Anti-choice rally at Embarcadero

You can tell they are sincere. They believe they are saving babies. And that's about as far as it seems to go for them.

Where are the signs saying that they will pay the medical bills for women so they can keep their babies? Will they pay for rent and food? Will they buy the clothes and books the kids will need? What exactly is their plan for taking care of all the babies they are going to save.

I don't see a single sign that says "your baby can live at my house."

Just like George Bush, they don't want to deal with the consequences of real life. They live in fantasy land where you can just save babies and feel good about yourself.

It's pathetic really.

Why can't those people open a journal or book or even talk with anyone who has been outside the united States. Do you know how many millions of kids die in the tropics of parasites and malaria each year. Or conditions like malaria which can be cured with a few cents worth of drugs that they can't afford.

At some point, hypocrisy has consequences. I can understand if someone had a bad education and is unable to read, or has no access to newspapers, but those people clearly have access to information, but still choose the wrong priorities. They only care about some poor people's babies in the united States, but ignore a mountain of bodies of children elsewhere.

"I don't see a single sign that says "your baby can live at my house." "

In fact, these Christian conservatives are the sames ones that want BLACK mothers in the ghetto to be forced off welfare and go to work for minimum wage (as captive, exploitable and abusable cheap labor, while they cut primary & secondary educational programs for kids or community college & vocational programs for adults) -- but want WHITE mothers to quit work and stay at home! These are also the same Christian conservatives who've even tried to pay BLACK females $60, or so, in the ghetto or projects to be sterilized or have contraceptive implants (even putting up billboard advertising for this in black ghettos, as they once did in Oakland), but want to deny contraceptives or the morning-after pill to, especially, young WHITE females.

I think you've got it right, Jenny.
That's why when we were chanting, "Pro-life: that's a lie. You don't care if WOMEN die" they had no idea what we were on about. There's no connection, no understanding that abortions won't stop, just becuase they're made illegal.

Afterwards, we spoke with two "pro-life" men who's main argument was, "It shouldn't be necessary. If women would take responsibility, during sex, they wouldn't get pregnant."
We asked him if he had used condoms Every Single Time.
"Pretty much", he said, totally without grasping the irony.
How can you have a logical discussion with this thinking?

Those people who walked on the Walk for Life are indeed the very ones helping women. Whether as adopting parent, as foster parents, nurses, open homes, pregnancy support, medical support, I can promise you, these people you hate, are the very ones who put their words into action. Need help? See just a partial list below. These people were there! And thousands more who have been there helping. Much must be done to protect women. That we agree. Women deserve better!

Post-Abortion Counseling Services:
First Resort, San Francisco 415-409-8255

Oakland 510-891-9998

Redwood City 650-261-9115
Project Rachel 415-717-6428
Rachel’s Vineyard Retreats 925-680-8510
After Abortion National Help Line 866-482-LIFE
Rachel’s Vineyard 877-467-3463

Men’s Page: http://www.RachelsVineyard.org/men
National Office of Post-Abortion
Reconciliation and Healing 800-593-2273
Victims of Choice VictimsofChoice.com 888-267-3998
Healing Hearts Ministries 888-792-8282
http://www.HealingHearts.org
Heartbeat International/

CareNet PregnancyCenters 800-395-HELP
Feminists for Life feministsforlife.com
Safe Haven Ministries http://www.SafeHavenMinistries.com
Elliot Institute http://www.AfterAbortion.org
Ramah International http://www.RamahInternational.org
Silent No More http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org
Open Arms 314-449-7672
Priests for Life 888-PFL-3448

http://www.PriestsforLife.org 479-855-0072

http://www.HopeAliveusa.org
Project Rachel http://www.HopeAfterAbortion.com
SaveOne (http://www.SaveOne.org) 866-329-3571
Lumina 877-LUMINA1
http://www.postabortionhelp.org
Project Grace http://www.projectgrace.com 616-393-9001
Imago Dei Foundation National Memorial

for the Unborn 800-505-5565

http://www.memorial-unborn.org
Life Issues http://www.lifeissues.org
American Victims of Abortion 202-626-8800 x132
Abortion Recovery Counseling 949-378-5149

http://www.abortionrecoverycounseling.com
A Choice to Heal 860-267-6393

http://www.achoicetoheal.com
Fathers and Brothers Ministry 303-543-0148


CRISIS PREGNANCY SERVICES (Local)
Alpha Pregnancy Center, San Francisco 415-584-6800
Bethany Christian Services Hotline 800-238-4269
Birthright of San Francisco 415-664-9909
Birthright of Marin 415-456-4500
Birthright of Menlo Park 650-322-4784
Pregnancy Resource Center of Marin 415-892-0558
Pregnancy Resource Center of Marin 415-892-0558
Pregnancy Choices Clinic 510-487-4357
Pregnancy Care Clinic 925-827-0100
Catholic Charities of San Francisco
Pregnancy Counseling Hotline: 800-CARE-002
Catholic Charities of Marin County 415-499-1470
First Resort,San Francisco 415-409-8255
First Resort, Oakand 510-891-9998
First Resort, Redwood City 650-261-9115
Gabriel Project 415-565-3672
Heartbeat International Hotline 800-395-HELP
Jelani House, San Francisco 415-822-5977
Juan Diego Society Pregnancy Center 408-251-0900
Life Abortion Alternative Ministries 707-642-5001
Mary’s House 510-236-0383
Mt. St. Joseph/St. Elizabeth, SF 415-567-8370
Pregnancy Resource Center of Marin 415-892-0558
Queen of Peace Women’s Shelter, SF 415-586-3449

CRISIS PREGNANCY COUNSELING
Nurturing Network Hotline 800-866-4MOM
Several Sources Foundation 201-825-7277
International Life Services 213-382-2156
Bethany Christian Services 800-BETHANY
CareNet 703-237-2100
Catholic Charities 800-CARE-002
Heartbeat International 614-239-9433
Heartlines 719-531-3460
Living Alternatives 713-367-1518
Open Arms 314-449-7672
Pro-Life Action Ministries 612-771-1500
Silent Voices 619-422-0757
White Rose Institute 216-459-4383
Unwed Parents Anonymous 602-952-1463

HOMES FOR MOTHERS
Good Counsel Maternity Homes 201-795-0637
His Nesting Place 310-422-2137
Mom’s House, Inc. 412-531-6667
CareNet 800-395-HELP
National Life Center 800-848-LOVE

I think that if we could all calm down a bit we would realize that most of what we have is a difference on a very specific issue: whether a fetus is a person deserving of protection. I don't think many people are against pregnant women or don't want what's best for them, we merely disagree on what it is. I don't think the average pro-abortionist is an evil person who wants to kill babies, I think they want to help women and don't understand the evil of abortion. And I can say from experience that the average pro-lifer wants to help women and babies as much as possible. So thank you Cathy for pointing this out and letting people see some of the work that pro-lifers do to help women.

If you just want to offer women options, that's great. There needs to be more of that.

If you try to change the law so that we all have to fit some weird religious belief that says you can force a women to have a baby against her will, well that is just not going to happen.

Do you see the difference?

"If you try to change the law so that we all have to fit some weird religious belief that says you can force a women to have a baby against her will, well that is just not going to happen."

Abortion is more than merely an option. The way I see it, a fetus is a person desrving of protection just like any other baby. You wouldn't kill a baby that was fully dependent upon you for everything if it were already born. Neither should you kill it if it is unborn. This is not a matter of "weird" religious beliefs. I know very many pro-life agnostics and atheists, in fact my immediate family is all pro-life and all agnostics. I was a pro-life agnostic, a pro-life atheist, and a pro-life monotheist before I became a pro-life Catholic. It really has nothing to do with religious believes, except inasmuch as many religious people are strongly pro-life.

