper. This American is pushing war rhetoric and Netanyahu propaganda on the Israeli public. Israelis who know about the connection are pissed.

              Imagine how YOU would feel, if let’s say, a billionaire from, say, Australia bought up TV stations and newspapers so that he could push his own, personal, specific propaganda on us. Would we stand for that??

            • Billy:

              Good point. I was talking about his majesty, Rupert of Australia. But Huffington is from Greece.

              Fricken foreigners trying to control American thought.

            • How about the 23,000 American birds that could fly in 1929? Bet you don’t feel the same about them and they were human beings.

            • DT:

              Hell, I don’t even know why women paint their toenails.

              How did you guys become so brilliant in female psychology
              to decide what’s best for them, and they can’t?

            • Huh? What does painting toenails have to do with the discussion?

              I suppose if I have to address that – it seems like some guys now paint their toenails, too. Maybe to get-in-touch with their feminine side – who knows?

            • DT:

              We might as well talk nail polish, since you are neither listening nor giving any genuine responses.

              So here we go. I dated a woman one time who blindfolded me. I never thought of it, but it can be amazing NOT to know what they’re going to do next. After doing some very nice touchy-feely things, she started painting my toe nails! I don’t know why, but she had me so mellow that I didn’t care. However, I did have to leave, so I put on my shoes and socks and hurried off to my business seminar.

              When I walked into the business seminar, the very FIRST thing they did is tell EVERYONE to take off his or her shoes. They were painting everyone’s toenails to make us all one of the same “tribe.” (This was back in the mid 80s.) I objected. I said I was embarrassed. I told them I had stinky feet. I don’t remember what else, but of course, by now, I was the center of attention. They tackled me and yanked off my shoes and socks. And I am sure that NO one believed that I had NEVER had my toe nails painted before or since. It doesn’t matter. For the rest of their lives, if they see me, they’ll wonder if I have my toenails painted.

              You can guess about someone else’s life, and you can think a guy with painted toes is a fairy. You just can’t pretend to know someone else’s situation if you have not been there. These people WERE there, and they still don’t know the truth. But you’re not listening, are you? (sigh)

            • I’m with you there partner, it wouldn’t make any difference what so ever on the bottom line. She’s still going to get the abortion if she wants it.

            • They don’t need experience and any woman that gets knocked up out of wedlock loses any right to make a choice concerning the unborn. If they have an abortion or attempt to have one they should be tried by a judge & jury in the same manner we dealt with the witches here in America and after just under 100 executions we completely eradicated the practice. We used seasoned prosecutors to insure no mistakes were made.

            • Maybe “moot” would have been a better word choice ? In so far as the abortion itself as legal or illegal the bottom line remains the same. Not moot though on votes though. Not moot on big government either. Make it illegal and we grow the government.

            • And that swimmer is very much alive with a blueprint that is unique only to humans. Or maybe she has the blueprint? ? ? Could they both hold the blueprint? ? ? Which one determines if it’s a boy or a girl? Both? I think only one.

            • Billy:

              I’m not sure. It’s the “Y” chromosome that makes a boy, since girls only have “X”s. (Most women have lots of ex’s, but I digress).

              Anyway, so the question is, does the egg choose which sperm to let in (since were giving all these cells reasoning powers in this thread)? Or is the sperm just lucky? Or does the sperm decide that that egg could likely develop some nice mammaries, so I’ll only give her my “X” instead of my “Y.”

              Inquiring minds want to know.

            • Lucky for me I have a GF that has all the answers, the one that can’t read. you know the answer from those kind of people. GOD, end of conversation.

        • You don’t like “dude” but “shit” is ok?

          I guess you’ll have to complain to Josh, too, dad. Should I tell the kids to get off your lawn?

          • Goethe Behr — LOL!

            Good one!

            Now, go wash your mouth with soap…kid, and don’t forget to finish mowing the lawn.

    • Because you want to impose you will on someone else. Pro choice is either way, pro life is one way.

  11. In summary, what I have learned so far from this discussion:

    1) Supporters of Ron Paul don’t necessarily share his views on the source of our rights and protecting the unborn. Also, if you disagree Ron Paul in other ways, you’re afraid of his truth and owned by the establishment unless you are one of his supporters, then you can disagree on principle with impunity.

    2) That “nobody likes abortion” but we let it stand anyway despite finding it “deplorable” and “regrettable.” Apparently “nobody” has aborted some 50 million babies because they don’t like the procedure.

    3) If a law can’t eliminate something 100% of the time, it can’t be a law. As a result, we should repeal pretty much every law.

    Goethe, Billy, does that sum up your views or am I being unfair?

    • You are being unreal or extreme. No law can be enforced 100%. We can’t even put a dent in the amount of abortions no matter how much we spend but we can stop the killing in wars that our troops are doing. Ron Paul told us how he intends to do this, Real rocket science, bring them home. Yeah let the drukin sailors spend their American dollars right here and not in some foreign country that is killing them every chance they get.

  12. Nate:

    No, I’d say

    (1) Supporters of Ron Paul don’t have to agree with him on every single issue, and more importantly, since he said it is NOT a federal issue, it is irrelevant to the political discussion.

    (2) And nobody has killed all the people in all the wars, by your logic. Just because something is horrible doesn’t mean it isn’t going to happen. And that’s the point. It IS going to happen, either in a clinic, or in a back-alley butcher shop.

    (3) Ron Paul Is AGAINST a federal law outlawing abortion, so your third point is irrelevant on top of being ridiculous.

    Like outlawing liquor, as you say, passing a law will NOT end an activity you don’t happen to want other people to participate in. It will only cause deeper, more serious problems to prohibit it by law.

    • Actually, I don’t want to outlaw abortion. I want to recognize the rights endowed to another human being when they’re conceived. Abortion is simply a symptom of a nation which doesn’t protect the most vulnerable in society.

      • Nate: And you would have been fine if you had simply said it was too bad and made you sad. Nobody would have argued that, because we all feel that way.

        As I’ve said elsewhere, I actually respect people for being pro-life if they don’t try to make choices of when other people may or may not end a pregnancy.

        It is only when someone claims to have sole claim on the “Truth” when we recoil. And do battle.

        • legal or illegal, so long as there is a demand someone will supply them. So long as Bill O’Reilly remains the poster boy for the cartel their future and the supply is secure.

        • Billy:

          Precisely. Not only do we have a law, but we have a fricken WAR on drugs. A WAR!! Yet, somehow, you know, there are still plenty of drugs to go around.

          How can that be? We have a law against it.

          Using anti-abortion logic, we just need more laws, right? More prohibitions? More regulations? More cops? More jails?

          Prohibition doesn’t work when people have a NEED or great desire for something.

          The number of legal abortions has been going down steadily since 1980. And as a proportion of population, we have about half–that’s HALF–as many abortions now as we did in 1980. Yet, that’s the big issue in this election, right?

  13. My stance on abortion is radically pro-choice. (I believe constitutionally protected life starts with your first human interaction outside the womb.)
    However I agree with the writer of this paper. The only defend-able pro-life stance can be short and simple; abortions are murder, and it is never okay. Ever. Other than that you are accepting some level of pro-choice, at which point you are trying to play God, deciding who deserves to live or die based on conception circumstances. Just not logical.

  14. Euphemism of the week:

    “And I didn’t even ask her to end the pregnancy. It was her body and her decision.”

    The pregnancy didn’t involve a child, right? She just “ended the pregnancy”, whatever that means.

    It was her body because, again, it was a pregnancy, no child involved. There was no child’s body involved since it was simply an ended pregnancy, not an abortion.


    • Nate — how about this?

      The trash that aborts won’t have progeny to pass on their trashy genes….?


    • I can only speak for myself here but to me there has to be some kind of a bonding process here before I could think of the embryo as a child. Doesn’t have to be me bonding with the embryo but even if the mother to be bonds at that point it becomes a child. Sorry just the way I see it.

        • Right, that’s why I’m so pro choice because I have no way of knowing except being around girls that have gone through it. Lots of tears but certainly none of joy.

            • Yeah but it ain’t gunna change anything unless just maybe Romney wins but that’s a long shot. Ryan is pro life all the way and the morning after pill is murder thus cameras in the bedrooms with computers keep track of the ladies time of the month. If you do it at the right time one might have to explain why it didn’t take. Or maybe you will be given a some sort of a restrictive license of when you can or can’t.

          • I agree with some of your tangents (and Geothe’s) — Big Brother…etc…..

            But based on the premises set, Nate made the syllogisms, thus won the argument.

            You, and Goethe, failed in Logic and resorted to Sophistry.

            Sorry, my ruling is:

            Nate won this argument hands down!

            • But pro choice is rather absolute one way or the other. Pro life opens pandora’s box. Oh absolute when the egg and sperm unite but what then. Do we stop there or say you can’t prevent that from happening once the swimmer is on his way. And after there, one must take great care to insure it remains there for the duration. Then we need a definition of great care. Any slip is manslaughter and if it’s intentional it’s murder.

              Before any of that happens I’ll be in Rio. That volcano in Ecuador has me worried.

            • Billy:

              The volcano in Ecuador is the gods demanding that they give Julian Assange citizenship and then an ambassadorship, so he can go wherever he fricken wants. . .

            • Surfisher:

              To exactly what syllogism are you referring?

              A syllogism can only be based on accepted premises.

              To what premises are you referring?

              It is my opinion that Nate’s argument is instead what is known as “begging the question,” in which the conclusion is on premises that are not proven or accepted–and the conclusion is not considered valid until the premise is proven.

              As I noted, his conclusion that sperm are entitled to a driver’s license (among adult rights and privileges) as soon as they can navigate to an egg, it seems to me, is preposterous.

            • Right and you can’t get the drivers license without ta social security card and you don’t get that until you com out of the shoot. I stand by my original statement, life begins when you get your social security as without it no one can claim you as a dependent. Now if the kid can take care of himself right at birth he isn’t a dependent but I’d have to see it to believe it.

            • And then, of course, there’s the question of why the “moderator” places himself in opposition to the posters on any issue. Lack of objectivity. And that informs us regarding choice of topics, and how they are phrased. The whole problem with political discussion these days is choice of words and how a discussion is framed.

              It’s like the old question, “when did you stop beating your wife?” A question like that assumes the premise that the candidate beats his wife and forces him (in some fashion) to admit that he did NOT stop beating his wife before he can explain that he never did.

              Let’s take a look at this topic. The headline was good: Todd Akin controversy spills onto the national stage. With that headline, the discussion could have been about when and how local candidates should impact a national discussion, and why–and other tactical questions. There are a lot of other directions from that headline.

