What I said is no more offensive than Tims penis reference. Especially the shove it down everyone elses throat part.
Oh Tim ye of “little” faith.

TimL, I am against abortion and won’t have on. ( Or the woman I may imprgnate I should say.)
I am also against rape and will not rape any one. But according to your way of thinking if someone else rapes it shouldn”t be any of or business.
Your logic doesn’t work.

Jim, I think you’re the one who is logically challenged. Just to make it clear to you, if that is at all possible, I think rapists should get the death penalty. I dont believe a woman who has been raped should be forbidden to have an abortion: It is her decision. I would go out of my way anytime to assist a rape victim in anyway that I could. Furthermore, I fully support a woman’s right to make a choice when it comes to her body. After all if you can’t trust a woman with a choice, how can you trust her with a child?

So help me out here Tim. If it’s not our business if a Mother is choosing to kill her own baby, then we it is our own business when someone chooses to rape.
Is that what you are saying? So please help my challenged logic
It seems you want to pick and choose what to protect and defend.
So is it the just don’t do it logic, or the just don’t do it on some things?

Tim, i will never support your right to murder.

Tim L. says:

“This is nothing more that the manipulation of the law in order to cater to the fanatical religious crowd: The fetus huggers.”

The abortion issue is NOT a religious issue. It’s a HUMAN LIFE issue. There are atheists who are pro-life.

Tim: This is nothing more that the manipulation of the law in order to cater to the fanatical religious crowd: The fetus huggers.

Really? Would you say the same of laws regarding human-rights? Let’s see; how about laws regarding homosexuals, women, minorities, workers, illegal alliens, blacks? Was that
nothing more then the manipulation of the law in order to cater to the fanatical, and degenerate progressive crowd; you know, scrotum and a-hole lovers?

Tim: If a person doesn’t want an abortion, no one is forceing them to get one.

What you are really saying; If a person wants to commit murder, they should be restrained! But you cannot say it, because you suffer from a condition known as;

ABORTIONITE BLIND SPOT: The defect in the conscience of Abortionites resulting from the practice of abortionthink such that the target population of the particular Abortionite sect has ceased to exist in the Abortionite’s mind as human persons. It is for this reason that Abortionites just don’t get it when it comes to understanding oppostion to their sacraments (crimes).

Tim:I just wish that the folks who have so much love for fetuses could find it within their good, Christian hearts to extend some of that love and concern to the child once it is born,

There are folks from all walks of life, political and religious spectrum, who place a great deal of value on the life growing inside of a mother to be. Sadly you are not part of this group, for whatever reason. Possible reasons; Incapable of feeling love, perhaps, a psychological, or anatomical disfunction, perhaps, or maybe suffering from child-abuse? Who knows for sure, and i can only guess. But one things for sure; you are one sick individual.

Tim: but you really don’t see much of that.

Where do you live? I see plenty of of that! And even if there weren’t that much; absence of, or minimal display of; beholding the human as sacred, and the image of his Creator, should not be the argument used to legislate murder. And this is where you come in Tim; who do you think you are? A blob of jelly, a product of evilution, are you an animal? Based on your view of the un-born, and your eagerness to extinguish the life; i’d say, you are dead!

Define person.

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill”, summarised the issue this way: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological,
and scientific writings.”

Everything that determines the individuality and originality of a person is established at conception. The first single cell contains the entire genetic blueprint in all its complexity.

The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days.

Electrical brainwaves have been recorded at 43 days on an EEG. If the absence of a brainwave indicates death, why will pro-abortionists not accept that the presence of a brainwave is a confirmation of life?

The brain and all body systems are present by 8 weeks and functioning a month later.

At 8 weeks, the baby will wake and sleep, make a fist, suck his thumb, and get hiccups.

At the end of 9 weeks, the baby has his own unique finger prints.

At 11-12 weeks, the baby is sensative to heat, touch, light and noise. All body systems are working. He weighs about 28g and is 6-7.5 cm long.

He/she is fully developed before his mother’s pregnancy is even noticeable. This is the age of baby, that the government is saying can be killed for any reason whatsoever, without a waiting period for the mother to consider her decision.