The pro-life argument is not based on some strange biblical passage somewhere, it is based upon the fact that a fetus is an innocent human being, and therefore deserving of legal protection. Now you may disagree with that, in fact I strongly suspect you do, but it is not a "weird religious belief". There is no way that a person's desire not to have a child can supersede that child's right to live. There's nothing wrong with not having children, there is something wrong about killing a child you already do have, even if that child is still within you.

"The pro-life argument is not based on some strange biblical passage somewhere, it is based upon the fact that a fetus is an innocent human being"

That is, in fact, a _RELIGIOUS_ position: _your_ religious position. While that may arguably be so (that a fetus is a human being) closer to or near birth (where no doctor would perform an abortion anyway except to save the mother's life or in the case of a horribly or terminally deformed fetus), it is not so closer to conception.

Is a fertilized egg "an innocent human being"? Conception starts with a single cell. Is a single cell "an innocent human being"? Is a collection of divided cells (say 100 or 1000 cells) "an innocent human being"? Is an embryo "an innocent human being too"? The answer to all those questions is, of course not! An embryo is not a human being anymore than an acorn is an oak tree.

The elements of human life actually begin with a sperm and an egg. Do we hold with the teachings of the Catholic church that masturbation is a sin, because when males masturbate they are wasting the sperm, or that the pleasure of sex, for either gender, without the allowance of procreation is a sin in itself? (By the way, not many Catholics, as you can see by their much smaller families, listen to the Pope on that prohibition.)

But Christian conservatives (who are often not very "Christian" anyway) say that a human being exists from the very instant of conception. Christian conservatives try to con less educated girls and women (using falsified photographic or video sonograms) that a little miniature, even microscopic, human being exists from the very instant of conception. A clearly scientifically ridiculous position. Which is why Christian conservatives don't want sex education taught in the schools, especially the biological cycle of birth, let alone even contraceptive prevention.

Where medical science draws the line at elective abortions depends on certain scientific criteria (such as the stage of the fetus' nervous system, brain, human physical development, and mental consciousness) and the secular moral judgement of when a fetus is close enough to an actual baby human being, independent of sectarian religious dogma and individual religious sentiments.

So, as pro-CHOICE advocates have always said, respecting _your_ rights: if you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one! But don't arrogantly force your male-run patriarchal religion and theocratic beliefs on others (religion foisted by men who never hesitate to kill women, children and babies, when it suits them, as in wars over land, politics and ideology) and tell others that it's _your_ God's command. It's not your God's command, for me, that I can't have sex outside of marriage, that a girl/woman, should one inadvertantly get pregnant, all be forced to have a baby or that, married or not, one shouldn't even have access to contraception; it's one's own CHOICE.

"Is a fertilized egg "an innocent human being"? Conception starts with a single cell. Is a single cell "an innocent human being"? Is a collection of divided cells (say 100 or 1000 cells) "an innocent human being"? Is an embryo "an innocent human being too"? The answer to all those questions is, of course not! An embryo is not a human being anymore than an acorn is an oak tree."

Yes a fertilized egg is an innocent human being. If not at conception, where do you draw the line? When does it become a human being, if not when it's entire genetic material is decided. A sperm cell or an egg cell is not a human being, it will not of it's own become a human being. A sperm cell or an egg cell will, if it doesn't join with one of the other, die eventually without coming to anything. When people have sex, not every sperm fertilizes an egg, in fact at most times there is no egg there to be fertilized.

What is a person but a collection of cells? I mean, if an unborn baby is not a person because it's just made of divided cells, then what are you made of? You are made of cells just like an unborn baby! A person, from conception, is a totally unique being, which will, if nothing happens to it, grow into someone comparable to you or me. How is that not the activity of a human being? A (born) baby is quite different in appearance and abilities from an adult. But would you say it is morally right to kill a baby? I certainly hope you wouldn't.

And regardless, it still isn't a religious position. You can say you disagree with that position, but you really can't state that it's religious when there are many non-religious people who hold it.

I notice didn't see any Buddhist monks in your parade. And if religion is irrelevant to the issue what is all this we hear from anti-choicers about Jesus this and God that. To deny the Judeo-Christian link to this issue is morally dishonest.

My personal religion says that an egg is not a human being. It also says that you make no decisions over my body or my religion.

You can not tell me when life begins, nor can my government. It is a matter that is open to question and will continue to divide our society for many years to come.

"My personal religion says that an egg is not a human being. It also says that you make no decisions over my body or my religion.

You can not tell me when life begins, nor can my government. It is a matter that is open to question and will continue to divide our society for many years to come. "

Why don't we allow abortion even after the birth? Whats wrong with that? I mean I want to have right to abort any of my children untill they reach 18 years old.

then you will understand the difference between the word "abortion" and the word "murder". I know you like to call abortion "murder", but really that's only what you're doing to women who will now die of septic abortions. Oh and abortion clinic doctors. But perhaps you're in favor of that? Although "women deserve better"?

so why Scott Peterson was convicted of double murder?

so why Scott Peterson was convicted of double murder?

"I notice didn't see any Buddhist monks in your parade. And if religion is irrelevant to the issue what is all this we hear from anti-choicers about Jesus this and God that. To deny the Judeo-Christian link to this issue is morally dishonest."
I didn't see any Buddhist monks either. That's really too bad, from what I understand Buddhists are pro-life in general and having some Buddhists there would have been nice. There is a Judeo-Christian link to this issue because Jews and Christians tend to take very seriously the commandment not to murder. The issue of whether or not abortion is murder is really not a matter of what religion you believe in, it's a matter of how you interpret the facts. The Catholic Church is explicitly against abortion, but I was against abortion before I was Catholic and my reasoning goes beyond "the Church has spoken." To deny that there are non-Christian pro-lifers is also dishonest.

"My personal religion says that an egg is not a human being. It also says that you make no decisions over my body or my religion.

You can not tell me when life begins, nor can my government. It is a matter that is open to question and will continue to divide our society for many years to come."
Yes, the government CAN tell you when life begins. Currently the government seems to say that life begins at birth. If a person were to kill someone else who was already born and say "my religion says that she isn't a person because she isn't yet five years old" that would not be a legitimate defence. It is true what you say, that this issue will continue to divide our society for years to come. This is because pro-abortionists and pro-lifers disagree on whether or not an unborn baby is actually a person. IF an unborn child is a person, then abortion is obviously wrong.

nor can the government. wishful thinking on both counts.

arguing over the begining of life is pointless

the issue is that you have two competing interests within the same body

you have the mother...

and you have the fetus

pro-lifers want to grant the fetus pre-eminent legal rights over the mother, respecting the "rights" of the undeveloped over the rights of the already-alive and fully human mother. save the fetus even at the mother's expense, and they glorify women who risked their own lives to give birth in speeched, and they care not about the ramifications for the mother of carrying rape-babies to term because the mere birth of the fetus supercedes any needs of the mother.

pro-choicers place the higher legal value on the adult, or even juvenile, women's life and well being. not that fetuses are irrelevent, but the rights of the fully formed human supercedes the rights of the dependent fetus.

it's not pretty to have to choose between one or the other, but I'll go with the adult woman every time to choose for herself what is best for her. how in God's name could you love a fetus more than a woman?

the issue is not when life begins but why it ends!

and there is another place on indybay to talk about it. so if you're not a troll, go there and talk about it.

