Ron Paul on the Abortion issue

[Dannyboy1]

Please don't get angry. Try and step outside of your emotions right now, and realize I don't hate anyone, I'm not going to tell anyone what to do, I'm not trying to force you to change. Let me show you something I wrote to someone considering abortion and the people who were trying to give her advice.

I don't believe anyone who has not had a child themselves has any right to offer you advice. I was pro choice until I had my child and now I thank God every day we never seriously considered abortion even though we had only been dating a year. It's easy to be pro choice when you haven't met your child yet, but make no mistake, you are stopping a life. This baby will never be born again. You will find a way if you have this baby. If you don't want the baby, there are many people who can't have children who will love you forever for having it. You created this being, you owe it to them to at least give them nine months of your life to give them a chance.

To anyone who's never had a child, I ask you to consider the fact that you do not have the experience to make this decision for someone else. Think about times when an experience transformed you into a totally opposite way of thinking. So much so, that when you try and change your friends minds, they cannot and even refuse to believe you. You've become enlightened in a way that they cannot possibly understand until they go through it. I cannot possibly explain the experience of having a child to you, but I can ask you to realize that if you did have the experience of having a child, you would definitely not take this decision as lightly as you are right now. I have never met a person who would ever consider having an abortion once they've had a child.

One more thing. When we found out we were having a baby, I was expressing my nervousness to an aquaintence I had know for a couple of years. I told him we were broke and I had no work and I wasn't sure I was ready, but we were going to have the baby anyway. He looked into my eyes with tears in his and he said, "We have been trying to have a child for years and we can't seem to make it happen. Please, give him to us. If you don't feel you can take care of him, give him to us." he then turned and walked away crying.

Originally Posted by Dharma

Brutha: This thread contains post about abortion from Ron Paul is Going to Win. and Ron Paul 2008 - Opinions?
I think it's better when we discuss that issue in a single thread.


Ron Paul is pro-life. In constitutional terms, your response should be, "so what". The federal government has no authority on abortion... (but we all think it does).

Roe v Wade is unconstitutional. There is no power set aside in the constitution for the government to approve or deny abortion. That choice is left up to the individual states. Ron Paul would get rid of the Federal ruling on abortion because the feds have no right telling you what to do in this arena.

The issue of abortion would go to the state-level where it belongs. You and your local legislators decide what is right for you. This was the idea way way back in the first place. The federal government was designed to safeguard your rights and only given limited powers. Ruling on abortion is not one of them.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Please don't get angry.

Dannyboy, I'm not angry that you're expressing your opinion, one that you feel passionately about. But posting it once is plenty -- you don't need to post the same message three times for us to be able to get it. Thanks.

[Dannyboy1]

There is no excuse for abortion when two people have consentual sex. The excuse used to be (and they still try and use this one), "I don't want to screw up my life and the baby's." You cannot use that excuse anymore because there are waiting lists of people begging for a baby, good, caring people. People who break the law aren't given a do-over. Neither should people who "accidently" get pregnant. They should have to serve their nine months of community service.

[Michael45]

I get the impression only one person in this thread has read the Roe V Wade summery......... Besides me........
Now on the other hand........ Where are the rights of the Father? As two people have consentual sex, they have in fact, formed a contract. The byproduct of this contract sometimes results in conception. Scientific study says that conception begins the minute the egg is fertilized. That is when cell division begins. Since this is a contract, both parties are responsible for the fetus. So how can you say only the mother has a say so in abortion. She is just the vessel to incubate the fetus. Feesibly you can change vessels if you can catch the egg before it enters the womb, but then again, who goes to the doctor every time they have sex and asks to be checked for sterilized eggs? lol

As far as Rove V Wade...... it only defines that every person has the right, and say so, over their own bodies. It protects their individual rights, and states that the state level has no right to say who gets an abortion or not basically. Has nothing to do with it being legal or illegal............

[Michael45]

hahahaha I'd love to argue this one in court....... lol I bet I could win.......... lol

[Michael45]

The Constitutional right to personal privacy, the roots of which are found in the 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments, is "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." The right to abortion, however, is not absolute. At some point, a "compelling state interest" in protecting the health of the woman and the potentiality of human life develops which permits the state to protect fetal life even to the point of proscribing all non-therapudic abortions. To balance the competing interests of the woman and the state, the Court set up the following timetable:

First Trimester: The state has no "compelling interest" in protecting the health of the woman because "abortion in early pregnancy, although not without its risks, is relatively safe." The state also has no "compelling interest" in protecting the potentiality of human life because "the compelling point is at viability." Therefore, the state may not regulate abortion at all except to require that the procedure be preformed by a physician.
Second Trimester: Since "the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues," the state, in promoting its interest in protecting the health of the woman "may regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health." Examples of permissible state regulation are requirements as to the qualifications of the person performing the abortion or the licensure of the abortion facility.