              Even the quoted Washington Times article, hardly a neutral source, was about the Akin, himself, calling him a political headache, as he pulls the party farther and farther from the ideas and ideals of the mainstream American public. So our discussion could have been about ways to cure a political headache.

              But then the “moderator’s” [“moderator” from “moderate” meaning “not extreme”] commentary under the headline, reverses the meaning, embracing Akin and narrowing the topic, basically saying, why oh why oh why can’t all candidates be so extreme? And the simple answer to that one is–because they want to be elected.

            • What I don’t understand is where is the big money here? I mean who stands to make and who stands to lose here in terms of money. Family planing makes big money on pro choice but who stands to gain on pro life. Are most of these aborted embryos from poor folks that are on welfare? The government loves huge welfare rolls. Usually all you have to do is follow the money for all answers to even the most complex issues but I seem to have lost the trail. Where is the big money in this?

            • Billy:

              I have wondered the same thing. I even asked someone if poor people abort at a higher rate than the more well-to-do, and she said no, there is little difference.

              On the other hand, I think middle-class women would be more effected by a ban. They are not rich enough to go abroad, like their richer counterparts, and they are less likely to be desperate enough to go to a back-alley butcher. So I think a ban would force the more middle-class women to go to term.

              So that brings up the question of why the government would want to swell the welfare rolls. That seems counter-intuitive. But here is the answer: while individuals get “welfare,” much more money goes into “corporate welfare.”

              And here’s how it works:
              (1) Having more children stretches finances and keeps poor people poor.
              (2) Keeping people on welfare makes the state more important.
              (3) Having more poor people increases the workforce pool, making jobs scarce and keeping wages low for corporations.
              (4) People sitting at home without jobs does not stop them from eating highly processed junkfood crap that is so profitable for those same corporations.
              (5) And, of course, all those fat people–who are malnourished–end up in the emergency room, running up big tabs to pay the medical-industrial complex (and make your next hospital aspirin cost $90).

              So, the “money” you’re looking for is in maximizing the rich-get-richer/poor-get-poorer system, reducing wages, and maximizing profits–your tax dollars at work!

            • the statistics reveal that black women and economically struggling women — who have above-average rates of unintended pregnancies — are far more likely than others to have abortions.

            • But then the “moderator’s” [“moderator” from “moderate” meaning “not extreme”] commentary under the headline, reverses the meaning, embracing Akin and narrowing the topic, basically saying, why oh why oh why can’t all candidates be so extreme? And the simple answer to that one is–because they want to be elected.

              Good thing Akin moderated his position, he’s a sure-winner now. I wasn’t defending him, I was defending the idea that if you believe in something, don’t beat around the bush, just speak your position and be ready to defend it. Politicians fail at that constantly.

              Some topics I can be objective on. This one I find it impossible personally to play devil’s advocate because I believe a child in the womb is another human being deserving of the same rights and considerations as the rest of us. It sickens me to read callous language or hear talk that is watered-down to pretend there is no child involved.

              That child cannot speak up and say he or she would prefer to be born rather than dismembered limb from limb and put in a dumpster.

              There is a separate beating heart that is stopped after just 18 days.

              That life has value. As does the life of his or her mother who can take an easy out in life and simply dispose of her own flesh and blood, another human being. Is it emotional at the time? Of course it is but it will be over in a few hours and forgotten in a few weeks, maybe months. That is, unless the mother suffers severe depression and suicidal thoughts or develops cervical cancer from increased risks involved with abortion. No doubt, some situations are awful but there are options that always exist. There are organizations to lend support and couples wanting to adopt.

              I am not advocating for candidates to be extreme, I am advocating for candidates, on any side of any issue, to actually speak their position on the issue, not hide from it. If you’re radically pro-choice, as one poster stated above, that’s fine, be honest so we can have an honest discussion.

              Akin is the epitome of a politician trying to sugar-coat his own ideas because he isn’t personally comfortable defending them to others. Therefore, he shouldn’t stake out those positions if he can’t defend them.

              By the way, no hard feelings but this topic is very near and dear to me having recently become a father.

            • But that’s not the way the law reads in this country and for sure you would like to change it. And even if you were to succeed it would change nothing on the bottom line.

            • Nate:

              I agree that politicians should be straight with us. But that’s not what Akin did.

              If you LISTEN to the interview, Akin was saying one thing: abortion is not necessary in case of “legitimate” rape.

              But his “moderating” is a lie. He’s playing word games, trying to say that his “legitimate” meant “legal.” But it is VERY clear that he is NOT saying that. He is not intending that at all. He is just playing word games after the fact.

              If you LISTEN to the interview, the MEANING of what he says is this: abortion is not necessary in the case of rape, because the woman’s body will protect her from getting pregnant. He really believed that.

              SO–when he used the word “legitimate,” what he meant was, we do not need abortion, since if it was REALLY a rape, the woman’s body would protect her. And since the woman’s body would not allow pregnancy from a “legitimate” rape, it must mean that MOST of the time, women are LYING when they say they have been raped. OTHERWISE, they would not have gotten pregnant.

              In Todd Akin’s world, you can also prove that you are not a witch by being burned at the stake. If you survive, you are clearly a witch.


              P.S. your gushing about this loser (Akin) really stretches your credibility.

            • “it must mean that MOST of the time, women are LYING when they say they have been raped.”

              Now that part I can drink too. But so what, if she believes it, it would only make matters worse to tell he no, it’s was all her fault. That’s why so many rapes are never reported. Flip side is a lot of guys are in jail that shouldn’t be there.

            • Billy:

              Right on both counts. And it is telling that you are expressing regret for both sides.

              But you have to remember that we are talking about people totally bereft of empathy. They are so afraid of facing complications that they want to reduce it to a cartoon question. The real people in the real situations in the real world don’t matter to them.

            • Oh it is even more complex as many a time she has not only believed she has been raped but will positively ID the man who did it. Then Berry Scheck (DNA) comes along and after years of fighting to get the fluid samples, finds she ID’d the wrong guy.

              But I truly believe it mas all a mistake and not a lie.

            • Billy,

              You have mentioned several laws you disagree with and would like to change. “war on drugs,” etc…

              Is my desire more or less valid than your desire to change the law? I’d like the law reflect that our rights are secured from within the womb, such as, recognize that a baby is, in fact, a human life. Apparently that is extreme but casually dismantling the baby and disposing of the remains is totally mainstream and acceptable. Downright honorable in fact.

            • I would like to see laws that cost the taxpayers big buck that don’t work or fall way short of there intended purpose (or do they) and the list is endless. Almost all laws are passed as a result of some special interest group that stand to make millions of dollars if enacted and even more if enforced.

            • Nate:

              You’re totally missing the point. Billy is AGAINST prohibitions, restrictions on the individual. He has been totally consistent on that point.

              You are the one who claims to be against government stomping us, but you want to use the government to stomp women. And I see that as being inconsistent on your part.

            • P.S. your gushing about this loser (Akin) really stretches your credibility.

              I have no defense for Akin, I don’t know how you got that. I even stated that once you decipher what he said, as you did, there is no science to backup what he’s saying which might be more disconcerting. I don’t defend him in the least on that part.

              You are the one who claims to be against government stomping us, but you want to use the government to stomp women.

              No, I want the government to prohibit the stomping of unborn babies. You keep turning this into an anti-woman discussion. It is not. It is a discussion of whether unborn babies are human beings who deserve protection as such. You continue to ignore the child in every case, as if only the woman’s life is to be considered. Is there not a child involved?

            • The SC has told us when the embryo becomes a child, now you want that time line changed and we say we can live with it.

      • Goethe — kiss up…? How crude, again, from you.

        If true, I would not have posted this (which negates your insult):

        “Nate — how about this?
        The trash that aborts won’t have progeny to pass on their trashy genes….?

        No, kid — I just ruled that you and Billy lost this argument to Nate on Logic.

        Don’t be such a small sore loser and read more into it, than what I stated.

  15. Lexington 1775 — The Shot Heard Around The World.

    Tampa 2012 — The Shout Heard Around the World!

    Come to Tampa on the 26th American Patriots — a Million+ True Americans are expected to show — be One of Us!

    Last chance to voice our support for the only Real American that deserves to be US President: Ron Paul !!!

    Don’t delay — start your trip to Tampa today!

  16. All rooms in Hotels and Motels are booked in Tampa! But, millions of Americans own Motorhomes — so, just drive your RV to Tampa…and start your trip now!

    Be part of History when Ron Paul wins the Nomination!

    (Rmoney’s Machinery has been lulled into the “Tactics of Mistake” — and has no clue what is about to transpire).

  17. Goethe,

    One exit question.

    Explain why you see abortion, in your own words, as “regrettable” or why “NOBODY FRICKEN WANTS ABORTION TO HAPPEN”. Is there some reason why we don’t want it to happen? Please elaborate.

    • It usually leaves an emotional scar on the woman, something I don’t fully understand because I’m a guy. When she is sad, I’m sad and when she is happy, I’m happy. Hey this is even if I don’t know her all that well. I kicked in a few hundred more than once to help a girl out of this type of jam. Yeah always the promise to pay it back but that’s okay.

        • maybe to the girls you dared or had relations with but most certainly not the way I found any of the girls I dated or lived with. Now there were joke about a girl that could have an abortion much like we go for a hair cut but I never met one.

          • So it is emotional for some reason… maybe like, your flesh and blood child inside you depends on you for protection and you’re deciding to deny that protection. You struggle trying to convince yourself it is not your child, just a growth of cells. Maybe like that?

            I am just trying to understand why you and Goethe continually say it is emotional, it is bad, we don’t like it, etc…

            But the next breath, you defend it, almost without limit. But you don’t think babies are human beings inside the womb, so why is abortion a bad thing? Why should anyone care?

            There is a disconnect.

            • Look I can only tell what I see. I’m not a woman nor a mind reader. Girls that I’ve dated that underwent the procedure didn’t want to talk about it. If they think back on it they start crying. I never asked them what they were crying about as the just wanted to be held. It never lasts long just often. Now I have not had that much experience but I have talked with other guys about it and all seem to say the same on the serious side.

            • Nate:


              You are simply saying if you make the decision FOR women, everything is fine.

              BUT, just as Billy and I have been saying, it’s a horrible act–and the women must really be desperate to take it.

              THAT is the issue that you are trying to turn into some kind of cartoon. The woman doesn’t matter, her feelings don’t matter, her ideas don’t matter, her fears and anxieties don’t matter, her hysteria about her condition doesn’t matter, her desperation doesn’t matter, and of course, her MIND doesn’t matter, since she is too stupid to make a wise decision.

              You want to turn this into a simple, black-and-white, two-dimensional, yes-no answer in which the ONLY good is the fetus, so that you don’t have to think.