" pro-choicers place the higher legal value on the adult, or even juvenile, women's life and well being. not that fetuses are irrelevent, but the rights of the fully formed human supercedes the rights of the dependent fetus."

Which "rights" are we talking about? It makes no sense to lump all "rights" as being equal.

Life is the number one right. Without life, there is no "right" to health insurance. Without life, there is no "right" to fair wages. Without life, there's no need for social security. Life is fundamental. Without it, nothing else matters.

So now when you say the fully formed mother's "rights" trump those of her child, what is it that we're talking about? Are we talking about her right not to be "inconvenienced"? Are we talking about the right to live life without any consequences for our actions? We teach two year olds that our actions have consequences. You don't need "religion" to tell you that the primary purpose of sex is to bring new life into the world. Anybody who watches PBS or The Discovery Channel can tell you that. Sex releases sperm. The only purpose sperm have in this world is to find an egg and fertilize it. They serve no other purpose. That's all they do. That is the primary purpose of sex. Having sex comes with reponsibility. If you're not a responsible adult, then you probably shouldn't be having sex in the first place. But let's not kid ourselves about any pregnancy being unplanned. If you're going to have sex, then you should expect a child as a result every time.

Don't worry. Nobody is forcing their scary religion on you. I'm just saying that we should call a spade a spade. Our actions have results.

Our Constitutional rights only go as far as not taking away another person's rights. That's elementary Constitutional education. And it's based on our rights carrying certain responsibilities. There's a big list above, full of contacts for alternatives to abortion. Death is not the only option. But back on topic.

You could say that a person has a right to have sex. A person is also required to take responsibility for those actions. Which "rights" are so important as to justify taking the life of another human being? Scott Peterson was "inconvenienced" and "financially burdened" by having a wife, with a child on the way, and a woman on the side. He killed and went to jail.

We have several exceptions to the rule of when taking the life of another is acceptible and when it is not. Self defense is one such case. I don't know of a single example of convenience, financial hardship, "I was too lazy to even look into the alternatives", "I wanted to have sex without any responsibility", etc... we have no examples of such exceptions. When you talk about the "rights of the mother" being more important than those of her child, in 99% of all abortions performed, which rights are you referring to?

short answer: Because Laci chose to have her baby. And we have a special law in California that enhanced the penalty for killing her and her unborn foetus.

But hey- please remind me why no one cares about the murder of pregnant Evelyn Hernandez and her 5 year old boy? She was drowned in the bay 6 months before Laci's murder. Because she wasn't married? Because she wasn't white?

"convenience, financial hardship, "I was too lazy to even look into the alternatives", "I wanted to have sex without any responsibility", "

Too lazy!? Come off it. The point is you don't know what a given woman's reasons are, you can only guess. And neither the law nor any other moral code gives you the right to assume you do know . Because it is a personal and private choice (ooh that word again). But you are all ready to assume that the woman is lazy, a slut and irresponsible.

Too bad you're not as hard on men for date rape, pressuring their teen-aged girlfriends to "do it", and trivializing their relationships with women. Did you hear about the girl whose entire family drowned in the tsunami? She was held above the tide by a man who immediately following, raped her, and threatened to kill her if she told.

ever wonder why???? the same people who show up at pro-fetal death rallies, are the same people who show up at san quenton to demand a pardon for mass murders

why is this

short answer: Because Laci chose to have her baby. And we have a special law in California that enhanced the penalty for killing her and her unborn foetus.

I would respect it. as should you. It would be none of our business if it was for health reasons, or whatever. What kind of assumptions are you making about a woman who chooses an abortion? That's what you need to ask yourself. And I'm not talking about "heart-on-your-sleeve" tabloid murder victims (although, I notice you had no questions about Evelyn).

I don't call anti-choice rallies "pro-death for women rallies". Although maybe I should.

I was not implying that a women is wholy responsible. I'm very well aware that it takes two to tango. I also pointed out that sperm has but one purpose in life. The man needs to keep that in mind any time he decides to engage in sex. Both the mother and the father are responsible. But in most cases, I'd get shot by the pro-abortion crowd for saying that because their slogan is about a "woman's right to choose", "keep your hands off my body", etc... I'm more than willing to discuss what pigs some men can be and also totally and completely agree that responsibility belongs to both. That also implies that if the father wants to keep the child, he very much has the right to prevent the mother from having an abortion. But the pro-abortion side of the fence won't allow for that either. Either way, I FIRMLY believe that it is the responsibility of both the mother and the father.

Now, let's get back to the topic at hand, which was never addressed, about which "rights" are more important than others. Where I have a problem is that every slogan used by those in favor of abortion is completely off the topic of when life begins and when it is acceptible to take the life of another human being. To simply say, "choice", that's not enough. I could exercise my "choice" to smash my truck right into a MacDonalds at lunch time. But there are consequences for my actions. To say it's about "women's rights" makes me wonder about the over 22 million women who have been killed in abortion since 1973.

Specifically, which "rights" does the mother (and/or father) have that trump life itself. Can you also apply that to a case where adults are involved? In any scenario that you come up with, let's assume the child in question is 4 years old. Which "rights" allows the mother and/or father to kill their child?

that you know why a given woman chooses an abortion? that you know the reason behind every single woman's choice? No you don't. Legally or morally.

that you know when life begins? when a human being is a human being? That's a big jump, I think I'd like to make that call myself thanks very much.

The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that "The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous .... This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ...." At page 18 this theme is repeated: "Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in original] ...."

Judge Michael J. Noonan ruled as follows in a New Jersey case based on a man's efforts to save his unborn child from being aborted: "…based upon the undisputed medical testimony by arguably the foremost authority in genetics in the world, I found that human life begins as conception; and that Roe vs. Wade permits a legal execution of that human being." (MUNICIPAL COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION - MORRIS COUNTY CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. C1771, ET SEQ. STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. ALEXANDER LOCE, et als. DEFENDANTS APRIL 29, 1991 HONORABLE MICHAEL J. NOONAN)

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, "Father of Modern Genetics" and discoverer of the cause of Down's Syndrome, stated, "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence."

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at Mayo Clinic, stated, "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Men and women of science might often approve of abortion, but that is a judgment about the value of human life, not about the scientific fact that human life exists.

At just 18 days, the heart muscle is pulsing.
At 20 days, the foundation of the entire nervous system has been laid down.
At 43 days, electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded. This is usually ample evidence that "thinking" is taking place in the brain. The new life may be thought of as a thinking person.

The real issue at hand is when and for what reason is it acceptible to kill another human being.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs,
On the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighborhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Morman,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighborhood.

Every sperm is useful,
Every sperm is fine,
God needs everybody's,
Mine, and mine, and mine.

there are plenty on both sides of the issue, or doctors wouldn't still willingly perfom abortions for the safety of their patients.

Again you refuse to answer why you think you know better, why another woman isn't capable of judging for herself about the value of human life. You must judge for her. As must your right-wing judicial appointee.

all others to the left please.

Since you can never stop abortions, even if you make them illegal, it seems that if you really cared, you would try to PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.

Now you can pretend that you can convince people to be chaste, but that ain't gonna happen. I'm talking about real life here, not fantasy-land. Also, married people will be having lots of sex and don't want to get pregnant every time.

So you "pro-life" people should be working like mad on new and better forms of birth control. And you should be working to make it available widely, for free.

