gadgetlady

There's an interesting nuance. The majority does not support abortion on demand through all 9 months of pregnancy, as is the current law of the land. The majority actually supports some pretty significant limitations on abortion. The stances are all over the lot (first trimester, second trimester, no abortion at all, only in cases of rape/incest/life of the mother, etc.). But as it currently stands in the opinion polls, the majority are not 100% in favor of abortion through all 9 months. We're also seeing a trend towards more and more youth being more and more pro-life, so as time goes on the numbers wanting abortion to be illegal grows.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth. It really did sound like you agreed with the current legal situation. So where do you stand on the issue?

For more information on Personhood Amendments, go to Welcome to Personhood USA | Personhood USA | Pro-Life. Currently North Dakota and Montana are well on their way to passing these amendments. It has passed the senate in Montana and the house in North Dakota.

They survive earlier and earlier as time goes on. Yet Tiller, the famous late-term abortionist in Kansas, throwing all logic and reason to the wind for the sake of financial profit, basically says viability "is in the eye of the beholder." I don't agree with this idea. Because the majority can, and often are, wrong. Mob rule is not the answer. Suppose the majority voted for killing everyone with blue eyes? In the case of abortion, a fundamental right (life!) is at stake and shouldn't be able to be voted in or out. Along those lines, several states are no bringing forth "Personhood Amendments" to their constitution, establishing that personhood, membership to the human race, begins at conception. This will hopefully work its way up the courts to tackle what's known as the "Blackmun hole" in Roe. Justice Blackmun, in the majority opinion on Roe, said that if the personhood of the unborn could be established, abortion should not be tolerated for any reason. Since the science of fetology has come a long way since 1973, this issue is finally being addressed.

So what you're saying is that it is reasonable that the only "proper" way to kill an unborn baby is clinically? That if it's done this way, it's acceptable, but another way (a mother falling down on something to facilitate her own abortion) is murder? Do you see the logical inconsistency here? If "it" is her body, then if she chooses to attempt her own abortion without the help of an abortionist, why should this be murder? Or, conversely, why is it not murder if she gets assistance? Try to step away from the whole emotional and experiential component of abortion and think this through from a logical standpoint. Do you see why there are problems here?

The laws vary by state. In California (of all places!), a man who kills a pregnant mother, even if she doesn't yet know she's pregnant (i.e. first trimester), is held accountable for two murders. Case law on this are the 1999 murders of a pregnant mother and first trimester child by a man named Howard Taylor.

But the baby is not her body. He or she is just living there temporarily. Scenario 1: a man kicks a pregnant mother in the stomach repeatedly and causes the unborn baby to die. He can be charged with murder. But the mother's not dead, so you have to ask the question: who did he murder? Clearly, he murdered the baby. So the baby wasn't her body, but another body, another person in his or her own right. Scenario 2: the mother does the same thing to the baby that the man did above (that is, kill him or her) and yet not be held responsible at all. In Scenario 1, the baby has a right to live and someone taking away that right is responsible for killing him or her. In Scenario 2, the baby doesn't have a right to live and the someone taking away that right (the mother) isn't responsible for killing him or her. What's the difference between the two scenarios? The baby isn't any different at all. The difference in whether or not the baby has the "right" to live is 100% in the mind of the mother. If she decides he's a person, he's a person. If she decides he's not, he's not. That's social injustice of the worst sort, when one person determines the value of another to the point of death.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying here, but the bumper sticker combination that always amazes me is "Keep abortion safe and legal" combined with "Save the whales". Things that make you go hmmmm.

It's a fascinating argument, really. If the unborn baby had zero rights prior to birth (as is evidenced by current abortion laws), can the prison be held responsible for something that happened to her during the time she had zero rights? It actually exposes the dichotomy of abortion on many levels. The killer of a pregnant mother can be liable for two murders, yet if a mother has an abortion, she is not liable for the killing of the baby alone. A mother can freely seek an abortion at any time and not be held liable, but if a doctor performs an abortion on her without her consent, he is liable for the baby's murder. If a mother wants an abortion and the father does not, he has no rights. But if the father wants an abortion and the mother does not, he also has no rights and is on the hook for child support. The problem that exists with all of these and other obvious dichotomies is that the value of the baby is determined solely based on what's in the mother's mind. If she decides the baby is a human being, poof, he is a human being. If she decides he is not, he has no rights whatsoever. There are only two people there if she decides there are two people there. Why should we legally rely on another person's mental validation for us to exist?

By the time a woman finds out she's pregnant, the baby's heart is beating. That's not a "simple fertilized egg". And the baby is a "living, breathing human being" prior to birth -- in fact, the baby breathes amniotic fluid beginning in the second trimester (abortion, of course being legal long beyond that, through all 9 months of pregnancy). There are ultrasounds done during abortions that show the baby trying to get out of the way of the abortionist's tools (forceps, suction machine, etc.). In the case of abortion, the mother is a jury of one and the penalty is death.

Interestingly, that is precisely why pro-lifers are against abortion.