Third Trimester: Since the fetus has the capability of "meaningful life" outside the pregnant woman's womb at "about 28 weeks, but as early as 24 weeks," the state's interest in protecting potential life becomes "compelling" at this point of "viability." Therefore, the state, if it chooses, may regulate and even proscribe abortion except where it is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the woman.
Roe has been substantially modified by subsequent cases like Webster and Casey.

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/roe-sum.htm

[oberlee]

Originally Posted by Michael45

Where are the rights of the Father? As two people have consentual sex, they have in fact, formed a contract. The byproduct of this contract sometimes results in conception. Scientific study says that conception begins the minute the egg is fertilized. That is when cell division begins. Since this is a contract, both parties are responsible for the fetus. So how can you say only the mother has a say so in abortion. She is just the vessel to incubate the fetus. Feesibly you can change vessels if you can catch the egg before it enters the womb, but then again, who goes to the doctor every time they have sex and asks to be checked for sterilized eggs? lol

You're right; however, you're not carrying another human being in your body for nine months. Even just being pregnant SUCKS. It SUCKS. It's HORRIBLE. You're constantly both nauseous AND hungry, always tired, and never at ease. That's the first 3 months. The next three, supposedly, are ok. Then the last trimester's the worst--the sickness comes back PLUS you have an almost full grown baby to carry around. Oh yeah--then you have to push it through your vagina. Fun.

Now that's the physical side of things. If you WANT the baby, you'll put up with it, and it will be tempered with the anticipation of having the baby. If you DON'T want it, well, then that's nine months of shoot me in the head.

It's not that the father doesn't have a right, but the fact he's not carrying the baby seems...a little unfair if you're giving him 50% of the ruling. So, it just weighs into the situation.

But in a VAST majority of cases, the men will not be sympathetic. They won't give a [bleep] and will leave the woman to go through the pregnancy and raising the child all on her own. That's the worst case scenario, but it's a reality.

That just seems sexist to me.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by oberlee

That just seems sexist to me.

Nature is sexist.

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I'll try to ask this as straightforwardly as possible...

What if life really does begin at conception? Wouldn't the abortion issue then be more complex than just one person's decision?

Yes,
and having been forced to witness a dozen abortions,
every last one of them, for the woman's 'convenience' ,
I can tell you that each pre-born baby suffers the worst agonies as each is carelessly killed.

[Capstan]

Fetuses are people too. They sure aren't garbage or anything else.

Life begins at conception. It sure isn't anything else.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

There is no excuse for abortion when two people have consentual sex.

You invent contraception that is 100.00% effective, and I might agree with your statement.

Also be sure to make your contraception affordable and accessible to all women without a prescription.

The excuse used to be (and they still try and use this one), "I don't want to screw up my life and the baby's." You cannot use that excuse anymore because there are waiting lists of people begging for a baby, good, caring people.

Please tell me where all these people are? If you get pregnant and try to deal with it alone, there is almost no support for you. Maybe are few food stamps to buy junk-food and crappy formula with... the rest you're on your own for. Where are all the anti-choice people when the baby is born and needs so many things? Where are the churches and protesters when mom can't even afford diapers or a proper crib?

If you're pregnant and a (1) minority or (2) appear to have developmental delays of your own, good luck trying get *anyone* to consider adopting it. If the baby is born with defects or alcohol/drug fetal syndrome, also forget it. The few who can afford the big $$$ to go through the expensive legal maze of adoption want healthy, robust kids. The unwanted babies end up stuck with the mom who resents it or stuck in the foster-care system.

I encourage you to look into the process of adoption. It's extremely hard to find an affordable, healthy baby to adopt in the US; the system is broken. It's also expensive and not too accessible.

People who break the law aren't given a do-over. Neither should people who "accidently" get pregnant. They should have to serve their nine months of community service.

9 months of community service? you make it sound like spending a few hours each Saturday picking up trash in the park?