If you really care about saving unborn babies, you have a moral responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

"Too bad you're not as hard on men for date rape, pressuring their teen-aged girlfriends to "do it", and trivializing their relationships with women. Did you hear about the girl whose entire family drowned in the tsunami? She was held above the tide by a man who immediately following, raped her, and threatened to kill her if she told."

Have you seen any pro-lifers defending such men? I don't think I've seen a single pro-lifer say that it's alright for men to trivialize their relationships with women. Men are just as much to blame for irresponsible sexual activity as women. Men who commit date rapes are rapists, and I believe rapists should recieve life in prison.

As for the man who raped the girl during the tsunami, he sounds like a hateful, horrible person. I would never defend such a person or his actions, and I would hope you don't mean to imply that pro-lifers would support him. If so you are utterly wrong.

"aryan eugenecists to the right...

all others to the left please."

What? Who's an aryan eugenicist? Surely not the pro-lifers. Certainly the hispanic group chanting "Jesus!" and "Cristo!" during the walk would be surprised to find that they're aryan eugenicists. Surely Rev. Childress, who spoke at our rally, would be surprised to learn that he is an aryan eugenicist. And what's more, my group would be most surprised as well, since, well, we AREN'T eugenicists. Eugenics, I might add, is a profoundly anti-life idea, which no pro-lifer would support.

Of course now Margaret Sanger was an aryan eugenicist. If you wish to say that she was on the right and that the pro-life movement is on the left, then I'm proud to be a leftist! As it is, however, I'm happy to be a non-racist, non-eugenicist conservative!

the editors deleted the comment this was in response to. the original commenter seemed to think pro-choicers should be genetically cleansed. charming.

"Since you can never stop abortions, even if you make them illegal, it seems that if you really cared, you would try to PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.

Now you can pretend that you can convince people to be chaste, but that ain't gonna happen. I'm talking about real life here, not fantasy-land. Also, married people will be having lots of sex and don't want to get pregnant every time.

So you "pro-life" people should be working like mad on new and better forms of birth control. And you should be working to make it available widely, for free.

If you really care about saving unborn babies, you have a moral responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies."

I'll try if you try. And how many married couples have you met? Most I've talked to complain about not gettin' any. On top of that, it seems like every husband these days is getting snipped after two or three kids.

However, I think you highly underestimate the impact it has every time you say something about people not being capable of remaining chaste. I know far too many who either have, or have come pretty darn close to it. The minute that you say it's not possible, you've already fed the beast. That right there is what perpetuates it. It's a cop out to say that it's impossible. I don't know about you, but I'm capable of making my own decisions. I don't let someone else make them for me. We're not slaves to every impulse. We have choices. We have free will. But to continue to say that it's not possible to remain chaste or even to show restraint can come close to living a chaste life (outside of marriage of course), we become an addict and are no longer in control of our own lives. Sex is great when it's in context. But I think it's just sad to be a slave to anything, including sex.

However, getting back on topic once again, is an addiction to sex a reason to kill? Would you kill for sex? If a married couple has three kids and doesn't want any more children and the wife becomes pregnant; they find out it's going to be a boy and they have three girls. Is it okay to kill the 3 year old girl so they can remain at three kids and get that boy they've always wanted? We still have to call a spade a spade here. At what point is it justified to take the life of another person?

>>>And how many married couples have you met? Most I've talked to complain about not gettin' any.

Are you kidding me? That is hysterical! Believe me, there is a LOT of sex happening in married couples. :-)

I think I'm starting to get a picture here. You see yourself as very disciplined and everyone else is a sexually addicted deviate.

You are in for a world of personal pain if you don't get into therapy right away.

Sex is a great thing. Birth control is a great thing. Don't have sex until you are ready, but don't assume everyone feels the same way about it that you do.

Enjoying sex is not the same as being addicted to it. You will learn that one day.

You're equating a 15-second-old just-fertilized zygote with a mature adult woman? You tell me, in whose life is more at stake?

And quit assuming that women that you don't know anything about are a bunch of children who aren't capable of self-determination. Why do *you* know best, answer me that, if you can get past the platitudes.

"the editors deleted the comment this was in response to. the original commenter seemed to think pro-choicers should be genetically cleansed. charming."

All he said was the thing I quoted in my response to him...which I thought was utterly confusing. He certainly didn't say that pro-choicers should be genetically clensed, ALL he said is what I quoted. I don't know what he means by it.

Oh, I see what you're saying now. Someone said something and that was a response to it. Okay, that makes more sense.

I think our anti-choice friend is starting to feel the effects of those beers he's been chugging. The posts are getting a little fuzzy.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions.4 Today, abortion is one of the most commonly performed clinical procedures in the United States, and the current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestations is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. This is 11 times safer than childbirth and nearly twice as safe as a penicillin injection.

http://www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/publica_resources/fact_sheets/illegalabortion.htm

"there are plenty on both sides of the issue, or doctors wouldn't still willingly perfom abortions for the safety of their patients.
Again you refuse to answer why you think you know better, why another woman isn't capable of judging for herself about the value of human life. You must judge for her. As must your right-wing judicial appointee."

I think you'll find that doctors want to make a buck. To make the claim that doctors wouldn't willingly perform abortions is a bit naive. I've talked to countless people who will acknowledge that life begins at conception but still claim that abortion is okay because they simply don't want or can't afford to have a child at that point in time. Why is it so hard to believe that doctors would still perform abortions when they're getting paid to do so? There's about 1.5 million abortions performed each year in the U.S. Not only have I read many, many stories about women ending up on anti-depressants and talking to psychologists later in life as they begin to cope with an abortion they've had, that many times they were pressured into, I've also read many, many stories about doctors who have gone through pretty much the same thing. It's built into us. It's who we are. Deep down, we know it's wrong. It's always going to come back.

I have not refused to answer any question. I've talked with many women who have found themselves unexpectedly pregnant. It's usually panic that sets in first. They need help. They need someone to talk to because quite frankly, they're not thinking quite rationally at that point in time. The clock is ticking and they feel an incredible amount of pressure to make a decision. Most pig boyfriends don't even feel that pressure. It's problematic when the only advice they're ever offered is to get an abortion. Again, I've met too many women who have made that decision in a panic and have regretted it ever since. Did I mention the fact that there are about 1.5 million abortions performed each year in the U.S. alone? Our total death rate in the U.S. is about 2.4 million a year. Abortion is an epidemic. That's why the signs read, "Women deserve better!"

I personally think women rock! And they've been sold a false bill of goods. Too many women are being talked into abortion at one of their most vulnerable times. I've met far too many who just go through some very dark times later in life as a result. Too many times, it happens once they get married and have their first child. For most couples, that's one of the happiest times of their marriage. For many, that's also what triggers that breakdown.

We can't continue to pretend that abortion is meaningless. Stop buying into the Planned Parenthood and NARAL marketing campaigns and start addressing the issues.

Now answer my question that I've asked only to receive no response. What "rights" of the mother (and/or father) are being put forth that trump the right to life? What's that trade off? What's the justification here for taking the life of a human being?

"I think our anti-choice friend is starting to feel the effects of those beers he's been chugging. The posts are getting a little fuzzy."

In fact I've not been drinking anything. And I responded to what I responded to after whatever he or she had been responding to was deleted, so understandably I was confused. I see now what happened better.

I certainly hope no one was seriously arguing for genetic cleansing, even jokingly arguing for it is sick and wrong.

"that was a response to it." I didn't attribute it to beer. it's people replying to multiple posts.