I think it's pretty obvious who makes it personal and shows a lack of respect here. I find it interesting that you accuse me of thinking I'm right, when you believe you're right as well. There's really no difference. Unless you want to change sides because you don't think you're right anymore

I'm saying that there is a distinction in the law (and in the Bible) between killing and murder (that's why we have degrees of homicide and also manslaughter). There can be good arguments made that there are situations where killing is justified (e.g. killing someone in self-defense). I'm not making that argument specifically about capital punishment; I'm simply drawing the distinction between different types of killing.

Although I do not believe in capital punishment, I think there is a big distinction between killing and murder. Assuming we're talking biblically, since in this post you're talking about God and Jesus, there is a general belief that the commandment doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill" but rather "Thou shalt not murder." The verb used is the Hebrew ratsah, which translates to murder and refers to criminal acts of killing, and more specifically human beings. The verb for the generic "kill" is a different verb.

The point is not to engage in personal attacks. What you do is try to disguise them. You pretend (or perhaps you really believe) not to attack by taking something someone said, putting it in quotes but not attributing it to them, attacking them as stupid, and then innocently saying that you didn't include their name in the attack and therefore it's not personal. Sorry if you feel like I'm angry. I like to address specifically what someone's said so there's no confusion about what I'm talking about. Anyway, I don't really care if you continue to do what you've done in the past. I will, however, continue to point it out.

Thank you Carrie. I appreciate that. I believe it is possible to have a rational discussion and understand each other's opinions without name calling. I believe, also, that you probably didn't recognize those were my words in quotes when you commented on my statement. Now, that being said, I agree with you that it is unlikely that teens will stop having sex! I just don't agree that an organization which provides the backup to failed contraception, i.e. abortion, is the best organization to be giving them information. Because clearly, their stranglehold on the dispensation of such information hasn't been successful over the past 30 years. STDs, sexual activity, abortion, etc. have all increased. Are they the sole cause? Not wholly. But are they a part of it? I believe so. And with that, I am really hoping I can walk away from this because I don't have the time today.

Do you really, really want to get into the history of Planned Parenthood? Because Margaret Sanger is the poster child for racism, eugenics, and all sorts of other wonderful crowd-pleasing beliefs. We can go there if you want.

Well, considering you quoted something I had just said, it's not an unreasonable assumption. Of course, you put it in quotes rather than replying to it with my name attached, so I'm pretty sure you wanted to hide the fact that it was from me. It's a bit transparent and you're not fooling anyone, but whatever floats your boat.

I absolutely disagree, and again don't appreciate your calling something I've said, "stupid". It has recently been exposed that Planned Parenthood has repeatedly covered up child statutory rape, they have no problem accepting donations from people who have a stated goal of killing black babies, and the list goes on. This is no shining city on a hill. They are a for-profit organization that makes their money on abortions. And with that, I'm gone for a while. Have fun blasting pro-lifers. I noticed that no one commented on pattygreen's response to the request for her personal story about adopting special-needs children, even though the request for her to provide that information seemed to be in a thinly-veiled accusatory, unbelieving tone.

There you go again with the personal attacks. Right on cue.

Again, look at it from our perspective. They are an organization which kills people. I don't care how much supposed "good" they do; I don't support taxpayer funding of any "division" of an evil organization. Again, if the KKK had a division which, say, cleaned up debris from city streets, would you support public funding of that division "only"?

Inspiring, pattygreen. Thank you for posting this -- but mostly, thank you for doing this -- and putting your money where your mouth is.

The article was about public funding of contraception, not making it illegal. Big difference. I don't believe in public funding of tattoos, but I also don't think they should be illegal.

I have so many comments and no time today, so I'll just post few. Uh, no. There's a difference between opposing contraception and opposing public funding of contraception, especially when that public funding is received by the same groups who promote and provide abortion. The Guttmacher Institute is by no means non-partisan. It is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the main provider of abortion throughout the US. Pro-lifers are understandably opposed to the organization, as we believe it to be an organization that supports, encourages, and provides a killing service. Therefore, is it difficult to understand why we don't want public funding of a "different division" of Planned Parenthood? Would anyone here support public funding of the KKK, but only for the "educational branch" of the organization? I know that sounds extreme, but consider our position here. From our perspective, Planned Parenthood kills babies all over the country. Why would we want them coming into our schools, indoctrinating our children, and receiving public funding? This isn't an extreme stance at all.

Because I am not opposed to any barrier forms of birth control that simply block a new life from being conceived. What I am against is forms that interfere with that new life's development once conception has occurred. Tubal ligation's goal is not hormonal in that it doesn't have any effect on the lining of the uterus and therefore doesn't have the secondary effect of causing a "mini-abortion". Anyway, I'm done discussing birth control. I am not opposed to it (I use it myself) and believe very strongly in anything that prevents abortion, which is the destruction of a life already conceived. The whole portrayal of pro-lifers as against wasting any unjoined sperm and egg or believing that sex is only for reproduction is ridiculous.