          • Billy:

            Right. That is the crux of this whole discussion. Abortion is a horrible thing, and women sometimes find themselves in a position in which they tear themselves apart and sometimes decide to do the horrible thing.

            Nate wants to trivialize women so that he can be God and make this into a simplistic, black-white, two-dimensional, yes-no question so he can feel righteous, superior, and not have to think about what women really go through.

            • The key word her is “HE” not “She”. How is it that “she” gets factored out of the equation?

    • Nate:

      The same as your opinion of abortion, basically. The only difference between your view and mine regarding the fetus is that you seem to believe abortion can be prevented with the swish of a pen. I agree that abortion “should” not happen, just like wars “should not happen,” traffic accidents “should not happen,” drug overdoses “should not happen,” and so on.

      But I know that passing a law that says “let there be no abortion,” is as silly as passing a law saying “let there be no more war; no more traffic accidents; no more drug deaths.”

      Well, one difference is that you have not mentioned, and seem to have no interest in the life of the woman who would find herself in the position to even consider such a drastic action. Nor do you mention or seem to have an interest in the unwanted child–and that lack of interest in the unwanted child is what makes abortion a deplorable, but acceptable solution.

      /////////////////////NOBODY-NOBODY-NOBODY wants abortion to happen.

      I think one’s viewpoint of abortion is shaped by one’s experience of it. When I was quite young, I saw a Playhouse 90 drama (from the early 50s) about a young, pregnant woman–how she got pregnant, her family life, her entire situation, and her decision to take her chances with a back-alley butcher, since she could not cope with her condition. It was a very dramatic piece, and I saw it through her eyes. I experienced the hysteria and hopelessness of the woman, if only vicariously.

      If you reduce the topic to a two-dimensional, black-and-white, yes-no question of whether the abortion, itself, is a good thing, you can make that decision FOR the woman, and feel really quite righteous,superior, and not have to bother with the messiness of the real world.

      • Hey the “smartest” people in the country look at issues like this all the time and resolve them with 5-4 decisions . Guess the 5 are smarter than the 4. (Supreme Court)

  18. I am not claiming to agree with her, but this is. . .

    AYN RAND, on abortion:

    An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

    Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

    The Voice of Reason
    “Of Living Death”
    The Voice of Reason, 58–59

  19. More AYN RAND:

    Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.

    The Ayn Rand Letter
    “A Last Survey”
    The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3

  20. More AYN RAND:

    If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth.

    The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.

    I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.”

    By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?

    The Objectivist Forum
    “The Age of Mediocrity”
    The Objectivist Forum, June 1981, 3

    • Think she might be missing the blueprint here. I only believe in Darwin so far. Not all that sold on creation either and this gig on irreducible complexity is where I’m stuck and will no doubt take it to the grave.

    • Nothing new there. She’s a progressive feminist on abortion. As in, the child is not a child until you decide it is a child when you give birth. Prior to that, it is a clump of cells to be torn apart and put in the trash.

      Parents are condemned to “a life of hopeless drudgery” for all eternity if they have a child they’re not prepared for yet. That is a straw man argument. Hardships in life occur at all stages. People deal with their elderly family members, at times they can’t afford to but somehow we manage anyway. She likely supports euthanizing elderly for the same reason since they might lock someone into “slavery to a (insert any vulnerable group that relies on someone else for survival)’s physical and financial needs”.

      In this country, our rights don’t come from government, they come because we exist as human beings. They are universal, inalienable rights. For some reason, we think we can decide when they apply and when they don’t. The law will reflect this someday, especially as science advances and fewer and fewer people can deny the clump of cells is indeed and living human being with a heartbeat.

      It is very easy to abort a baby, they have no legal recourse against you. That is, unless they accidently come out still living, then they can sue.

      51% of abortions are female babies, sounds like discrimination.

      • Nate:

        Dude. Once again, as Billy said, you do NOT know what it’s like to be a woman.

        You do NOT know what it’s like to live a life drenched in estrogen. You do NOT know how women think and feel. You do not know what it feels like to have chemicals running through your body, malforming it, causing so many aches and pains PLUS the emotional roller coaster that all that stuff causes in her mind. You are NOT a woman, you cannot SPEAK for women.

        This is a WOMEN’S issue that neither you nor I should impose on them. I am not commanding anyone to have an abortion, and you apparently do not care about the woman, because she is incapable of making good decisions.

        If YOU adopt an unwanted child, especially one whose chromosomes have been irreparably harmed by drugs so that you have to sleep with your door locked, I don’t believe that you have any right to speak on this issue.

        [And Surf, before you chastise me, let me explain that when I use the word “dude,” it is meant as a sign of disdain toward someone who is hopelessly off-the-rails, as I used it toward you once or twice.]

        • Not a women’s issue. A basic human rights issue. Please understand you can’t win this on this front. A baby is a baby is a baby, 1000x over. No gray area, just whether you’re killing another human being or not. Fairly simple to comprehend.

          Guess under the same notion of your logic, if a girl is kidnapped into sex trafficking, we shouldn’t judge since the girl’s pimp is in charge. Plus, I’m not a pimp so I can’t comment on that matter, I should just shut up.

          When people are slaughtered in third-world countries, I can’t speak up since I am neither the dictator doing the slaughtering nor a victim. I better keep quiet, that is a dictator’s right to make those decisions, I don’t know what it is like to be a dictator.

          Not comparing women to dictators or pimps, just making a point of how ridiculous your argument is. In your world, when injustice happens, we shouldn’t speak out against it unless we are 100% directly involved.

          Sounds ridiculous, right? Look in the mirror.

          An unborn baby deserves the same rights and protections as afforded to other citizens. I will not back down on this, your scurrilous, tired, left wing arguments have no merit.

          Several commenters beside me have ripped them apart with common sense we apply in other aspects of life but not on this topic. We don’t care about the life involved, just kill the baby quickly and don’t ask whether it is moral or not.

          There is a human life involved, stop marginalizing it.

          Furthermore, you don’t read everything, I explained much about the mother involved and how it is always in her best interest to have the child. Dangers of depression, suicide, increased health risks, etc… all a result of abortion. Not a safe procedure for mother or baby (obviously less for baby since guaranteed death is the outcome). Mother only possible death from so-called “licensed” abortionists.

          • There are a few countries who have bought into your idea and outlawed abortion for any reason. The bottom line is that the rate of abortions in the countries that have outlawed abortions all together is about the same as countries where it is legal. You are fighting windmills.

          • Billy:

            I am so sorry I have left you twisting all by yourself on this issue.

            The irony is that when these guys–men–males pontificate on babies, they are NOT talking about “babies,” they’re talking about fetuses.

            And the sad thing is that they refuse to even comment on the horrible lives they are forcing these fetuses to live. Once the abortion is prevented, they really do not give a rip about these “babies.”

            • Right, so where is the money in this ? ? Somebody has to have money to be made by this stance and it isn’t all that hard to get followers on just about any issue. I’ve paraded on more than one occasion on the court house steps walking back and forth for a cause I had no idea of what it was about. Nice looking girl asked if I’d walk while she got a bite to eat, so why not, I got a lot of time.

    • Interesting quote…:

      pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.

      This quote is exactly the point about abortion justifications …”I don’t want to lose my life so i will take someone elses” (self preservation at someone elses expense). To do so i will bury my head in the sand of willful ignorance and pretend that its somehow OK to end the child’s life….because i don’t reeeaally know if the child is alive yet.” How many people are confident enough in that belief that they would put their own lives on the line? For example, parents walk into an abortion clinic and are told you can have an abortion, but if the child is alive we will kill you too as a part of the abortion process. How many would actually go through with it? How many truly believe the child is not alive enough to put their own life on the line? I know its a ridiculous scenario, but seriously how many people are that sold on the ‘non-living’ status of the child?

      But since none of them are really putting their own lives on the line its easy to say – i don’t believe they’re a person so cut them out (our put drugs or chemicals in me to flush them out).

      To quote Mother Teresa addressing the congress of the united states: “don’t abort your children, send them to me.’

      The contrast of selfishness vs. selflessness in those quotes (Ann Rand vs. Mother Teresa) is stark and the contrast make pro-choice people question their stance.

      • Just because you believe the embryo is a living human being doesn’t mean everybody else has to. The law says it is not and I can live with that. It would appear you can’t. So you got an uphill climb in getting the law changed and even if you do the bottom line will remain the same. Abortion one way or the other (legal or illegal) is here to stay.

          • 3/5 persons for purposes of apportionment in Congress. It didn’t help the slave at all. Special interests all the way.

          • Nate:

            YOU are against slavery? Huh.

            Does that mean you consider black people worthy and capable of making decisions? Huh.

            • Slavery ? ? ? against it, we are in. The country has been run like plantation long before the civil war. Only difference is now the slaves are much more productive than they were prior to when they were “legal”. (the numbers don’t lie)

        • it is not about a person’s belief, it is about their behavior. laws are only intended to apply to peoples behavior, not their beliefs (this is the argument presented by Jefferson when he talked about the separation of church and state, it applies here too)

          Nobody wants to force anyone to believe anything, persuade…yes…force no. What we are talking about is laws against behavior deemed destructive to human life. When you look at kids under 18 and see that for every group of 4, 1 is missing – the conclusion is that abortion is destructive to human life.

          • That’s your conclusion not the people that make the laws. Like I posted before, we are so far down on the list concerning this instant subject matter that we can just sit back and see how it plays out in other countries. We should have more than enough time to hite the stop button

        • so the law says an unborn child is not alive. hmmm, is that a loophole for those with a hunger for murder? Kill the unborn child, just leave the mother safe. I can hear the defense now….no your honor my client was not assaulting the woman his intent was to end the pregnancy…that’s not murder…that was just my client’s choice. It wasn’t about the mother’s body, it was about the body of the unborn. clearly you can see, your honor and members of the jury, that my client committed no crime against anyone here. She was on her way to the abortion clinic anyway….

          This is a losing argument for the abortionist, it always comes down to the point of ‘i want to end the possibility of taking responsibility for another person by killing that person and getting on with my life’ After all, according to Ayn Rand, if you give up parenthood you will have a future, be guaranteed a life of endless bliss with freedom from a child’s physical and financial needs. Oh man, its all about you!

          [note to any person who reads this and has been involved in an abortion. if you feel shame forgive yourself and go on. really its the only thing you can do. ask god to forgive you, he will, he’s in the forgiving business…that’s what Jesus is all about. you won’t do anyone any good by carrying shame and pain the rest of your life, the sooner you let go of your bad decision the better for you and the world around you. only stupid evil people would hate you for what you did, and they shouldn’t be counted when you assess yourself anyway.]