SANTIAGO (WOMENSENEWS)--Monica Maureira remembers how--as the nurses interrogated her and the doctors lectured her--she watched her hands going transparent from the blood loss.

She was 16 years old and was hemorrhaging after having had a clandestine abortion in Chile, a country where abortion is illegal and considered immoral.

"I remember the nurses telling me that if I didn't give them the name of the doctor who gave me the abortion, they would let me bleed to death," Maureira says.

She lived to tell her story, but many women don't.

Across Latin America, an estimated 5,000 women die every year as a result of clandestine abortions, according International Planned Parenthood Federation. An estimated 800,000 are hospitalized due to complications, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, based in New York and Washington.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2086/context/cover/

>>>>> Are you kidding me? That is hysterical! Believe me, there is a LOT of sex happening in married couples. :-)

I think I'm starting to get a picture here. You see yourself as very disciplined and everyone else is a sexually addicted deviate.

You are in for a world of personal pain if you don't get into therapy right away.

Sex is a great thing. Birth control is a great thing. Don't have sex until you are ready, but don't assume everyone feels the same way about it that you do.

Enjoying sex is not the same as being addicted to it. You will learn that one day.
==============

I totally agree that sex is a great thing. I've never said anything to the contrary. But that doesn't change the fact that the primary purpose is to bring new life into the world. That's the basic mechanics that you cannot deny. As far as the "addiction" comment, I'm talking about your comment that it's impossible to teach kids not to have sex. I'm not saying that married couples are addicts. I'm not even saying that mature, "responsible" adults are addicts. What I'm saying is that you have to keep in the very forefront of your mind that nature's very purpose for it is to bring new life into the world. I'm not telling you to not use birth control. But a part of being a responsible adult it realizing that pregnancy is a result of sex. And "having lots of sex" isn't exactly a good enough reason to take the life of another human being, which you continue to ignore.

I never said anything about being a deviate and I think I've mentioned two or three times now that sex is a great thing. I'm very well aware of the fact that enjoying sex is not the same as being addicted to it. But I'm also very well aware of the fact that killing a person is a LOUSY contraceptive. The "right to have sex" does not trump someone's "right to life".

Implying that I'm uptight or ill informed about the joys of sex is a distraction from the topic at hand. I say that sex is an addiction if you're willing to take the life of another in order to have it. I am in no way stating that having "lots of sex" makes someone an addict or a deviate. Sex also has a very strong bonding effect that's important in marriage. I'm not a total stooge here. The point still remains that it's no excuse to take the life of another human being.

"The "right to have sex" does not trump someone's "right to life". "

So women who decide to have abortion are preoccupied with their right to have sex? In absolutely every case? And you know this for a fact?

pro-lifer: "Yes, the government CAN tell you when life begins. Currently the government seems to say that life begins at birth."

The government doesn't say when life begins (it actually begins with a sperm and an egg, which is why the Catholic church forbids masturbation). The government defines when _personhood_ begins (or ends) and when an entity (a living entity or even a corporation under American law!) has the _status_ of _"personhood"_.

pro-lifer: "a fertilized egg is an innocent human being"

A fertilized egg, zygote or embryo, for example, is not commonly, morally, or legally considered a human being, or person, or have the status of "personhood". Does a fertilized egg see, hear, taste, respond to sounds, feel pressure or pain, etc., think, respond to human stimuli? What phsical attributes of a human being does a fertilized egg have other than chromosomes (which does not constitute a human being)? A fertilized human egg is no more a human being than a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken.

You need to get out more to a library and read something besides the Bible and its mythology about virgin birth. You should start with a scientific book on the physiological development of human birth, and then move on to a book on analytical logic. (Would you believe such a claim from your, hypothetically, religiously devout teenage daughter?: 'Mom, a boy didn't get me pregnant! It must be a miraculous virgin birth!')

pro-lifer: "What is a person but a collection of cells?"

But not just _any_ collection of cells. The majority of people on earth can agree on the difference between the endpoints: a single-cell fertilized egg - not a human being - and a baby near birth - yes, a human being. That's why abortions closer to birth only occur under highly stipulated circumstances. Now, where in between beginning and end most of us scientificallly consider the fetus to be a human being is a matter of, physical and neurological, developmental criteria in the normal growth of a fetus - not what the Pope or Pat Robertson says.

A dead person is "a collection of cells" too, but he/she is no longer legally considered a human being or, in particular, a person. My fingernail is "a collection of cells" too (at least millions of them) and so even is my arm (a collection of at least billions of cells), but neither is considered a human being or person.

Religious conservatives are, of course, extremists who always want to take ridiculously extreme positions (but only when it affects _women_) - such as, 'you've got a person right from the fertilized egg!'

pro-lifer: "The issue of whether or not abortion is murder is really not a matter of what religion you believe in, it's a matter of how you interpret the facts."

Murder is a legal determination.


Now, let's correct the implication and reading comprehension what some analytically braindead religious nut tried to quote below:

"The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 [THIS IS PREFATORY PROSE, NOT A SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION] that "The intricate processes by which a baby develops __FROM__ [NOT _IS_!] a single cell are miraculous [IS "MIRACLE" A SCIENTIFIC WORD?] .... This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the __BEGINNING__ of [NOT _IS_!] a new human being ...." At page 18 this theme is repeated: "Human __DEVELOPMENT__ [NOT A HUMAN BEING!] __ BEGINS__ [NOT _EXISTS_!] at fertilization [emphasis in original] ...."


"Judge Michael J. Noonan ruled as follows [SO...! EXTREMIST RIGHT-WING JUDGES ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO MAKE/GIVE RIDICULOUS _RELIGIOUS_ DECISIONS/OPINIONS BASED ON THEIR BIBLICAL, NOT LEGAL, INTERPRETATIONS THAT LATER GET OVERTURNED] in a New Jersey case based on a man's efforts to save his unborn child [IN _WHAT_ STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, AND "UNBORN CHILD" IS NOT A LEGAL TERM, SO I KNOW ALREADY THAT YOU ARE LYING] from being aborted: …based upon the undisputed medical testimony by arguably the [THE(E)???] foremost authority[THERE IS ONLY ONE? WHO?] in genetics in the world [SO HE _CLAIMS_] ... found that human life [AGAIN, NOT A "HUMAN _BEING/PERSON_"!] begins [_BEGINS_, NOT EXISTS!] as conception [BUT NO LAW SAYS THAT A HUMAN _PERSON_ BEGINS AT CONCEPTION] ... that Roe vs. Wade permits a legal execution [NONPERSONS CAN NOT BE "EXECUTED", LEGALLY OR OTHERWISE, AND ROE V. WADE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE STATE, OR ANYONE ELSE, EXECUTING PEOPLE] of that human being"

Your stuff is garbage - and I don't even know if what you're claiming to quote, or your citation reference, is even true or whether you otherwise have altered whatever you claim to be quoting from. Where is the URL for this opinion? I don't believe any alleged citation that is not readily and independently verifiable or that someone doesn't provide a legitimate URL for. I would hardly just take a right-wing Christian extremist at his/her word for it.

Dr. so & so: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life [HE DIDN'T SAY A HUMAN BEING OR PERSON] is present from the moment of conception."

Actually, "life" is present _before_ conception, as the sperm and the egg are alive. Are they human too. If I mix some sperm and an egg in a Tupperware bowl do I have a human being or person in there at the moment of mixing if the egg gets fertilized before it dies? Life is also present in a fungus or a germ. The presence of mere "life" is not disputed. Whether that "life" is a human being or person is.