Do you understand that women DIE in childbirth? I have a good friend who literally did almost that. She desperately wanted the baby, and she was taking excellent care of her self. She was young and in great health. Why does it seem to be taboo to warn women about the big dangers of pregnancy?

They never tell you that pregnancy comes with a risk of gestational diabetes and gestational hypertension. The latter is what nearly killed my friend when her blood pressure when out of control.

Do you understand that bearing a child leaves permanent damage to the woman's body? It's more than a mere inconvenience.

Do you also understand some women don't have health insurance. If you're forced to carry the unwanted baby to term, who pays if there are complications? Who pays when you're sick each morning and miss some work? Who pays for the birth? Who pays if the birth goes badly, as it did for another friend, who ended up going into labor 4 months early? Are you ok with being in debt to a hospital $10,000 for something you didn't want in the first place. $10,000 to a low-income woman is enough to bankrupt her. She could have her wages garnished, putting her behind on her rent and now she's homeless.

And this is something most guys probably don't understand: women can lose their jobs if they get pregnant. It may not be legal or right, but it does happen. Employers don't want to deal with the mandatory maternity leave, the countless days off work for doc visits, and dealing with the horomonal roller-coaster. They don't want to deal with a worker whose first priority is the pregnancy, not doing the job. I've seen firsthand pregnant women not be hired.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Capstan

Life begins at conception. It sure isn't anything else.

Are sperm not alive? Are ovum not alive? If you're coming from a religious background, some religions (eg Catholicism) say it's a sin to "spill seed" (i.e. prevent sperm from getting to egg). "Go forth and multiply", the Bible says. Isn't it a crime then to kill sperm with condoms and spermicides?

Some contraception work partly by preventing the egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. How is causing the death of a 1 day old clump of fertilized cells ok but the death of a larger clump bad?

If the criteria is "alive" and "has human DNA", why are tumors removed? A tumor is a clump of cells. A fetus is a clump of cells. Neither are aware of what's around it. Both have the full DNA. Why is it right to remove one unwanted clump of cells but wrong to remove the other?

[Capstan]

Originally Posted by funchy

Are sperm not alive? Are ovum not alive? If you're coming from a religious background, some religions (eg Catholicism) say it's a sin to "spill seed" (i.e. prevent sperm from getting to egg). "Go forth and multiply", the Bible says. Isn't it a crime then to kill sperm with condoms and spermicides?

Some contraception work partly by preventing the egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. How is causing the death of a 1 day old clump of fertilized cells ok but the death of a larger clump bad?

If the criteria is "alive" and "has human DNA", why are tumors removed? A tumor is a clump of cells. A fetus is a clump of cells. Neither are aware of what's around it. Both have the full DNA. Why is it right to remove one unwanted clump of cells but wrong to remove the other?

A fetus is not aware? Perhaps you have no memory of your your own gestation- cannot remember that far back yet- but when you attain to this, if you ever do, you may be grateful you were not snuffed out. An unborn may not know light, but it knows sound, taste and touch. Remember? More than this, it knows which way is up. The human spirit is not a learned trait, something a professor imparts to a student, or one individual to another. It is innate. Or, as a logician, do you deny the human spirit?

If a fetus is a clump of cells, then what are you? You're not logical. You use science to foster a political expediency. Who checked your I.D?

We should acknowledge the unborn for what they are: citizens. For that is what they are, even if there are loopholes in law for the greedy to crawl through.

[missing]

If I could have chosen as a fetus, I'd have chosen to be aborted. If somebody could sniper me tomorrow without me knowing, I'd chose that as well.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Capstan

A fetus is not aware? Perhaps you have no memory of your your own gestation- cannot remember that far back yet- but when you attain to this, if you ever do, you may be grateful you were not snuffed out. An unborn may not know light, but it knows sound, taste and touch. Remember? More than this, it knows which way is up. The human spirit is not a learned trait, something a professor imparts to a student, or one individual to another. It is innate. Or, as a logician, do you deny the human spirit?

If a fetus is a clump of cells, then what are you? You're not logical.

How can you have awareness or a "spirit" without a brain?

Even at birth the human's brain wiring is not completely formed, a scientific fact. The eyes do not focus well. Body control is weak. Even an animal can get on its feet a few hours after birth, unlike the human baby. The newborn's reactions to the environment are weak instinctual reactions, no more aware than the plant that moves to follow the sun. Sprouting seeds know which way is up. By that logic, are plants sentient?