  21. OK, let me try again. . .

    Did you ever see the movie, SOPHIE”S CHOICE? I picked it up years ago because the cover made it look like a lighthearted romantic comedy about Meryl Streep and two men. So I sat down with my bowl of popcorn and waited to be amused.

    But the choice was NOT between two men.

    The story is about a Jewish woman who is in line to get onto a train. She has her baby daughter in her arms, holding the hand of her young son. A Nazi soldier tells her she can only take ONE child onto the train, and SHE has to make the choice of which child she gives up. It is, of course, a mind-crushing situation. She tells him to decide. He says, no, if she does NOT decide, he will take both of her children. She says to take the children and do with her what they want. He says no. She finally decides that her son may be old enough to figure out how to survive, but her baby would surely die without her. For the rest of her life, the Meryl Streep character was in anguish because of that horrible but necessary decision.

    PLEASE do not trivialize or twist what I’m saying.

    Sophie’s “Choice” was horrible. And a woman’s “choice” to have an abortion is probably, sometimes JUST as horrible. But it’s HER choice.

    Nate (our “impartial” moderator): I know you’re going to play word games, but I am hoping that disinterested–that is unprejudiced–readers will stop and think about the anguish of women, and not automatically go into attack mode. Women CAN make decisions, and they have a right to do so.

    • Goethe Behr — adding a silly soap-opera scenario to already displayed sophism on your part…?

      Why do you dig your hole deeper? And Billy Malone’s silliness of “sperm” ….

      Nate dismantled both of you with Logic (and DT’s post further exposed your weakness in being able to logically debate).

      I already ruled that Nate won the debate hands down — and now, after your further infirmness of thought, he, Nate has made a monkey out of you and Billy Malone.

      Quit it y’all — my ruling is apodictic (and stop looking up words to sound as if you knew their meaning…LOL)!

      • Surfisher:

        Your lack of empathy is truly astounding.

        Your lack of analysis is in this matter is ridiculous.

        Kiss up.

        • Goethe Behr — another sophism on your part, and getting weaker as you keep further defending a lost argument.

          Kid, you lack pure Logic, and even fail in Dialectical Logic.

          I can spend a week dissecting your faux pas (but that would be fruitless, since you won’t comprehend them at this stage of your budding development). Suggested reading for you: Plato (all his works), Aristotle’s Organon; Hegel (to some extent); Descartes, plus about 50 more Great Minds. When you spend 10 years reading them — then, perhaps you’ll be able to qualify to spar with me.

          Until then — comprehend that such a term as “empathy” is INVALID in any logical debate (that’s just plain silly, kid)!

          • Sounds great but when this hits the Supreme Court, 5-4. Just not a slam dunk no matter how smart thou art.

          • Nonsense.

            The ENTIRE argument is about empathy. That’s what the argument was about.

            Billy and I empathized with the woman and a situation SHE cannot cope with.

            Nate refused to consider the woman’s situation, much less her rights.

            And while he proclaimed empathy for the fetus, that empathy ends at the point of birth,
            since he has no answer to what you do about an unwanted child.

            Aside from name calling, you have added zero-zip-nada to the discussion.

            • Goethe

              Where do you come up with this stuff? It sounds like you’re just repeating the demagoguery put out by the Pro-Abortion Lobby and the Liberal Media.

              First of all, there is NO SUCH THING as an UNWANTED child. If there was a “toddler” in a room full of people and I said “This child is totally unwanted – NO ONE wants it – NO ONE loves it.” >>> I bet there would be NO ONE in the room that would take out a club and kill it. The Unwanted Child “view” is another argument which ASSUMES that the people in the womb are NOT already FULLY Human Beings.

              Did you know that several studies have shown that CHILD ABUSE has “increased” sharply since Roe v. Wade? Furthermore, it seems to me that “wanted-ness” (as a value) applies only to “things” – and NOT to people. Let me ask you a question, Goethe. Do you think that children, who you call “unwanted”, should be allowed to stay in the world?

              There are many children in the world who live in very difficult circumstances. And many of them have been (and are being) abused and/or neglected. But should we “execute” them in order to prevent them from being abused or neglected? What about the homeless and the orphans? Should we “get-rid” of them simply because nobody wants them around?

              So the question is not whether the people in the womb are WANTED; the question is whether they are Human Beings that deserve the same protection as you and I. Think about it this way – if the people-in-the-womb are Human Beings – then to “execute” them would be the worst kind of CHILD ABUSE imaginable!

            • I think Charlie Manson had that problem as a child (unwanted) but he sure turned that around in later life.

            • DT:

              Yet, you are still refusing to deal with the very real issue that unwanted, hated children are a problem, for themselves, for their mothers and for YOU.

              You want to pretend they do not exist.

              And of course, once they commit a heinous crime, you have NO problem with killing them many years after the “killing” you are so self-righteous about preventing.

            • Goethe

              Should we begin to “execute” these “unwanted and hated children” which already exist in the world?

              Your argument assumes that the person-in-the-womb is not already fully Human.

            • DT:

              THANK YOU.

              That is precisely my point.

              You cry crocodile tears for the fetus, but once it is born, YOU are the one who doesn’t care.

              You’d rather force births and then walk away, let the child be abused, commit a crime, and THEN you want to execute him.

            • Goethe

              “Forcing”? Are you sure you’re using the correct wording in your argument? It seems to me that Pro-Aborts like to use “words” which completely pervert the discussion and turn it toward subjective reasoning. Then, they accuse others of playing “word games”, while it is THEY who game-the-words.

              Goethe. The only “forcing” that can be committed during Pregnancy is an Abortion! Abortion, committed by an Abortionist, is the UNNATURAL ACT of “forcing” the fetus from it’s NATURAL habitat where it was designed to develop – Naturally.

              Agreed, no one should be “forced” to become a parent against his or her will, but this isn’t the situation we face in Abortion. If the People-in-the-Womb are ALREADY Human Beings – then pregnant women are ALREADY parents. It seems morally self-evident that no parent should escape her responsibilities by “killing” her “so=called” unwanted children. Thus, the only “legitimate way” to escape from already being a parent is through adoption.

              Clearly, the issue isn’t unwanted parenthood. If the Person-in-the-Womb is ALREADY a developing Human Being, the woman already is the child’s mother and should not be permitted to kill him/her just because she doesn’t want him/her.

              Perhaps you shouldn’t be so “disingenuous”, Goethe, in your debate to justify “ripping” the fetus from the womb in “pieces” as some kind of a NATURAL ACT. It’s not. The PROPER word for Abortion is the Act of “Forcing” the Person-in-the-Womb from it’s NATURAL Habitat – where it was designed to be.

            • Forcing someone to do something illegal by making something that is now legal illegal? AS we know from the stats that it’s going to happen either way, yeah forcing is the right word.

            • Again a moot issue . Human or not the abortion will take place if she wants it. However if it would make you feel better we could give them a judge and jury trial like we gave the 87 witches we executed a few years back. Europe got about 40 thousand of them but not all got a fair jury trial like they did here in this country.

            • You are right on that. As smart as the Surfisher is or thinks he is he sure didn’t dip much of an oar on this one. Then again maybe he is as smart as he thinks he is.

            • Billy:

              I have no quarrel with Surfisher. His only purpose was to try to shut down this thread so that we could move on to pushing Ron Paul to run as a write-in. Sorry, Surfisher. We DO appreciate your dedication. But the Televangeilstas are restless.

              This topic will continue because one side can only see the fetus and won’t consider the complexity. Meanwhile, even stipulating that they’re RIGHT–that abortion is horrible–won’t bring about ANY acknowldgement of a woman’s crisis, even though they tacitly admit that they have NO idea what her state of mind is.

              Anyway, we love ya, Surfisher, sorry that I was gruff.

      • Oh I still got some ink and paper left I’d like to use up. These blogs are kind of fun, I mean you got to have something to do while the GF is smoking a cigarette.

    • It is an understandably difficult decision many jewish people had to make during those days. The holocaust was horrible.

      (as an aside – Nazi Germany is a good example of how even when the majority gets it wrong, the wrong decision will end in
      failure – the laws of nature and the laws of God are unchangeable, as the Declaration alludes to)

      However, Sophie’s choice doesn’t relate to abortion. Sophie had to actually look at the 2 children she had given birth to, named, raised, fed, changed diapers, and pick between the two of them.

      For abortion, the parents are told, its not a living person, you’ll be better off, you’re helping this child by doing this…etc…at least that’s what people like Ayn say.

      Interestingly though, and this is a twist, in order for the Nazi’s to do what they did do the Jews, they legally classified them as ‘non-persons’ – if my history recollection serves. Abortion will only continue as long as the unborn are legally considered ‘non-persons’ – a comparison that should make one think about where they stand and who they may very well be inadvertently, and unintentionally, aligning themselves with.

      But then even this isn’t consistently applied – person if parents wants it, non-person if parents don’t…doesn’t make sense.

      • although one huge difference is hate, the nazi’s hated the jews. i don’t believe pro-choicer’s had children, or anyone for that matter just because they’re pro-choice.

      • But sometimes they get it right, or do they. France had to round up the Jews in their country without the help of the Germans. No easy task without a social security number system like we have here but they did it. Put them all in boxcars and shipped them to Auschwitz. Would be a cake walk to round up any ethnic group in this country. because of all the info we a required to give the government. The majority ruled then for sure. Think they got it right? I think it was under 100,000 though so no big thing unless you were one of them.

      • Josh, that is a good point. Pro-abortion supporters can never let the child be identified as such, it is just a clump of cells to be flushed. It is a non-person which means once we dehumanize it, we can dispose it.

        • Why sure we can. We seem to differ on the when. You are saying sometime before the kid gets the SS#. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, commonly known as “Laci and Conner’s Law” was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush on April 1, 2004, allowing two charges to be filed against someone who kills a pregnant mother (one for the mother and one for the fetus). It specifically bans charges against the mother and/or doctor relating to abortion procedures. Nevertheless, it has generated much controversy among pro-choice advocates. They view it as a potential step in the direction of banning abortion.

      • Josh:

        Thanks for at least giving the post some thought. These other guys are just playing word games.

        I agree that Sophie’s Choice is not equal to abortion. That was not my point. To some extent, it could be, however. If the woman has one child who does not have the material and emotional resources he deserves, then preventing those resources being cut in half for the living child is a consideration.

        But my real point was that the choice of having an abortion is not like choosing a pack of cigarettes. It is a life-shattering situation, as Billy has noted. I cannot believe how insulting these posters are to women to suggest that they would make the decision lightly. They don’t. Most women struggle with it, and anguish over it, maybe for the rest of their lives. And the fact that they feel that that is preferable to going through with the pregnancy is the point.