This is why science never involves religion - and many early modern scientists were themselves Christians. But those scientists didn't give religious interpretations to gravity or planetary trajectories or electromagnetic field theory or even genetics. They never said, "...and here's where God comes in in my experiments, interpretations or new theory..." This is why not even different Christians agree on what other Christians say, let alone members of other religions. We will never all agree on religious interpretations: it's a highly subjective and personal matter, and should be kept that way or among those who share those beliefs, not forced upon others.

I agree with Dr. Jocelyn Elders, fmr Surgeon General, and believer in God: "The Christian right is in _love_ with the fetus, but forgets about the baby once it's born."

"The government doesn't say when life begins (it actually begins with a sperm and an egg, which is why the Catholic church forbids masturbation). The government defines when _personhood_ begins (or ends) and when an entity (a living entity or even a corporation under American law!) has the _status_ of _"personhood"_."

The Catholic Church does not forbid masturbation because it believes that sperm cells are human persons. It forbids masturbation because masturbation removes sexuality from it's rightful place and directs one's sexual attention fully towards one's self rather than for relations between a husband and wife. If it were merely a matter of sperm cells, female masturbation would be considered acceptable and it is not.

"A fertilized egg, zygote or embryo, for example, is not commonly, morally, or legally considered a human being, or person, or have the status of "personhood". Does a fertilized egg see, hear, taste, respond to sounds, feel pressure or pain, etc., think, respond to human stimuli? What phsical attributes of a human being does a fertilized egg have other than chromosomes (which does not constitute a human being)? A fertilized human egg is no more a human being than a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken."

You, the same being you are now, came into existance as a zygote. The spem cell on it's own did not become you, neither did the egg cell. A zygote has all the genetic material, has the capability to grow, and will if nothing happens to it. Thus it is a human person. Besides, few abortions are performed immediately upon conception anyway.

"You need to get out more to a library and read something besides the Bible and its mythology about virgin birth. You should start with a scientific book on the physiological development of human birth, and then move on to a book on analytical logic. (Would you believe such a claim from your, hypothetically, religiously devout teenage daughter?: 'Mom, a boy didn't get me pregnant! It must be a miraculous virgin birth!')"

Nice of you to assume that I don't read anything but the bible. In fact I have read much about human development. I'm a psychology student and I know that certain psychological factors, certain aspects of personality, are in fact determined from the moment of conception. Now animals can have personalities too, but animals are animals (and I believe animal life beings at conception as well, but I am not as concerned about protecting animals) and people are people. A genetically human entity that is presently growing and has certain physical and psychological traits is, in my opinion, a human being.

"But not just _any_ collection of cells. The majority of people on earth can agree on the difference between the endpoints: a single-cell fertilized egg - not a human being - and a baby near birth - yes, a human being. That's why abortions closer to birth only occur under highly stipulated circumstances. Now, where in between beginning and end most of us scientificallly consider the fetus to be a human being is a matter of, physical and neurological, developmental criteria in the normal growth of a fetus - not what the Pope or Pat Robertson says."
I've told you when I think human life begins, and it has nothing to do with what the Pope or Pat Robertson says. I have no loyalty to Pat Robertson and I believed the above before I had any loyalty to the Pope.

"A dead person is "a collection of cells" too, but he/she is no longer legally considered a human being or, in particular, a person. My fingernail is "a collection of cells" too (at least millions of them) and so even is my arm (a collection of at least billions of cells), but neither is considered a human being or person."
These things are not growing, these things will not grow into a recognizable baby, a recognizable child, adult, etc. A dead body is dead. Your arm is YOUR arm, your fingernail is YOUR fingernail. None of these will ever be anything else.


"Religious conservatives are, of course, extremists who always want to take ridiculously extreme positions (but only when it affects _women_) - such as, 'you've got a person right from the fertilized egg!'"
There is nothing ridiculously extreme about this position, and it does not merely effect women. And religious conservatives take positions that are hard on men as well. Men don't typically DESIRE to remain sexually chaste, but the Church demands it of them. The Church also demands that men who have children take responsibility and care for them. It would be a sin to abandon your child. Don't make it out like the Church is always attacking women. The Church's laws do not discriminate, they seek the highest standard for everyone.

"Murder is a legal determination."

So there is no such thing as legal murder? Was the holocaust not murder because it was legal? Was it not murder when a plantation owner had a slave killed? That was legal. Just because a form of murder isn't considered murder by the state doesn't mean it isn't murder.

>>>>> So women who decide to have abortion are preoccupied with their right to have sex? In absolutely every case? And you know this for a fact?
==========

That's not what I'm saying at all. I've asked many, many times what the reasons are for taking the life of another human being. The question was somewhat dodged and the response came back as it being a right to have sex. So I followed along those lines and asked why having sex is a good enough excuse to end someone else's life. I said nothing about it being "absolutely every case". My comment was that killing should not be a form of contraception. It's not justifiable to kill for sex.

I'm not in any way shape or form trying to bucket all abortions into one broad category. I'm asking the question about when it's considered justifiable to take the life of another human being. Then I'm responding to the answers I'm getting, when I actually get one.

Some might say it's when the mother's life is at risk. Okay, that's actually a classic argument used in many different scenarios about killing, in general, to provide the best possible outcome of life. For example, even self defense falls into that category. If someone breaks into my house and points a gun at my wife, I not only have the right, but the obligation to prevent that, even if it means killing the intruder. What was that movie... you may have seen it? Three people are hanging from a rope. The strain on the protection from three people is too much and in a matter of minutes, it will give way and all three die. But if they cut the third person off the rope, who then falls to his death, the other two survive. There's all kinds of scenarios like that. They all make for interesting discussions. But they never come up where it's related to abortion. I would wager that 1.5 million lives were not saved by the 1.5 million children that were lost to abortion in the last 12 months.

But I was in the Walk For Life on Saturday and I read the signs and listened to what was being yelled at me, and none of it made any sense whatsoever. "Reproductive rights", as discussed already, is just one of those cases that makes no sense. Killing should not be an acceptible form of contraception. In making that claim, you're saying that the right to have sex trumps the right to life (i.e. killing to have sex). "Choice" is another. I've addressed that also. We all make decisions. But decisions have consequences.

Rather than slogans and marketing campaigns, I want to understand what people really think is more important than the right to life. Or is it nothing more than a matter of not caring and the fact that you can't see the child somehow makes him/her less significant?

I always hear, "But what if a nun gets raped...", blah, blah, blah... But there's 1.5 Million abortions per year and that number is rising constantly. It just boggles my mind. Even the Democrats in Washington are now using the slogan that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." First off, saying that they should be rare is a huge step forward because that's at least an admission that it's wrong. They should be so rare that they are non-existant. But more has to be done to reduce that number. Claiming that it's a legal right causes that number to ever increase. The message is being sent to teenagers across the U.S. that they can do whatever they want because abortion is always there for them. That's doing nothing to make it rare. Even if your only stance is keeping abortion legal for all the "what if" scenarios, please, please, please, please, please, let's doing something together to get that number down. It's absolutely revolting that we're approaching a point where we'll have more abortions each year than all other forms of death combined. If you've ever fought for breast cancer research, then fight to reduce the number of abortions. If you've ever fought for a reduction in AIDS related deaths, then fight for a reduction in the number of abortions. Teenagers shouldn't be having abortions. But they shouldn't be finding themselves unexpectedly pregnant either. We're supposed to be the most intelligent life on Earth. But sometimes I really wonder.