Unless your arguments are all based on irrational spiritual beliefs, at which point we might as well argue about past life memories, ghosts, other realms, or space aliens. If spirits live before they enter the baby, how do we know they're not happier in that other realm? Maybe we're doing wrong by plucking angels out of heaven and forcing them into the painful human existence? What, you don't remember your past life in the other realms? (Do you see the problem with using unprovable spiritual beliefs instead of science?)

Would I regret it if my mother aborted me? No, of course not. I would feel no sadness or regret because I would not be aware it happened. And how do you know my spirit wouldn't have just appeared in some other baby? Or how do you know that the aborted fetus was not meant to be born anyway and it was fate? We don't know so it's pointless to argue the absolutely unprovable.

Let's stick to things we do know:

We know that brain activity is required for self-awareness (hence the term "brain death" for adults who become ventilator vegetables).

Brain activity requires a developed human brain. According to most people, animal brains don't have what it takes to hold a sentient spirit.

So, I ask you, where is that developed brain in these photos?

#1:


#2:


#3:




#3 is probably the closest, with a bump where you can tell the head is forming. Mediate on this pic and tell me if you can sense a spirit forming there. What do you think?

[missing]

I like the second pic. Looks like a weird variant of an alien sea creature. Next time I'm eating shrimp, I will meditate on how it looks like a young fetus, then dip it in some blood red cocktail sauce and enjoy!

mmm... spirits... they nourish the body and soul!

[Capstan]

Spirits do not live before they "enter" a baby. The spirit is an integral part of each individual, new and unique and able to live spiritually, even after the body dies. Spirituality is not a recycling process. When you kill a human, young or old, you rob its spirit of its natural development and potential to fulfill itself. Our injunctions against murder are not rational. There is no rational reason we should not kill at random, unless of course, one recognizes that rationality encompasses far more than what can merely be measured by a scientific instrument. When science argues that a fetus is less than, or something other than, a human being, it has left the realm of rationality and expresses an opinion. This is not based in spiritual belief, but in logic and common sense. A fetus begins as a human being, can never be anything other than a human being and will remain a human being, even when it is aborted.

Until science can accurately measure the worth of humanity, something it can never do, it has no business advocating its destruction.

Pardon me if I don't jump on your "logical" bandwagon.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Capstan

When you kill a human, young or old, you rob its spirit of its natural development and potential to fulfill itself.

When you prevent sperm from joining with egg, it's also true you rob that potential life from being created and developed. The Catholic church still preaches against birth control and see it this way. What is your opinion on this?

I don't understand the "potential person" logic because it does not seem consistent:

If the crime is the loss of potential person, then why aren't you also outraged by birth control?

What of birth control that don't kill sperm and might allow for the egg to be fertilized? How is it a "murder" if a doctor or RU-486 drug does it at 4 weeks but not murder if the Pill or IUD prevents the embryo from implanting at 4 hours, effectively killing it? Your arbitrary cut-off is the moment of fertilization, so what's the difference?

Why don't anti-choice protesters also picket fertility clinics? Do you have any idea how many embryos per person are discarded in the process of getting one to implant and grow?

Our injunctions against murder are not rational. There is no rational reason we should not kill at random, unless of course, one recognizes that rationality encompasses far more than what can merely be measured by a scientific instrument.

We do not kill randomly because this would prevent society from functioning properly. It would be irrational to go around killing others indiscriminately, as this is counterproductive to society.

I re-read this and I am still not completely sure what you mean. I think that you may be confusing the word "rational" with "moral"?

A fetus begins as a human being, can never be anything other than a human being and will remain a human being, even when it is aborted.

Do you mean human being as in has human DNA? Or human being as in your belief of the potential of what the cells may grow into? or something else? I don't understand how you're qualifying what is and what is not "remains a human being".

Does my egg also "begin life as a human being" since the egg can be nothing other than human, by this reasoning? Am I wasting a potential life by ovulating but not getting pregnant? Think of all the possible people I am denying giving life to.

Why shouldn't birth control be banned?

Pardon me if I don't jump on your "logical" bandwagon.

Why do you put logical in quotes?



I think in the equation about abortion, you're forgetting the bigger picture: what about the woman? Who are you to judge when a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term? If she is raped or even worse raped by a family member, is it more important to bring a fetus to term even if it totally destroys the woman's psyche in the process? For what, to bring an unwanted baby into the world so it can be tossed into the foster care system?