From conception, the new person conceived is as deserving of the full protection of the law as any other person.

Gee Neil, sounds like a person to me. As to your last statement; ” If you don’t want abortion don’t get it”. What you are really saying; ” If you don’t want to commit murder, then dont”!

The religious commandments like the first three are not laws.
When 2 cells come together at conception the fact that they are a person is only a religious concept.

Neil

Niel, I didn’t mean all 10. The ones about stealing, killing, Bearing false wittness(perjury).
But you know that. You got the point even though you don’t want to admit it. Many of the religious and secular laws coincide.
When do unreligious people think a human becomes a human? Is what religious people believe wrong just because it is a religious belief?
To repeat myself not all pro-life people are religious. It isn’t exclusive to religius people.
It isn’t unconstitutional because of religion.

The truth is that the pro-life stance does not depend on religion. The logical case for life is built entirely upon premises grounded in the Constitution and science. These premises lead to the pair of conclusions that form the crux of the pro-life argument. The first is that the only relevant question in the debate over the legality of abortion is whether or not the fetus should be considered a human person. If the fetus is a human
person then abortion should be illegal; if the fetus is not a human person then abortion should be legal. The second is that the fetus should be considered a human person. Together these statements comprise the pro-life conviction that abortion should be illegal.

We derive the first conclusion from the Constitution. Foremost in the famous triptych of rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment is the right to life: “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The preeminence of the right of an innocent human person to life remains even when it comes in conflict with other “rights” (whether legally extant or alleged) such as a right to comfort or a right to a career of choice, or with various social priorities such as population control.

It is important to emphasize this point because pro-choicers regularly justify legalized abortion on the grounds of “women’s rights”. However important it may be to safeguard the freedom of all citizens to pursue a lifestyle of their choice, this freedom cannot be so unlimited that it takes precedence over the innocent’s right to life.

Even Harry Blackmun, the very justice who penned the Roe v. Wade decision, admitted as much when he wrote: “If this suggestion of [fetal] personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by [the Constitution].” Here Blackmun is essentially endorsing the first pillar of the pro-life position: the debate over abortion’s legality hinges on the question of fetal personhood.

Common sense agrees. If the fetus is deemed not to be a human person then even pro-lifers would support abortion on demand. But if a woman’s toddler is preventing her from pursuing her career does she have the right to kill him? Of course not. Why? Because the toddler is a person whose right to life takes precedence over his parent’s freedom to pursue the career or lifestyle of her choice. The same logic applies if the fetus should be considered a person.

The debate over the legality of abortion, then, reduces to the question of fetal personhood, and the most reasonable definition of a person is a living human organism. Additional constraints on this definition based on race, age, or level of dependency inevitably reduce to discrimination. As a handbook published by Feminists for Life puts it, “If we take any living member of the species homo sapiens and put them outside the realm of legal protection, we undercut the case against discrimination for everyone else.”

Science is clear that a human fetus is a living member of the species homo sapiens. Individually, a sperm and an egg are living cells; but when they are fused together they acquire the characteristics (growth, maintenance of homeostasis, etc.) that biology assigns to an independent living organism. Hence it is the moment of conception that marks the beginning of a new human organism and therefore the beginning of personhood and the rights that come with it.

Both pillars of the pro-life thesis that abortion should be illegal are thus vindicated solely on the authority of science and the Constitution. Not once in this article have I appealed to the Bible or the Qur’an; nowhere have the words “God” or “soul” appeared.

Neil Swan says:

“When 2 cells come together at conception the fact that they are a person is only a religious concept.”

When the sperm and the egg come together, a LIVING HUMAN ORGANISM is created. This is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, not a “religious concept.” Any medical textbook will tell you this. Furthermore, there are atheists who are pro-life.

All living human organisms deserve the RIGHT TO LIFE, as is guaranteed in our Constitution.

an abortion doctor also has a “blob” of cells between the ears. these cells have not matured to the extent they are able to distinguish right from wrong. Perhaps if this blob of cells were excised there would be far fewer crimes against humanity.