        Women are equally intelligent human beings, and if they make this “choice,” it is not without pain. Some men trivialize it because they are incapable of comprehending the immensity of the decision, and so they make it into a cartoon of self-righteous simpleton arguments.

        • Goethe

          “The immensity of the decision”

          You should re-read your post, Goethe. Your ENTIRE post puts into perspective the Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion “view” without actually saying what Abortion does.

          I bet it’s an “immense” decision. But you (and other Pro-Aborts) conveniently “leave out” the part as to WHY it’s an “immense” decision? Could it be that it’s perhaps too repugnant to put into words? Let me help you with that. Abortion “murders” a totally innocent and defenseless Human Being!

          • Goethe

            Perhaps “drilling down” into an abortion procedure (“the immense decision”) may provide all who read your posts with a “vivid” picture of what actually goes on. I realize Pro-Aborts would rather discuss Abortion from a subjective vantage point, but when the objective approach comes into the discussion, Abortion takes on a whole different mindset. In other words, this is what you’re advocating by saying what you’re NOT saying regarding the “immense decision” – and WHY it is such a “struggle” and provides so much anguish. It is, what it is!


            RU-486 is a drug that produces an abortion. It is taken after the mother misses her period. It can be used up to the second month of pregnancy. It works by blocking progesterone, a crucial hormone during pregnancy. Without progesterone, the uterine lining does not provide food, fluid and oxygen to the tiny developing baby. The baby cannot survive. A second drug is then given that stimulates the uterus to contract and the baby is expelled.

            Women who abort with the drug RU-486 experience nausea, severe cramping, vomiting and bleeding. But the resulting emotional distress may have even more impact. Rather than being “over with” in a few minutes (as in a surgical abortion) this abortion could last for over a week. Then, when the woman finally does abort, she will expel a tiny dead human being – her baby.


            In this method, the cervical muscle ring must be paralyzed and stretched open. The abortionist then inserts a hollow plastic tube with a knife-like edge into the uterus. The suction tears the baby’s body into pieces. The placenta is cut from the uterine wall and everything is sucked into a bottle.

            Dilation and Curettage (D and C)

            This is similar to a suction procedure except a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife is inserted into the uterus. The baby and placenta are cut into pieces and scraped out into a basin. Bleeding is usually very heavy with this method.

            Dilation and Evacuation (D and E)

            This type of abortion is done after the third month of pregnancy. The cervix must be dilated before the abortion. Usually Laminaria sticks are inserted into the cervix. These are made of sterilized seaweed that is compressed into thin sticks. When inserted, they absorb moisture and expand, thus enlarging the cervix. A pliers-like instrument is inserted through the cervix into the uterus. The abortionist then seizes a leg, arm or other part of the baby and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the body. This continues until only the head remains. Finally the skull is crushed and pulled out. The nurse must then reassemble the body parts to be sure that all of them were removed.

            Prostaglandin Abortion

            Prostaglandin is a hormone that induces labor. The baby usually dies from the trauma of the delivery. However, if the baby is old enough, it will be born alive. This is called a “complication.” To prevent this, some abortionists use ultrasound to guide them as they inject a “feticide” (a drug that kills the fetus) into the unborn baby’s heart. They then administer prostaglandin and a dead baby is delivered. This type of abortion is used in mid and late term pregnancies.

            Dilation and Extraction (D and X)

            This abortion is also used on mid and late term babies, from 4 to 9 months gestation. Ultrasound is used to identify how the unborn baby is facing in the womb. The abortionist inserts forceps through the cervical canal into the uterus and grasps one of the baby’s legs, positioning the baby feet first, face down (breech position). The child’s body is then pulled out of the birth canal except for the head which is too large to pass through the cervix. The baby is alive, and probably kicking and flailing his legs and arms.
            The abortionist hooks his fingers over the baby’s shoulders, holding the woman’s cervix away from the baby’s neck. He then jams blunt tipped surgical scissors into the base of the skull and spreads the tips apart to enlarge the wound. A suction catheter is inserted into the baby’s skull and the brain is sucked out. The skull collapses and the baby’s head passes easily through the cervix.

            Abortion is called a “CHOICE”. What is REALLY chosen is the killing of a Human Being. The methods differ but the results are the same – a dead baby. Even abortion supporters admit this. Dr. Malcom Watts, writing a pro-abortion piece for the California Medical Association said: “…it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.

            The result has been a “curious avoidance” of the scientific facts, which everyone really knows – that Human Life begins at conception and is “continuous” until death. The real question is not about “Choice.” It is whether we, as a civilization, have the correct moral conscious to kill over 4,000 of the “most innocent” Human Beings per day, for any reason whatsoever. And will we suffer consequences by making the wrong decision?

            Sometimes, we need to see “Graphic” pictures or to read about an Abortion Procedure to FULLY UNDERSTAND the “immense decision”, as you say. Graphic pictures are appropriate, so long as the pictures are TRUE. And if they are TRUE – I think they should be admitted as EVIDENCE. And in the quest, for the “Socratic” quest for Truth, NONE of the EVIDENCE should be “filtered”, because we may find it “personally” repugnant.

            “If something is so HORRIBLE that we can’t stand to look at it, then perhaps we should NOT be tolerating it!

            • DT:

              As noted elsewhere, there are reasons why some people are so fanatically anti-choice.

              But to the issue. All your blathering about how bad abortion is is just preaching to the choir.

              Have you found anyone who has said that abortion is a good thing?

              If you allow ANY exception for abortion, you are a TOTAL hypocrite. Likewise if you love war and the death penalty.

              But back to the issue, NO ONE wants abortion. NOBODY likes abortion. And you don’t have to rant about it, because nobody is arguing the point.

              The point is, despite how horrible it is, some women (half as many as in 1980, by the way) find themselves in situations that they consider WORSE than abortion. The WILL have the horrible procedure. And you don’t seem to care that they will die, too.

            • Goethe

              I’m not ranting. I’m calmly giving you some scientific, philosophical and genetic reasons why abortion is a “wrong” choice. If you can’t deal with it, I’m sorry. It is, what it is.

              And yes. Abortion is a “horrible” procedure, but WHY is it so horrible, Goethe? You seem to want to dodge the question. What is it which is being aborted and killed? A fish? A frog? Or a totally innocent defenseless developing Human Being?

            • DT:

              Oh, excuse me, professor.

              I don’t have to discuss the abortion procedure because I am ceding the point. I will stipulate that abortion is a horrible thing.

              Now YOU answer me:

              Do you know anyone–personally–in the real world–who has had to face this issue personally?

              You can pontificate all you want about something being wrong, but if YOU are not the one facing the problem, it’s just blather.

              Billy and I have had direct contact. We have seen what a horrible choice it is. And you’re standing back, spouting platitudes.

              Look through the 230 plus comments. PLEASE find ONE place where either Billy or I said abortion was just SWELL. You won’t find it, and it is disingenuous of you and Nate to pretend that’s what this discussion is about. It is about the situation that BRINGS ABOUT the horrible thing, the fact that it will happen no matter how many laws you pass, and you are not paying any attention at all to the woman or the born, unwanted child.

              Billy and I are saying it’s a horrible thing, and neither of us will EVER get one. Satisfied?

              But again, answer whether YOU have had ANY direct contact with someone in the situation. Otherwise, you have no standing on this issue.

            • Goethe

              Abortion is a “horrible” thing – but WHY is it so horrible, Goethe? WHY? You can “stipulate” all you want, but you seem to “dance around” the question. Nothing new. I’ve debated many Pro-Aborts in my day.

              You play these “word games” by saying I’m pontificating. Do you even know what that word means? I’m giving you a Scientific and Philosophical approach to this debate – and RIGHT AWAY, because you disagree with me – I’m pompous, sanctimonious and spouting platitudes. Again, that’s what Pro-Aborts do. They attack the “person” rather than attack the argument.

              If the Scientific and Biological EVIDENCE bothers you – and this “sound” Pro-Life Philosophical REASONING makes you uncomfortable – then I’m sorry for you. You can call me all the names you want. To me, it’s not about taking people’s choices away. It’s providing an intellectual discussion on what “Choice” means – and what the choice of Abortion will do. (which is something you dodge)

              The answers to 2 Questions will “Trump” all other considerations in the Abortion Debate:

              1) What is it?

              2) Can I kill it?

            • DT:

              Kiss me, kiss me, kiss me!!

              I find it so “manly” that you keep demanding that I explain what I’ve already conceded, but you won’t answer ANY of my questions.

              For instance, do you have ANY direct contact with ANYONE who has gone through a crisis involving abortion? If not, you simply do NOT know what we’re talking about. And can’t.

            • Goethe

              I believe I’ve already answered that with a predicate question. If I did or if I didn’t have any contact with a woman contemplating Abortion, does that make the Person-in-the-Womb any LESS of a Human Being?

              And the answer is?………

            • DT:

              No, but it makes you someone who is incapable of evaluating the situation honestly.
              And therefore, you have no right to argue the point.

            • Gee Goethe

              I wonder if any of the Supreme Court Justices fit the same criteria. Perhaps we should get rid of Roe vs. Wade. After all, Roe vs. Wade was decided by 7 out of 9 MEN!

              And while we’re at it, all “MALE” Pro-Choice attorneys need to QUIT! NOW! How could they “personally experience” Abortion?

              Abortion is NOT a Gender Issue – it’s a Human Rights Issue!

              What’s more “telling”, Goethe, is that you selectively “leave out” the aborted person in all your diatribes. The Abortion ACT involves 2 Bodies – The mother and the person-in-the-womb.

            • DT:

              In your diatribes, you leave out the Woman altogether. All you do is condemn her, both verbally, and to a life she has decided she cannot live.

              And, likewise, in your diatribes, you have never mentioned the post-birth unwanted fetus.

              In my discussions, I have repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly said that nobody wants abortion, and it’s a horrible thing, and in a perfect world, we would have none.

              BUT, in all your volumes of saying the same thing over and over and over and over, you have kept saying the same things over and over and over and over–and have not strayed to consider what we do NOT agree upon–and that is that the woman has value, the woman has intelligence, and what happens to her matters.

              And likewise, in all your volumes, you have not offered an iota of a hint of a thought of a possibility that it matters that an unwanted child–dare I say–sometimes WOULD be better off if it had never been born.

              If a woman hates the pregnancy so much that she would have an abortion, do you really think she’s going to love that child, just because YOU force her to carry it for many months?