Consider this:
What if, through no fault of the woman's, the fetus dies in utero (a stillbirth). Sometimes the woman's body does not go into labor immediately, and the dead fetus can be carried the full 9 months. If we ban abortion, you now force that woman to carry a warm corpse inside of her for months. Then she goes through the physical and mental pain of labor and giving birth to the stillborn. Why make her suffer?

The purpose of my argument is not to fight against life but rather to fight for choice: these sort of choices are very personal and it should be something the couple decides. If someone doesn't believe in abortion or birth control, nobody is forcing you to do use it. But by the same token, don't go forcing your own beliefs on other people.

[Capstan]

Babies, even the unborn, are not clumps of cells. They are not tumors. They are not a cancer. They are not property, any more than a newborn is. They have rights and deserve protection, as much as you or I. I have no disrespect for women, nor do I desire to control them, but remember, half the babies that are aborted are women too. They deserve the chance to show us what they know. Our inability to understand them does not make them less than us. You argue that we don't kill randomly, because it harms society, but you don't follow your own argument to its logical conclusion. Life does not somehow magically begin when a baby exits the womb. It has been developing since conception. Sexuality is far more than the clinical combination of biologic substances. Everything we are, everything we can ever be, is imbued into a new person, separate, distinct and unique from its parents, not their property, and, whether you recognize it or not, every bit as much a part of society as any one else. If it were not so, people wouldn't smile when a pregnant woman walks by. They don't smile for the woman, but for what she carries. You argue that abortion should be a personal choice, but excluding the baby, who can not yet be articulate, is hardly considerate of one's personal rights.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Capstan

They are not property, any more than a newborn is.

A newborn is the property of the parent. Try to grab a baby out of a shopping cart at the grocery store and see what happens to you.

A womb is the property of the woman.

If you can find a way to keep a fertilized egg alive outside of a womb, more power to you. But you cannot force a woman at gunpoint to be the incubator for something she did not want or plan for.

They have rights and deserve protection, as much as you or I.

What "rights" do they have besides the rights you say they have? For something to have rights, it needs to be recognized as a person under the law.

If we classify an embryo as a person, then wouldn't women who miscarry be charged with involuntary manslaughter?

Would the Pill be banned because it can cause a fertilized embryo from implanting in the lining of the uterus, thereby killing it?

I have no disrespect for women, nor do I desire to control them,

Then don't. Respect their decisions. Understand that not everyone has the same beliefs you do.

They deserve the chance to show us what they know.

You still have not responded to my question on birth control: if we're concerned about what could be, do you also oppose birth control? A woman is born with only so many eggs, and each time she ovulates it's a potential life that is not created. Shouldn't she also be forbidden from birth control so her eggs can develop and "show us what they know"?

Our inability to understand them does not make them less than us.

What do we not understand about a fetus?

What does "less than us" mean? I do believe a 2 centimeter clump of undifferentiated cells is a little less important than you or I.

You argue that we don't kill randomly, because it harms society, but you don't follow your own argument to its logical conclusion. Life does not somehow magically begin when a baby exits the womb.

Prove "life" begins at conception. Define "life".

Aren't sperm and ovum "alive" when they join?

You argue that abortion should be a personal choice, but excluding the baby, who can not yet be articulate, is hardly considerate of one's personal rights.

You solve all the causes why a woman needs an abortion, and women will stop getting them:

- invent an affordable birth control with no failures, that any woman can get access to. Make it accessible to even poor women by not requiring a prescription. Make it accessible to teens. Offer it to the less educated, and don't be afraid to teach about family planning.

- invent a way to prevent all rape and incest.

- cure all causes of stillbirths and serious-to-fatal genetic defects. Cure trisonomy-21, hydrocephaly, and other incurable defects that will cause only suffering. If you know a baby born without a brain is only going to slowly die a very painful death, why force that on anyone?

- pay out of your own funds (not my money) to subsidize the mommy choice

- find a way to keep women from getting fired or penalized for taking time off work to give birth. Pay (your funds not taxpayers) for the pay she loses when she's unable to work.

- Pay for the hospital expenses for these women, especially the uninsured. Do you understand a hospital stay can run $50,000 or more, especially if the baby goes into intensive care? And without insurance where does that money come from... will women lose their homes and go into bankruptcy to pay medical bills for something they didn't want in the first place?