Is giving the baby up for adoption a worse option than just killing it? There are plenty of people that would take that baby, love it as their own, and raise it so that he/she has a choice to become someone.

Rape is a horrible crime, and a pregnancy resulting from rape must be a horrible burden to any woman. However, does this give her the right to kill the embryo? How is an embryo concieved by rape any different than an embryo concieved through loving, consentual sex? Obviously, it is no different, and the balance of rights involved in the pregnancy is no different. The embryo is not responsible for his or her father’s crimes, and should not
be punished for them.

and that choice should be make before fertilization. We are not like the plants and animals in the wild. We have the capacity to reason and to thing about the consequences of our actions. .

carrobin says: Guess you never heard of rape. Or child abuse (does a 14-year-old really have a lot of power to say no to an adult?) But that’s beside the point. It’s the woman with the fetus who should choose, nobody else.

Less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape or incest. Furthermore, since conception doesn’t occur immediately after intercourse, pregnancy can be prevented in nearly all rape cases by medical treatments including the morning after pill.

Nearly all the women interviewed in a recent survey said they regretted aborting the
babies conceived via rape or incest. Of those giving an opinion, more than 90 percent said they would discourage other victims of sexual violence from having an abortion.

Finally, if you found out today that your biological father had raped your mother, would you feel you no longer had a right to live?

You have that choice… let’s be sure that the unborn does too.

Yes, Rob. I do believe that. Your analogy does not work. A baby does not “appear” in your body. There are many methods to prevent unwanted pregnancy, Convenience is not the subjection of your will, but the indulgence of it. Having worked in foster care, a home for the developmentally disabled, and nursing homes; and having raised four children to adulthood, I think I have a fairly good grasp of how life choices can affect others as well as ourselves.

I also believe in charity; not just the giving of money, etc. to the poor, but love- the root meaning of charity. “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the Truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” As a human being, I am not perfect, but my Shepherd is. I also believe that He is the Creator of all life- yours and mine too. Thankfully, my mother and yours accepted our entrance into their lives. Regardless of how our lives have been to this point, what we do with our lives from this point on is our choice.

I have no problem with people who are against abortion. My problem is with the people who want to make sure nobody can have an abortion. I don’t consider a fetus “a person” with rights; the woman in whose body the fetus is growing is the person with rights. (A good friend of mine hated his mother for not aborting him, allowing him to be born with several genetic diseases. He tried to shoot himself via “Russian roulette” three times, since as a Catholic he felt that wasn’t really suicide. But he died of diabetes and some other causes at the age of 54. RIP, Peter.)

Viability (the point when an unborn baby could survive outside of the womb) is an arbitrary concept. Why isn’t personhood associated with heartbeat (begins just 21 days after conception), or brainwaves (43 days after conception), or something else? The actual point of viability constantly changes because it depends on technology, not on the unborn baby.

Based on the same viability logic, many “born” people are not viable because they cannot survive on their own without the aid of others. Should we kill them too?

Rob I’d say your “arguments” are the silly ones. Your only point to come back with is that you support sending people to enternal happiness before they have a chance to sin? That’s childish for asking why is Verona opposed to to “people” going to heaven…….. Because it’s not our decision to choose for someone else when they go to heaven. The baby doesn’t have a say in whether or not they get to live a long full life. That’s the voice Verona is speaking about. You obviously have your opinion, they deserve one too but is ripped and cut from them in a horrible gruesome fashion.

Rob, you sound like that pseudo-religious psycho who drowned her 5 kids in a bathtub before they could reach the “age of accountability” and maybe be damned. Do you support her actions?

Jazzabelle, it wouldn’t surprise me if Rob had a picture of her over his bed!

Sorry I keep commenting on Vorna’s responses but oh well. .

Tim – Who are you or anyone else in this world to decide that unwanted babies should be killed. There are hundreds if not thousands of wanting mothers out there who can’t have children of their own and would love this child…… If you think that we are over populated, it’s simple, stop having sex if you are’t responsible enough or prepared for the chance of having a baby. It’s selfish immature people making these decisions to have sex then not wanting to live with the consequences. That is what makes us adults. Should we follow communist China on how they handle their over poplulation issues? That sure sounds like what you’re talking about. This is a society that wants to do what feels good now, and not worry about what happens later.