            • Oh, the fetus only lives 50% of the time but I’ll bet if the taxpayers were willing to “invest” a few billion dollars we could get that number way down. A potential lot of bang for the buck here if we want to “save” “human life”.

            • Goethe

              Ummm… Post birth unwanted fetus? I believe you mean a newborn or an infant, don’t you? You really should collect your thoughts before you type, Goethe. You’re all over the map.

              You really like to put words in people’s mouths that you don’t agree with, don’t you? I’ve never “condemned” the woman. Never once. Because I disagree with the “choice” is not condemnation. Because I provide evidence as to the humanity of the person-in-the-womb is also not condemnation. Goethe, I believe you’re empathizing with the woman regarding some “guilt complex” YOU THINK she may feel. That’s on you! But never once did I “condemn” her. I’ve never said she was unintelligent or stupid or that she no value. That’s just YOU “attacking” the person you’re debating and not adressing the argument itself. Like I said before, that’s all you can do – and I understand that.

              But while I’m at it, Goethe – what makes you say that a woman who aborts her offspring “hates” it or “hates” the pregnancy? Those are “strong” words. Do you really believe that that’s the reason why a woman has an abortion? Out of “Hatred”? Or is that just YOU saying that must be what she’s feeling? If it were true that she aborted her offspring out of “hatred”, then why would you say that the woman “anguishes” over it? Common sense tells us that she would feel NO remorse if she did it out of “hatred”, doesn’t it? Gee. And I thought YOU were the one who scoffed and falsely accused me of “reading the mind” of a woman contemplating an abortion. Shame on you…

              Goethe, I think you’re starting to become really transparent as to what you KNOW to be “right or wrong” concerning the abortion debate. You must be really wrestling with what I’ve said. Otherwise, you’d “drop” the conversation and go on your merry way. But that’s good that you’re engaged. It shows you have a moral compass.

              One more thing. I’ve noticed in your posts that you seem to “single-out” old white men. What’s with that? Why do you “attack” old white men, rather than “attack” the Argument? PRO-LIFE WOMEN say the SAME things I say, so singling out “old white men” is really silly. You should really try and focus on addressing the “Argument”, rather than “attacking” me by saying things which I never said. But I’ll say it again. Abortion is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, NOT a GENDER issue!

            • DT:


              Biff, I thought we were making ONE little step of progress, and you go back to the published talking points.

              The reason I used the term “post-birth fetus” [proving that I’m not using anyone’s script!] is that you have not shown ANY interest or compassion for the situation of a child whom the woman wanted to abort, but you prevented. You said “it” could be “managed,” and I asked how??

              And I used “hated” because YOU are the one who is saying it’s murder, and if I remember my catechism correctly, you are supposed to love even your enemies, so if the woman is so desperate to end the pregnancy, are you saying she is–what–simply mindless? Insane? Incapable of understanding why she’s fat? A child who simply needs daddy to explain it to her?

              One doesn’t end a pregnancy because she likes it. It’s a big decision (“choice”), and if she makes such a drastic decision, how can you not say that she hated the fact that she was pregnant? I mean seriously, Biff, take your eyes off your talking points for at least a minute.

            • Now I am confused. The one who commits the murder(doctor) is okay. The one who conspires to start the wheels in motion for the murder (the would be mother) is okay but it’s only the victim that we are concerned with. (the fetus). Can the estate of the fetus sue in civil court for wrongful death?

            • Billy:

              No, the talking points are that the doctor is bad. That’s why “pro-lifers” kill them.

              The woman is not “ok.” She is, of course, just a woman, so they know that she needs to be controlled and directed because she is incapable of being educated. You don’t punish the incompetent, silly.

            • Now you are hitting close to home. I got one like that, LOL My GED looks like a PHD compared to what she has. But it’s easy to love someone that’s nice to you and that she is.

            • That’s the best part of it, yes and she has one foot in the grave with a beautiful house that’s paid for and no kids. No I haven’t asked, what happens to the house when she goes. If I did, I might be the first to go, LOL.

            • Billy:

              Hmmm. . .one foot in the grave.

              That mans no noisy, smelly, expensive problems to deal with!

              Have her call me: 1-269-555-3467.


            • The sister is smart and she would see through me like a plate glass window so I keep a very safe distance and never ask how she is doing or the GF would tell her “Billy asked about you, wasn’t that sweet of him” ……… goose would then be cooked.

            • NO but it doesn’t make it any more of a human being either and the SC doesn’t consider it a human being so long as the doctor kills it with the woman’s permission. Now without the permission it’s murder. Typical SC decision, just wish I had the education to understand anything they hand down. With all the 5-4 decisions I don’t think they understand themselves.

            • Billy:

              I guess that’s really the answer to this quagmire,
              whether they like it or not:

              You can tell us what God sprach to thee all you want,
              but the letter of the law in the United States,
              is that an abortion is not killing a “person.”

            • DT:

              OK, Biff. I’ll answer if you will.

              (1) It’s a fetus, silly.
              (2) No, you may not.

              Now then, do YOU have ANY real-world direct experience of what a woman’s crisis is like? You tacitly agreed that you do not. But I’d like to hear it directly from you, and why then, you feel that you somehow “know” the woman’s mind.

            • With you on 1, but 2 ? ? ? Okay I can’t kill it but the doctor can with the woman’s permission. (And 3-5 hundred dollars.)

            • Billy:

              Actually, I thought afterward that I should have given him a Bill Clinton answer:

              Do you mean “may” I kill it or “can” I kill it?

              For “may” the answer would be no, since he’s not licensed to perform a medical procedure.

              For “can,” I suppose the answer would be, “if you think you’re man enough.”

            • Easy questions that have been answered millions of times. A fetus, and yes you can kill it here in this country. Even in places where it is illegal, nothing will happen to you for the most part. A few countries do come down hard on the practice but very few.

            • LOL, I get told that all the time (no standing) when I tell people I only voted like for 4 or 5 people on the ballot of an election because I don’t know that much about the other 25 or more. Guess being a slow reader I fall way behind all the experts who cast their votes with an informed exercise of discretion.

            • So for the sake of argument I totally agree it is the killing of a human being and totally against the sixth commandment of God. But it isn’t against man’s law in this country and in countries that it is against man’s law it makes little difference. MOOT

            • Guess that’s pro choice too, you can live with the kid you never wanted or you can die trying to get rid of it before it is born ?

          • Yeah but the stats clearly show that outlawing it does as much good as prohibition did. Oh it creates or should I say shifts jobs from the Doctors to the quacks in back allies.
            The number performed will remain about the same. The cost to the taxpayer, as it did during prohibition will increase big time. Why can you not see the forest through the trees? If you get everything you want things will be worse than they are now. Just show me the stats and make me a believer. Many other countries have outlawed abortion but they still go on at the same level as before. Where is the money in outlawing it?

            • Abortion rates were lowest in Western Europe – 12 per 1,000 – and highest in Eastern Europe – 43 per 1,000. The rate in North America was 19 per 1,000. Sedgh said she and colleagues found a link between higher abortion rates and regions with more restrictive legislation, such as in Latin America and Africa. They also found that 95 to 97 percent of abortions in those regions were unsafe.

              Come on now, you can google it in just as easy as I can.

        • I sill have not figured who is behind the this issue. There is money in abortions yes but the is a lot more money if the kid is born. Is as often the case the woman has five already living on welfare and her to oldest 2 boys are in jail. Her 14 year daughter is knocked up and the 10 year old is doing good at some special school. The 4 year old is in a free city run day cars so mama can look for a job. This is her 3rd trip to the clinic. Now that is some real money being spent.

          • to be honest, its about the money and the life the parents will have without the child. As Ayn Rand clearly stated:

            “….parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs.”

            • Not if they are on welfare. It cost you nothing and you get the same amount of food stamps for the baby as for yourself. Food stamps can be converted into cash real easy.

            • we’re talking about this at a broader level though, there will always be exceptions to a generality. like there are lots of people who get abortion because they want to graduate college – thinking they can’t party, study, and parent all at the same time. or how about the possibility of the rich lady and the pool guy? or the rich man and the lady who delivers the mail. Following the money trail that’s where it leads…self preservation.

              To be honest, i don’t think you have to be a woman to understand this. Its an issue about parenting, not pregnancy. Men understand parenting just as well as women. It is parenting people are wanting to avoid, not pregnancy. Like a cold, pregnancy runs its course – granted a much longer course, but still it will run its course and the woman will be just fine afterwards. Just ask the billions of women who’ve done it – there are billions of people on the earth and it took billions of women to birth them (and billions of men to conceive them).

            • Stats just don’t back you up. Yeah so far as Japan, but Kenya & Peru tends to deflate your theory.

            • we’re not talking Pinky and the Brain here, just American stats, here are american stats:

              Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions;
              Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%;
              Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%;
              Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

              Looks like over 50% of abortions are above poverty rate. Amazing stat is the 30K-60K, the highest rate in that range. i guess this is the ‘we’re dreaming for more, and this is getting in the way crowd’

              here’s the site:

              All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Perspectives.

            • Friend you just made my case. Most people live above the poverty level. So you are telling me that 13% of the people get 30% of the abortions. Yeah that figures. So long as there is a demand there will be a supply. I would suggest you fight the demand side to get the most bang for the buck.

            • Billy:


              Because abortions WILL occur, regardless of what laws old white men write (how’s that “war on drugs” going for you?), having choosing to have an abortion is a matter of libertarian individual rights.

              There are situations and circumstances that force women to have abortions–and as you have noted, it’s a life-long problem, not a flippant whim.

              SO–what are the emotional and other reasons WHY women are forced to choose an abortion, instead? What can be done to reduce the demand? Instead of playing games with the supply. . .

              Apparently, these “pro-life” advocates only care about stopping abortion–not the life of the woman; not the life of the BORN child.

            • Josh:

              Surprising numbers.

              Rich women don’t get “abortions.” They can afford “miscarriages.”

              And so, you’re saying more affluent, and therefore, more likely better educated women get most of the abortions.

              Yet, you don’t trust them to make a decision. And also, if more affluent women are in favor of abortion rights, isn’t it possible that they are smarter than you?

            • Now you introduce the stereotype. Rich women just don’t make those kinds of mistakes, poor women don’t care about what my father, whom they never met, will think.

          • Billy:

            This has been such a long thread that maybe you used my postulation:


            I have wondered the same thing. I even asked someone if poor people abort at a higher rate than the more well-to-do, and she said no, there is little difference.

            On the other hand, I think middle-class women would be more effected by a ban. They are not rich enough to go abroad, like their richer counterparts, and they are less likely to be desperate enough to go to a back-alley butcher. So I think a ban would force the more middle-class women to go to term.