With all things comes responsibility. If you really feel that passionately about keeping abortion legal, then I beg of you to fight equally hard to keep it rare. The bottom line is that it's taking the life of another human being and no life should be taken in vain.

"I've asked many, many times what the reasons are for taking the life of another human being"

We've had rhetorical arguments tonight from anti-choicers asking why they shouldn't have the right to "abort" their 4 year old, the argument being ( I assume) that a 4 year old child and a 1 week (or less) embryo have the same "right to life".

My question for you: If the life of an adult or a 4 year old is placed in balance with that of a egg, a sperm, a zygote or a 1 week old embryo, which takes precedence?

And the unanswered question by all anti-choicers tonight, what gives you the special right to judge me and my decision about my egg, my embryo, my baby, my body, my life. Why do you get to decide that it's a person if I disagree with you? It just is?

>>>I totally agree that sex is a great thing. I've never said anything to the contrary. But that doesn't change the fact that the primary purpose is to bring new life into the world.<<<

Not anymore sweetie. Now we have birth control. We can explore the intimacy and just plain fun of sex without fearing pregnancy.

Sex is about much much more than procreation.

An embryo is not a human being. Yet.

You can call it a person or a human being but that doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it.

Dear Anti-choice person,

What if you win? What if you manage to make abortion illegal (and all the abortafacient birth control too.)

What are you going to do with 1 million unwanted children every year? Where will they go? Can they all come to your house? Who will pay for thier food and care and education? And remember, there will be a million more next year and a million more the year after that.

What is your plan, exactly?

You DO have a plan don't you?

"The Catholic Church ... forbids masturbation because masturbation removes sexuality from it's rightful place ... between a husband and wife."

Well, I grew up Catholic and I can tell you that most Catholics don't listen to that shit (and certainly not enough priests, who should get magazines instead of little boys). Masturbation is a well-practiced 'right of sexual passage' for most Catholic boys (with their magazines) and, alternately, a good way for women to learn how their body sexually works and what pleases them. Most Catholics use contraception - also forbidden by the Pope. And most Catholic girls who accidentally get pregnant get an abortion (they don't typically, quietly and suddenly go away to that 'special' summer camp or their out-of-town aunt to have a baby anymore). You know what they say about the Pope?: He no playa the game, he no maka the rules!"

Also, in case you haven't noticed, a majority of people expect to go on to some kind of college now, and then maybe on to further study or training, and then on to start their career.That could put them in their mid-late 20's before they even think about getting married, if they do. Do you think that most people are going to wait until they are married to have sex. Get out of religious fantasy land and get real!

"A zygote has all the genetic material, has the capability to grow, and will if nothing happens to it. Thus it is a human person."

So, _A SINGLE CELL_ with all the chromosomes necessary for human development is _a human being_? -- a _person_? Do you give it a name?

You should do right-wing religious stand-up comedy!

That's why I can't tear myself away from you right-wing Christians, even when I should be sleeping! You all are so _funny_ and entertaining. I wish we were talking in person, at a more reasonable hour.

"I'm a psychology student and I know that certain psychological factors, certain aspects of personality, are in fact determined from the moment of conception."

Are you studying psychology in _Kansas_? - along with your Creationism class?

So, medical science can potentially tell from looking at the chromosomes whether someone is going to be nice or mean, a nuclear scientist, a gourmet cook, a concert pianist, or a jock, or even a serial killer? A single-cell fertilized egg has a "personality"? Do tell...? I guess all human being _do_...!

"A genetically human entity that is presently growing and has certain physical and psychological traits is, in my opinion, a human being."

That "has certain physical and psychological traits". Wait a minute! I thought you said that even a fertilized egg - a one-cell entity - is "a human being", "a person". Now you're starting to fudge.

"Your arm is YOUR arm, your fingernail is YOUR fingernail. None of these will ever be anything else."

So, because a _SINGLE CELL_ fertilized egg is capable of developing a human being, if a ferility doctor discards all but one of several fertilized eggs in a petri dish from a woman patient trying to get pregnant with just one child, then he is a premeditated serial murderer??? If a woman takes a pill that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting properly in her womb, then she is a premeditated murderer too??? After all, according to you right-wing Christians, even a single cell fertilized egg is a human being! Let's see you squirm on that one. That's why you socioreligiously inbred people need to get out more often, beyond the cult.

"So there is no such thing as legal murder?"

I know that since you right-wing Christians don't have any scientific sense, then you don't have any legal sense.

No, there is no such juridical thing as "legalized murder": that's a contradiction in legal terms. If it's legal, then it's not murder. There is "homicide" and "murder". All "homicides" are not necessarily "murder", in the legal sense. Soldiers defending their country against attack are not "murdering" the enemy. People who kill in self-defense are not guilty of "murder". Not even prison executioners are commiting "murder".

Now, we can _rhetorically_ say that the police often commit "legalized murder", but, in fact, the police often commit morally wrongful homicides that they can always get away with - especially against people of color. (But, funny, I never see you right-wing Christians out in the streets protesting when some black man is 'legally murdered' by the cops.)


"Was the holocaust not murder because it was legal? Was it not murder when a plantation owner had a slave killed? That was legal."

That's right. Nazi Germany legalized the Holocaust; pioneer America legalized the right to kill as many Native Americans as whites wanted to; ante-bellum America legalized the right to kill slaves; and pioneer Israel, in effect, legalized the right to kill Palestinians. So, none of it was legally considered "murder" and no one was ever prosecuted for those homicides.

"Just because a form of murder isn't considered murder by the state doesn't mean it isn't murder."

Well, one may _morally_ (and having no necessary connection with religious beliefs) consider a homicide murder. I _DO_ consider European pioneers gunning down Indians, ante-bellum Americans arbitrarily killing slaves, Nazis gassing Jews, Israel's pioneers massacring Palestinians (why aren't you marching against that all over the country?), and contemporary police brutality killings (why aren't you marching against that all over the country?), to _morally_ be murder of _INDISPUTABLY_ human beings. But, if a homicide (which also has both a common and legal definition that doesn't include, by most people's belief, aborting fertilized eggs) isn't considered murder by the state, then legally it's not "murder". Again, "murder", technically, is a legal determination.

But, most people neither rhetorically, morally or legally consider, for example, very early abortions either homicide or murder.

Hey, thanks for the laughs!

I do not expect everyone will agree with me, but I want you to be fully informed. Put aside religious value, put aside your anger and unhappiness, stay cool, think calm, and check out these books :
1) The Secret Life of the Unborn Child
by THOMAS DR VERNY
2) Babies Remember Birth
by DAVID PHD CHAMBERLAIN
3) http://www.birthpsychology.com
You hate Christianity, that is fine. But at least you understand the life in the womb from medical and sciantific point of view.

http://www.albany.edu/history/FromTheBackAlleys.html

what i truly don't understand is this-
how can anyone argue being anti-choice as pro life? it's not pro life, it's pro-certain-lives...
my friend had an ectopic pregnancy. this means that her pregnancy would probably have damaged her, and possibly killed her. why is it someone else's choice whether she should try anyway and suffer, or have the abortion and grieve?
if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. it's really your choice. but allow me my choice.
i also highly support not having stupid sex, i.e. sex with people unprotected or without discussing what to do if pregnancy occurs. one of the largest issues has been that poorer people have less access to birth control. and, um... shouldn't sex ed be geting better, not worse?... (thinking about "mutual masturbation causes pregnancy!)
i find it ironic that the same groups who claim to be anti murder have been responsible for some of the worst genocides ever. religion and politics shouldn't mix.
i also find it ironic that some of the loudest voices in the matter are men. :) when they can get pregnant, i think they should be active in the debate.