Tyler,
Once again you miss the point. If you truly are an adult, don’t try to impose your fundamentalism on others. If the fetus isn’t growing in your body, then it is none of your business.

Tim L – I don’t think I’m missing the point at all. I do not consider it as pushing my fundamentalism on anyone as more of commen sense and being a mature adult.

I do find it my responsibility to protect and stand up for the weak, innocent, and those who cannot speak for themselves. Calling a fetus to make it easier for someone to abort doesn’t not take away from the fact that it is a baby that is being killed.

TimL, You miss the point. When the baby is born and some kills him or her society has something to say about it. Does someone need a bellybutton to be protected under the law? Yes it is our business.

Jim,
I don’t believe anyone said anything about killing a child that has been born.

I have nothing against contraception. As to children being unwanted, there are many waiting to adopt “unwanted infants.” The population of the world is not the issue… even Dr.Seuss knows, “A person is a person, no matter how small.”

Tim, That is the point. If it’s our (societies) business to protect people from being killed by other people after they are born, why is it such a stretch to protect a human still in the womb?

reduce the population naturally, Keep it to your own hand until you can take responsibility for your own actions.

Abortion is often said to be a means to prevent over-population. Abortion proponents claim that those countries that outlaw abortion have very high birth rates. They often fail to point out that those countries are often composed of Roman Catholic populations, which are not allowed to use birth control measures.

Even those that are not Roman Catholic often lack access to birth control, and generally have limited availability of educational programs. It has been pointed out that other bad events, such as war, disease, and famine can curb population growth. Should we condone those things as well?

Gosh, ed, guess I owe you an apology. Judging from some of your past arguments I had you pegged for pre-pubescent and undecided. My bad. As usual, your characterization of the truth and propinquity to a self-indulgent Eros dull you vision and hide the facts in selective disclosure–typical liberal progressive zealousness. It is no wonder you concentrate so breathlessly on conservative, rightwing extremists so. It balances your own ego. Nicely done.

Which extremist group has you in their back pocket Thor?

Why thank you Thor…chuckle!

Procreate?

Have sex with someone of their own gender?

(I wasn’t gonna state the obvious, but someone already got it wrong, so….)

Jpy questioned: “Procreate?”

Are you suggesting that older women and injured war vets shouldn’t marry?

Rob

Are you suggesting that all your idiotic questions merit a response?

Are you suggesting that it’s OK to get a death sentence for not wanting to be pregnant?

Rob

‘It is your right to choose. You don’t HAVE to deposit …’ blah, blah, blah…etc. and Amen! Once again RS, in your continual ‘alter-world’ paradigm, you fail to acknowledge the fact that women have a choice, too. They have absolute sovereignty over their own bodies and have had at their disposal from time immerorial a free and the only safe means of avoiding both pregnancy (and therefore conception) and STD’s–and did I mention that nature provides it free of charge? It’s called abstinance. Historically–until recent history–it was used quite frequently and effectively precisely because those old southern rightwing zealots encouraged its use and were supported by a bunch of old northern rightwing zealots. So, where does your philosophy fit in? From which camp have you been transmogrified?

Proponents of abortion say that a woman should have the right to control her own body. This sounds reasonable. However, the fetus is not actually part of a woman’s body. The fetus is a separate individual, which has its own circulatory system and is composed of a unique DNA sequence compared to the mother. Regarding the claim that the fetus is part of the mother, Professor Peter Kreeft made the rather comical observation, “But in that
case, every pregnant woman has four eyes and four feet, and half of all pregnant women have penises! Clearly, the absurd conclusion came from the false premise that the fetus is only part of the mother.”

Even so, people do not automatically have the legal right to do anything they want with their own bodies. We cannot use our bodies to assault others. We can’t even take illegal drugs, even though it “only affects us.” The irony is that there are laws in many states that prevent a mother from using drugs or alcohol during pregnancy, although the same mother can kill the fetus at any time.