            So that brings up the question of why the government would want to swell the welfare rolls. That seems counter-intuitive. But here is the answer: while individuals get “welfare,” much more money goes into “corporate welfare.”

            And here’s how it works:
            (1) Having more children stretches finances and keeps poor people poor.
            (2) Keeping people on welfare makes the state more important.
            (3) Having more poor people increases the workforce pool, making jobs scarce and keeping wages low for corporations.
            (4) People sitting at home without jobs does not stop them from eating highly processed junkfood crap that is so profitable for those same corporations.
            (5) And, of course, all those fat people–who are malnourished–end up in the emergency room, running up big tabs to pay the medical-industrial complex (and make your next hospital aspirin cost $90).

            So, the “money” you’re looking for is in maximizing the rich-get-richer/poor-get-poorer system, reducing wages, and maximizing profits–your tax dollars at work!

            • But if the middle class have less and the amount remains the same than some class has to have more. The GOP wants it abolished and the Democrats want the government to pay for it but either way the number remains the same. Oh, we create a lucrative illegal trade here for sure and kill a lot of women so the lawyers will make out big time and we build more jails and the more laws we have the more we need government to enforce them but why don’t the Democrats see it that way. Ah, because the vote isn’t there like it would be with the GOP.

    • Goethe,

      I appreciate you continuing this discussion civilly.

      The bottom line for me is that there is no choice because there is no question that inside the womb is a living human child with a beating heart that deserves protection under the law the same way you and I receive protection under the law.

      You don’t choose to kill the child because it is inconvenient. You and I are not on the same page on whether the unborn child deserves any protection which means we have agreed to disagree.

      I believe the child deserves protection as a human being. Therefore, I don’t see a choice there, I see two people to protect. The child and the mother. Abortions kill children and cause permanent emotional/physical damage to women, sometimes death. There is no good which comes from that evil.

      You and I are on different planets on this issue, which is fine, but I am not able to give an inch toward your position because it is diametrically opposed to what I believe which is that unborn babies are people too and are not disposable at our choosing. Every life is precious.

      You don’t appear, at least from your discussion posts, to believe that unborn babies should be given any such consideration. Therefore, you see the “choice” to kill them as a viable option. That is your opinion but not something I can even remotely agree with.

      This debate is simple. Either it is a human being in the womb, or just a clump of cells like a wart. If you believe the latter, then abortion is just fine! The more the merrier. However, if you believe otherwise, then your heart weeps for the lives that were snuffed out before they even had a chance.

      • Nate

        I agree. The question needs to be answered – “What is IT that is in the womb?”

        When someone says “I DON’T KNOW if the fetus is human, but I think abortion should be legal anyway” I think that is an inadequate response. What would we think of a structural engineer, who blew up an old building, without making sure there was NO Human Life inside?

        What if he said “I DON’T KNOW if there is any Human Life “inside” the building…and all I need be concerned with is the indisputable Human Life “outside” the building, so I’m going to blow the building up anyway.” We would think of him as VERY irresponsible, wouldn’t we?

        That’s exactly what some people say about Abortion. They say “I DON’T KNOW, if the entity in the womb is a Human Being, but I think it should be Legal anyway”

        What would we think of a game-hunter that shot at a rustling bush, without “making sure” there was NO Human Life inside. The “Common Sense” approach is that if you’re not sure, then you DON’T shoot!

        If we’re NOT SURE if the entities are “individual” Human Beings, then the RESPONSIBLE logic or common sense approach would be NOT to Kill it! Until we KNOW what it is, then we shouldn’t kill it. This is the crux of the Abortion Debate – “WHAT is the UNBORN”?

        According to Science, Philosophy and Genetics, we are INDIVIDUAL Human Beings from Conception. We didn’t COME FROM a Zygote – we ONCE WERE a Zygote. We didn’t EVOLVE from a Fetus – we ONCE WERE a Fetus.

        This “PRO-LIFE” position is BOTH Scientifically and Philosophically SOUND.

        • The question has been asked and answered a number of times. The SC consists of the finest judges money can buy. I take it you don’t always go along with their decisions?
          And look at the compromise the Presidents have given you. (Murder if you of I kill it but okay for the doctor with mother’s permission.)

      • Nate: Sorry for the late reply. I have been working a lot, so I only took time to trash Willard, which doesn’t require any effort. But now that we see that there’s no one interested in defending him, I’ll come back to this topic.

        No, I agree that abortion is a horrible thing. NOBODY says that abortion, per se, is a wonderful thing.

        Where we differ is that you say it’s a SIMPLE issue. It is only “simple” if the lives of human beings don’t matter. If you reduce it to a question of “is birth a good thing,” then there is no argument at all.

        My daughter was born at TWO pounds, ONE ounce. Now, I know that my honesty and candidness will be used against me. When I described the incident that turned me against abortion laws, I was totally ignored. When I described a “choice” I thought was equal in intensity (although it was different), I was ridiculed. When I mentioned my experience with unwanted pregnancy, my words were twisted. But this is my daughter I’m talking about now. And I use it to express my gratitude that extreme measures were take to save her life.

        So can we PLEASE end this insult that I don’t consider the importance of the fetus? Can we end that insult?

        Nobody is saying abortion is a good thing, and in a perfect world, it should NEVER happen. And so, I say that the ultimate hypocrite is someone who takes your stand–that abortion is ALWAYS wrong–but then they become “pro-choice” by making their OWN choice of when it is acceptable. If we’re talking life-and-death as the ONLY consideration, then it shouldn’t matter if the woman was raped, even by a Klingon. It shouldn’t matter if daddy did it, or a gang of criminals. If you only want to look at the life-and-death issue, the ONLY acceptable abortion is if we KNOW for an undisputed fact that the woman will die. Then the “choice” is between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus.

        I have respect for people who allow NO exemptions. Then it really IS an argument between “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” Because the “pro-life” person is not making a lot of choices. Of course, I would only fully respect a “pro-life” person if that person is also against war, the death penalty, and any “choice” of one man deciding another. And if a person is REALLY “pro-life” they should also be against the slaughter of innocent cattle and chickens and fish. They have lives, too.

        I can fully respect a “pro-life” person who is against ending ANY life. But most “pro-life” people CHOOSE all kinds of exceptions. And that makes their “pro-life” stance a lie.

        Let’s stop there, since it’s an important, clear point.

        • So pro life means they chose and pro choice means you chose. Requires a lot of thought, okay I’m pro choice.

          Oh the GOP platform on said issue is abstinence. Here we go again with the laws of nature vs the laws of man.

      • Nate:

        OK. Now that we have defined “pro-life” as “not kinda,” let’s move onto the next issue.

        The problem with anti-abortion people is that they ONLY consider the fetus. They do NOT care about the woman, and they do NOT care about the fetus after it becomes a child.

        I have brought that up many times on this thread, and nobody even cares enough to comment. I mean, it’s like the woman is just an egg dispenser, and it’s ok if the child dies, just as long as it’s AFTER birth.

        Let’s focus on the woman.
        You gave us this link:

        You don’t say whether the woman who died during the abortion is a good thing or not. I must assume that you’re trying to use it as an anti-abortion point. BUT if that is your point, please explain this:

        If the death of the woman is a horrible thing (and it is),
        doesn’t it tell you something that a death at a clinic is
        such an anomaly that it’s a NEWS story??
        If a woman can die during an abortion with all the medical and equipment right there,
        do you really want to send poor and middle-class women back to back-alley butchers?

        As Billy has said, abortion has been around as long as humans knew what a big belly means. You are NOT going to stop abortions.

        Let’s look at what the “grand experiment” of alcohol prohibition gave us:
        (1) Organized crime
        (2) Deaths of people who drank wood alcohol
        (3) Deaths of victims of drive-by shootings
        (4) Corruption of public officials
        (5) Loss of tax income
        (6) Expense of enforcement
        (7) Lots of incarceration
        And a lot more.

        If you enforce prohibition of abortion, you’ll have dead women who had no safe place to go, you’ll have doctors thrown in jail for trying to help desperate women, you’ll have women forced to become involved with unsavory people.

        You have offered NO answers to the desperation that women feel that leads them to abortion. You insult women by suggesting that they look at their fetus as a “wart.” They do not.

        As Billy said, the decision to have an abortion is a life-shattering event. And the fact that that was LESS of a life shattering event than going through with the pregnancy–in her mind–is another thing you “choose” to ignore.

        What about the life of the woman? What about the intelligence of the woman? What about the rights of a woman?

        You have not given ANY respect or consideration to a woman who is so desperate that she chooses this solution. What is YOUR solution?

        • Mistakes take a while to correct. Prohibition took 14 years and the 55 MPH speed limit took 20. Red light cameras (1993)- (2012) ……….The 2nd largest city in the US pulled the plug on them but other cities are still putting them up ? ? ? But this is nothing new as I remember they were building low income high rise bldgs in Chicago while at the same time St. Louis was hitting them with the wrecking ball. (Chicago followed with the wrecking ball just a few years after the last one was completed. Just can’t learn from someone else, can they?

          • Billy:

            Some people just LOVE putting restrictions and regulations on OTHER people.

            You had I have had direct contact on this issue. It’s clear that these other guys have not.

  22. Nate:

    And what about the child?

    You want to force all women to carry unwanted, maybe despised fetuses to term. I mean, seriously, if a woman hates a fetus so much that she wants to abort it, do you really think she’s going to be like Beaver Cleaver’s mom after the forced birth?

    Unwanted, unloved children often become twisted adults. Just throw them in jail, right? And if they commit a violent crime, what you want to do is KILL them when they’re 17 rather than when the desperate woman wanted to prevent the whole situation.

    Again, you have offered no solution to the desperation of the woman who would choose such a thing.

    AND you have refused to consider any solution to the hated children you forced into the world.

      • Billy:

        That’s true. If you are really DYING to pay taxes, just outlaw something. And if you outlaw this one, you are going to employ half the population, in one way or another.

        • Nothing would grow government faster than this one as we are dealing with human life here. The Feds could run the presses 24/7 to “pay” for the program so no problem getting the money.

  23. Nate:

    This topic has 230 responses (so far). And this is the topic that Willard is trying to run away from.

    Mittney’s video got 19–negative responses
    Condy got 19
    Rules got 10
    Nominated got 7
    Convention got 11

    Abortion got up to THIRTY-THREE times as many comments–and people took a lot of time on this topic.

    Yet, the GOP platform agrees with precisely SEVENTEEN percent of the American Public on abortion.

  24. Portion of the Hippocratic Oath taken by REAL Physicians with Integrity.

    “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art…

    • DT:

      Nice try, Biff. But the version you cite is obsolete. Out of 126 medical schools in the U.S. only THREE (that’s 3) use the quaint and silly version you quote. That’s a little over TWO PERCENT of doctors. THIRTY-THREE use the “Declaration of Geneva” version, and the rest use some other modernized version.