Ever notice how the left side seems to be perpetually angry and screaming about one thing or another. And you mistake that for your argument having more support. I will agree that you put more stress on your vocal cords, but that is about it. These "Anti-Choice fanatics" as you say are not wasting there time with these little boards that noboby besides us reads. They are out helping women to get the resources they need to not be forced into abortion. Yes, FORCED into abortion. Lack of resources makes it impossible for women to choose life, ergo leaving them one option - another buck in the pocket of Planned Parenthood!

And yes I do see the irony that I am responding your little quip... but you know the only reason why. I USED TO BE PRO CHOICE (so I frequent boards like this) and was as angry and pissed off as the rest of you. I learned first hand how abortion effects women and will spend the last breath in body proclaiming just as loud and often times obnoxiously as your side the absolute cage that women are put in because men now have another hoop for us to jump through to acheive equality.

I'll bet all of us women are thankful for the work of the pioneering feminists... I am! Well what do you think that Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Caddey Staton thought of this issue. Check out this site - http://www.feministsforlife.org/ - I dare you. While you are at it - google the name of Bernard Nathanson - I'll bet most of you dont even know who he is. He was a key witness and proponent of Roe V Wade also the founder of NARAL. Then look up Norma McCorvey (that's Jane Roe herself).

Let me know what you think. Seriously - cause they were enough to have me switch sides. I welcome your opinions. This is not about me being right... it is about what is right. So if you are so convinced that pro-choice is the way to be... I beg you to quit yelling and PROVE ME WRONG!

All this talk about the number of unwanted babies each year and who will take care of them is pretty scary. You know why? Because you are using that as justification for abortion, what happens when you dont make enough coffee to go around or there are not enough seats in the car... should we kill off the surplus so that everyone has just what they want. I feel physically sick even thinking about some of the related comments above. Please stop being so angry and think about what you are proposing as reasons for abortion.

Guess what? we are not all right wing Christians. I myself am not - but I do believe in the dignity and respect of EVERY human person, but have to feel for those ones that do fit in that category... cause the pro-choicers can be absolutely brutal sometimes. Just like the Feminist above stated. Yes, I agree. We are open to suggestions that do not include genocide any longer.

OKAY. EASY ENOUGH:

"Ever notice how the _left_ side seems to be _perpetually angry and screaming_ about one thing or another. And you mistake that for your argument having more support. I will agree that you put more stress on your vocal cords, but that is about it." (Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2005 at 11:32 PM)

RIGHT-WING LOUDMOUTHS:

You mean, unlike Sunday morning tv evangelists Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill "SHUT UP!" O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Daniel Pipes, John McLaughlin, Chris Matthews, Donald Rumsfeld, Camille Paglia, Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Lynne Cheney, etc., etc., etc...

No, I've never noticed.


NOW LET'S TAKE A QUOTE:

PROVE ME WORNG by I AM BEGGING YOU [Note that she/he writes in all caps, as she/he complains about lefties "screaming". Didn't Jesus say something about _hypocrites_ casting the first stone? Or what about people in glass houses...?]: "I learned first hand how abortion effects women and will spend the last breath in body proclaiming just as _loud_ and often times _obnoxiously_..."

(By the way, there are plenty of liberal, independent, politically middle-of-the-road and even Republican women, religious and non-religious, who are also pro-choice. It's mostly just the male-led Bible-thumping religious fundamentalists, fanatics, bombers, and assassins who are anti-choice.)

And here's the choice 'pearl' by I AM BEGGING YOU : "I beg you to _quit yelling_ and _PROVE ME WRONG_!"

I just did. Had enough?

All this talk about the number of unwanted babies each year and who will take care of them is pretty scary. You know why? Because you are using that as justification for abortion, what happens when you dont make enough coffee to go around or there are not enough seats in the car... should we kill off the surplus so that everyone has just what they want.

excelent point!

"Red states have much higher teen birth rates than blue states",

by Markham's Behavioral Health,
November, 2004

The pundits claim the the voters who voted for Bush did so because of "values". However, if the behavior of the people who live in these states is any indication of what they value, it makes one wonder because what they say they value and what they do are quite at odds.

For example, divorce rates are higher in red states than blue states even though they passed resolutions banning gay marriage because they supposedly want to protect marriage which they don't practice.

Another indicator we might take a look at is teen pregnancy rates, and I predicted that teen pregnancy rates would be higher in red states than they are in blue states and I found this to be overwhelmingly true. So, it makes one wonder whether these folks "walk" the "talk". It doesn't appear that they do.

"I do believe in the dignity and respect of EVERY human person"

So, do we. We just don't consider a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a mentally nonconscious rudimentary fetus, to be a person.


"what happens when you dont make enough coffee to go around or there are not enough seats in the car... should we kill off the surplus so that everyone has just what they want."

Yes, we should kill all our office co-workers who didn't get coffee before the decanter ran out. Yes, we should kill all our friends that we can't fit into our car. Yes, an abortion is just like running out of coffee or seats in the car. (An assinine question deserves an assinine answer.) Now I understand the mental depth, lack thereof, of simple-minded Christian fundamentalists. That means you, too, Martha.


"I do believe in the dignity and respect of EVERY human person"

Then why don't you start with and take care of all the ones who are destitute, poor, malnurished, ill-housed, homeless and have already been born, instead of increasingly taking away social programs for them? ...And the ones who have been and are being shot, shelled and bombed every day in Iraq by the U.S. or in Palestine by Israel. Where is your pre-occupation or your marches for them?

Pardon me, your _hypocrisy_ is showing - and has been for a long time.

That's why we ridicule and laugh at all you Christian fanatics. Come back when you've taken care of all the human beings who have already been born. Until then, you're wasting your breath here.

Did anyone google Bernard Nathanson or Norma McCorvey?

Most if not all of the comments made in re: to religion, God, Jesus, Catholic Church, etc, etc. are being made by the dissenters. Why is that? Why dont we leave God out of it for awhile? Anyway he/she is probably tired of being used as a scapegoat in all this.

Paul Hill, Jim Kopp, Clay Waagner, Shelly Shannon, Michael Bray, John Brockhoeft, Joshua Graff

take all the billions of dollars put into all the giant "Crystal Cathdedrals", giant gold-plated cathedrals, and Vatican Palaces - would Jesus live that way? - Christian 'disneylands', Christian fundamentalist propaganda tv networks, Christian supported _wars_ and _executions_ and give it to sex education, family planning centers, and other reproductive/contraceptive educational and research resources - let alone the poor - to help women who otherwise feel they only have one choice left, abortion?

Quit whinning you bunch of glassy-eyed Christian fanatic lunatic zombies....face it your little glassy-eyed fantasy Stepford world will never exist in the real world...it ended with 1950's Ward & June Cleaver, Ozzie & Harriet, Father Knows Best sitcoms...

oh and I mean to say glassy-eyed Christian fanatic lunatic zombies in the nicest way...the way glassy-eyed Christian fanatic lunatic zombies say glassy-eyed Christian fanatic lunatic zombies to each other...

...to have had a bunch of righties visit our fair town, and golly, they just didn't understand all the wondrous things they saw from that tour bus window. Oh, and this was after they finished telling the women of San Francisco that they should lie back and enjoy the second term and the third trimester.

GOD BLESS!!! YOU GO!!!!!!!