Kreeft, P. 1995. HUMAN PERSONHOOD BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

RE: “HER body”

Then she can choose to keep “HER” legs closed. Humans are supposed to be the most intelligent animal spices, not uncontrollable dogs that cannot help but to mate and kill when nature tells them to. And with all the technology available there is simply no excuse for not preventing pregnancy.

We need to learn to respect and protect innocent/defenseless fellow Human life simply because it is just that, Human life. We’ve managed to teach our own society that it is acceptable to destroy Human life simply because it is inconvenient as with unintended pregnancy or because some one pissed some one off as with death penalty, gang violence and terrorism. What we have now is a neurotic population obsessed with killing each other at the drop of a hat, adults killing adults, children killing children and every thing in between.

In addition, due to abortion alone, we have 35 million fewer people in the work force and another 20 million others coming up right behind, who along with employers would be contributing to Social Security, Medicare and tax coffers at all levels of government. Mean while; we like to place ALL the blame on government.

Then, we spend more money to dish out the death penalty when it costs less to keep capital criminals behind bars for life, even with the many “Club Fed” benefits we provide them with which they don’t deserve in the first place. Then there is our many pantywaist judges and juries who are so hell-bent on letting killers back on the streets so they can kill and mane again so we can spend yet more lives and money only to run them yet again and again through the same ill conceived system of so-called justice.

We need to get our priorities straight before we completely destroy what we like to call “the greatest nation on earth.”

No kidding. Men are such goofs at this it’s not even funny.

Doc Sarvis says: If ALL males took responsiblity of their actions i.e. took responsiblity for the children they sire then there would be FAR less need for the act of abortion.

The existence of social problems for women is not justification for another, even worse, evil. The social problems should be fixed, instead of killing the unborn. In recent years,
many of the problems have been fixed, such as those preventing employers from firing or discriminating against pregnant women. Adoption is always an option for those women who don’t feel that they can take care of a child at this time in their lives. Many couples must wait for years to adopt because abortion has drastically reduced the number of children available for adoption. The “Safe Havens” program (state of California, and many other states) allows women to take their newborns to any emergency room or fire station within 72 hours of birth and drop them off – alleviating them of any further responsibility.

Abortion proponents claim that every child should be wanted. However, being wanted is not a condition of the child, but of the adult. Is it fair to kill a child because of the attitude of an adult? Couples who are unable to conceive children of their own must often wait for years to adopt, since abortion has drastically reduced the number of adoptable children.

Abortion proponents often justify abortion because of the claim that every child should be wanted. They also claim that wanted children are less likely to be abused than those who are “unwanted.” However, child abuse statistics show that since abortion was legalized in 1973, child abuse has risen dramatically, although over one million unwanted children are aborted every year. Maybe the callous attitude fostered by the prevalence of abortion have contributed to the child abuse problem? A recent study shows that those mothers who have a prior history of abortion, in fact, abuse their children more than those who do not have a history of abortion.

Coleman, P. K., V. M. Rue, C. T. Coyle, C. D. Maxey. 2007. Induced Abortion and Child-Directed Aggression Among Mothers of Maltreated Children. The Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology: 6, No. 2.

Rob this may be true on this sole issue but you example od sheeple sounds like hundreds of issues on the far left.

Maybe on the left by your definition…

But abortion is a core “value” for the right and often the ONLY issue that folks will follow. I can’t imagine any single issue that unites the left as the created issue of abortion with the Southern Stratey has succeeded for the extreme right.

Rob

“Extreme” by your definition, and your presumptuous “common sense” remark sounds like more elitist, arrogant progressive drivel. Everyone who confronts this issue must make a philosophical choice and, once made, the political paths diverge and, probably, irreconcilably. The founders envisioned the states as incubators of diverse ideas (like Oklahoma in this case), where such differences could be pursued without elitists dictating to the rest of us from on high. Thank goodness for federalism and the 10th Amendment. Viva diversity!

Form oh oh: “Thank goodness for federalism and the 10th Amendment. Viva diversity!”

Yup. Those more than a dozen that have medical pot are good for freedom.

Those states that have assisted suicide are good for freedom.

Those states that have anti gun laws that don’t bother honest people are good for freedom.

Rob