      The only you quote only works if you believe in ancient Greek religion, saying, “I swear by Apollo. . .and all the gods and goddesses.”

      It also says the doctor must consider his teacher EQUAL to his parents–and you’re honor-bound to give him money if he ever needs it. And to teach his kids without fee.

      “I will not use the knife.” That’s interesting.

      I went to the same site you did to find your version. Nice try.

    • DT:

      To be clear, THIS is the oath that the LARGEST number of doctors in the U.S. now take:

      The Declaration of Geneva, as currently amended, reads:


      I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;

      I WILL GIVE to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;

      I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity;

      THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;

      I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

      I WILL MAINTAIN by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;

      MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers;

      I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

      I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;

      I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

      I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

  25. Note to all:

    We are closing in on THREE-HUNDRED-FIFTY (350) comments about abortion. Fascinating. The convention topics got 7 comments, maybe 11.

    The GOP platform calls for NO exceptions to a federal (no state laws allowed!) ban on all abortions.

    Only 17$ of the American public agrees with that stand, and the number is still going down.

    AND, Willard has said, as he has all his life, he doesn’t care what the laws or rules say, he is NOT going to pay attention to the platform on this and other issues. And Prettyboy Ryan has agreed to bend his principles to Willard’s liking.

    That’s where we stand, folks.

    Youse guys who are so adamantly against abortion really should realize that Willard is going to leave you “twisting slowly, slowly in the wind,” and if you really do have any moral stand on the issue, Ron Paul is the only way you can go in November.


  26. PLANNED PARENTHOOD, America’s Leading Abortion Provider, published an article that said this:

    “Babies are LOUD, SMELLY, and EXPENSIVE “unless” you WANT ONE.”

    The Logic being, if the Child is “WANTED” it’s a Human Being. If the Child is “UNWANTED” it’s nothing but mere “Uterine Material”.

    “Philosophically”, this article makes absolutely NO Sense.

    If you look at the Philosophical “Differences” by COMPARING a “newborn” with a “Person-in-the-Womb” – you will find ONLY 4 “Differences” – NONE of which are Morally Relevant to DISQUALIFY the Person-in-the-Womb as being FULLY Human.

    1) Size
    2) Level of Development
    3) Environment
    4) Degree of Dependency…

    1) SIZE Yes, it’s TRUE – the Person-in-the Womb is “SMALLER” than the newborn. But since when does “size” have anything to do with the RIGHTS that people have? MEN, are generally LARGER than WOMEN. Does that mean men have MORE rights? (I wonder what the ladies think of that?) Is Shaquile O’Neal MORE of a person than Barbara Boxer, simply because he is LARGER? I don’t think so.

    2) LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT Yes, it’s TRUE – the Person-in-the-Womb is “LESS DEVELOPED” than a newborn – but does that matter? A 4 year old girl is less developed than a 22 year old college co-ed. But does that mean that the 4 year old is LESS HUMAN than the co-ed – simply because she hasn’t yet “developed” her Reproductive System? We think of BOTH of them as being EQUALLY Human. Don’t we?

    3) ENVIRONMENT Yes. The Person-in-the-Womb is in a different “LOCATION” than the newborn. But again, does that matter? WHERE you are, has NO bearing, on WHO you are. Did YOU stop being YOU, because you went from one location to another location? Did that “change” in location affect YOUR “status” of being a Human Being? Then, how can “LOCATION” matter? In other words, how is BIRTH the “magic moment”/b> to “become” Human? It really isn’t.

    If BIRTH is the “magic moment” when someone “legally” becomes a person, then the US Constitution would have to have it’s Preamble changed. The Preamble RECOGNIZES the People-in-the-Womb by it’s wording. Thus, the RIGHTS of our Constitution is specifically laid out to ourselves AND to our “Posterity”. (those who have yet to be born)

    Preamble >>> “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    4) DEGREE of DEPENDENCY Yes, it’s TRUE. The Person-in-the-Womb is “MORE DEPENDENT” than a newborn. But does that matter? If “Viability” is what makes us Human Beings – then all people, who “Depend” on insulin, heart pace makers, kidney machines, or ANYTHING to “sustain” their Life, would have to be declared “Non-Persons”, along with the Fetus. Why? Because they would be NOT be “Viable” either.

    Is an astronaut “viable” when he/she is in space? Not “outside” of his/her spacesuit, they’re not. Do they become NON-HUMAN or NON-PERSONS in space? I don’t think so.

    The Fetus in the womb IS Viable – right where it is. It “belongs” there – NATURALLY! Thus, “Induced” Abortion is the UNNATURAL ACT of “deliberately” killing an “individual” Human Being while in the womb, making it non-viable by “force”. Ergo – the only “forcing” which can be done during a Pregnancy – is Abortion.

    The “Philosophical” argument (debate) is to determine whether or not the person-in-the-womb is a Human Being who deserves the SAME RIGHTS and PROTECTIONS as you and I. This can only be accomplished by “comparing” a newborn (who has these Rights) to the person-in-the-womb (who does NOT have these Rights). To just “assume” that the developing people-in-the-womb are NOT “already” FULLY Human, who deserve these same Rights and Protections while IN the womb – but do not – is just plain “lazy” and thoughtless logic – which compounds the callous disregard for Human Life our society has put forth to all the generations since Roe vs. Wade.

    • The would be mother give the kid rights, it’s her call up until the kid comes down the chute for the most part. The kid is given an Auschwitz number (aka SS#) before he leaves the hospital and at that point in time the government becomes the controlling partner.

    • DT:


      We have already stipulated that abortion is bad.
      Are you willing to stipulate that it’s unavoidable?

      Let me tell ya, Biff. Planned Parenthood is WRONG.##################

      I’ve had two, and I can tell you that


      The difference is that if you want them, the experience is bearable, even enjoyable.

      Now, then, are we EVER going to get to the well-being of the hated/unloved/abused/neglect/UNWANTED.

      You claimed that the problem could be “managed.” Obviously, you lied, since you refuse to explain this so-called “management.”

      • Gee, I though I answered that for him……….okay not 100% but how about something like 1 million dollars for every live birth in the USA. Talk about job creation big time and at far less cost than the government now spends for each new job created.

        Who would have an abortion if the kid was worth a cool million at birth. Oh many wouldn’t be worth a plug nickle a few days after but then the government takes over big time.

        So yeah, there is a solution to abortion, not 100% but it would put a big dent in it.

        • Billy:

          That would at least be an answer–which is not coming from elsewhere. Pay the woman to carry out the pregnancy and give birth.

          It would be a variation on surrogate motherhood–pay her for her expenses and opportunity cost. And your idea of giving a million bucks would cover the expense and opportunity cost of raising the child. Of course, we’d also have to pay social workers to check in on the woman, to make sure she is providing the good parenting we’re paying for.

          What would we pay the woman if she’s willing to carry, but not nurture?

          So the second part would be that we’d pay the woman the typical surrogate mother fee of $10,000 or $20,000 to endure he pregnancy. Then, if she doesn’t want the rest of the million, we’d have to give her the option to leave the baby at the nursery, right?

          THANK YOU, BILLY. Since DT is not willing or able to address the “management” that he says would solve all the problems, we’ll just have to consider HOW to make forced motherhood work.

          • Yeah but in the real world she is going to take out some settlement loan on the money long before the kid comes and she’ll be so deep in debt or high on drugs that the FEMA camps will have to be converted into massive round the clock day care centers.

            I got a much better idea. It ain’t fit for print but everyone I have run it by says no doubt it would work and absolutely nothing illegal about it.

            • Billy:

              Alas, you’re right.

              That fits the standard Bain Capital M.O.

              They would swoop in, promise her to “manager” her money, take a hundred thousand dollars for the first phone call.

              In order to get her to agree to the deal, they’d give her a hundred grand advance–like a payday loan.

              AS you say, she would blow it, thinking her life is going to be sweet.

              Bain would charge another $100k to make that deal, plus another $100k fee to write the check, another $100k fee to write the transaction into their checkbook register, another $100k fee to check the bank statement, to make sure the transaction went through.

              They would charge a $100k fee for accepting her check from the government, and another $100k fee to deposit it into the bank. Then a $100k fee to send her a statement, and a hundred thousand fee to mail it.

              At that point, their $100k retainer would come due.

              Suddenly, she’s $100k in debt to them. She gives them the $50,000 she has not yet spent, but they would sue anyway. She declares bankruptcy, and ends up with less than she started with.

              Only now, she has a noisy, smelly, expensive problem she didn’t have before. HAR.

              That sounds like a fantasy, but that really is pretty much how Willard got is dough.

        • Bily:

          We conceded and stipulated that abortion should NEVER happen–in a perfect world. So this discussion is NO LONGER about abortion. From here on, it’s about how to make forced motherhood work for the woman, and unwanted birth work for the child. How would DT’s “management” work?

          Paying the woman to carry, and paying the woman to nurture for 18 years is viable. So she would get $100,000 to be pregnant, which is a major drain on her body in addition to her emotions. Then, we give her $50,000 a year to nurture the child, and provide what the child needs. Yep. Eighteen years @ $50k plus $100k–yep, there’s your cool Mil. Solved. And she only gets $100k if she leaves the baby in the hospital.

          Now, then, there are about 800,000 abortions a year. So all we have to do is come up with $800 BILLION a year.

          The ironic thing is that $800 billion might even be a bargain, when you consider all the other expenses it would prevent, including medical oosts, and crime. And producing nurtured children would give us a relatively brilliant population of young people, who would solve all our other problems.

          But the problem is that this assumes that we could find women who need to have an abortion, and offer them the alternative. After it’s publicized, I suspect finding them would be no problem.

          But that brings up a new problem. If other women learn that they can get a million dollars for being a mother, ALL of the intended births would have to be covered, too. So now we’re talking about roughly, 5,500,000 births, or FIVE AND A HALF TRILLION BUCKS per year.

          No, wait, if I were a woman of childbearing age, I’d want to get in on that. The American population is 311 million, of those, let’s say 155 million are women, and of those, let’s say 90 million are of childbearing age. Let’s say only two-thirds go for the million. That’s 60 TRILLION DOLLARS. That’s pretty steep.

          Any other ideas of how we could “manage” a country with no abortions?

          • Isn’t that what government has always been used for, to force the masses into something the benefits the few? I would say it started big time in this country with the AMA. Around 1840 something. Oh it started before then but limited. The AMA was the first to declare “The World is not Enough” in this country for sure.

Comments are closed.