- find a way to make men stay: make them be a responsible loving father & partner when they get a woman pregnant. The American mindset is that the majority of births are to single moms. The father wanders off to live his own life, and the kid is swapped back and forth as long as child support payments keep coming

- make giving up to adoption easier and develop a good plan who is going to raise them. Right now it's almost a taboo not to give up a child to adoption. Women are shamed into keeping it a secret. Why is it such a bad thing to not keep something one didn't want in the first place? Make giving up the infant easy, fast, and acceptable.

- address the medical reasons why some women should not have a baby. To some women pregnancy puts them at serious risk for hospital stay or even death. I almost lost a friend to pregnancy, and her doctors said if she got pregnant again, it could kill her. Cure gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, and other illnesses caused by pregnancy.

- reform the child visitation and support laws. If one or both people wanted the abortion, there should be some way they can attest to this early on and not be penalized later to support a child they never wanted.


I don't believe people want to be "killers". I believe people do the best they can with the situation they're dealt. You cannot judge others until you walk in their shoes. Instead of condemning them, why not address the reasons why they feel they must opt for abortion?

[Capstan]

Babies are property? Well, duuuuuuh!

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Capstan

Babies are property? Well, duuuuuuh!

So you are using the scoff rather than reply method of debate .

funchy has proposed many issues which would need to be corrected before any woman in her right mind would give up the option of choice. Rather than respond to them in a way that furthers dialogue, you simply pick out one item and make fun.

No big deal, unless you actually want people to think you have a case for your opinion.

What about birth control? What about unwanted babies? Are you going to take them all in or reform the health care, foster system and adoption system yourself? No? Are you a woman? Yeah, didn't think so...

[Capstan]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

So you are using the scoff rather than reply method of debate .

funchy has proposed many issues which would need to be corrected before any woman in her right mind would give up the option of choice. Rather than respond to them in a way that furthers dialogue, you simply pick out one item and make fun.

No big deal, unless you actually want people to think you have a case for your opinion.

What about birth control? What about unwanted babies? Are you going to take them all in or reform the health care, foster system and adoption system yourself? No? Are you a woman? Yeah, didn't think so...

The notion that anyone- child, born or unborn- adult or what have you- is the property of any other individual, or group of individuals- parents, the state or whatever- deserves no better than a scoff. It doesn't even deserve that. If you don't understand the importance of individuality, then you don't understand the subject at hand: people. You don't know what you're talking about. Every argument that has been presented is based on a single premise: to categorize individuals into groups: the born, the unborn, women, etc. It is no different than categorizing people according to their skin color, national origin, spiritual choice, gender, and so on. It is all bigotry, whose only goal is to suppress the targeted group in order to profit another, or in this case, to exclude them from the human race entirely. It is not worthy of respect and should be regulated.

No doubt society needs reform, including a healthy dose of common sense, but using death as an interim fix is unconscionable. It is lazy, cruel and bestial. No doubt, unfortunately, there may be cases where a clinical abortion is needed for a legitimate medical reason- just as an amputation may be needed- but should be used only as the very last resort. As it is practiced today, abortion is no better than a bailout for the irresponsible. Let those who are able- those who have developed to the point, they can reproduce- be responsible for their own judgment, or lack of it. Sex is a gamble, even with birth control. Anyone who doesn't understand that should stay out of the casino, not go on a rampage when they lose.

"Anyone who judges by the group is a pea-wit. Men you take one at a time." -Michael Shaara, The Killer Angels

[Aleksander Krstic]

I completely agree with the op. Being pro-choice is like saying that wars are good because they keep the number of people on this earth stable. Same goes for killing farm animals and bugs.

Every living being deserves to live.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Capstan

Let those who are able- those who have developed to the point, they can reproduce- be responsible for their own judgment, or lack of it.

I'll ask you again since you have failed to answer any of funchy's points. Who is going to provide for all of the unwanted children? So, you force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. Ok then, we can force men to be responsible financially for 18 years for a child he doesn't want. Then, you, as a man, change your tune. Who will take them in, care for them, feed them, clothe them and pay for their medical care?

Would you rather someone have an abortion at 4 weeks gestation or abuse their child physically and emotionally, maybe even sexually, for a good 18 years? Would you rather that child grow up in the foster system, knowing no love and ending up addicted to meth and homeless or worse? This is what unloved and unwanted children are subjected to every day all over the world.

The thing that boggles the mind most of all is that pro-lifers give no consideration to what happens after the child is born. As long as it's not aborted that's great! What about the rest of that child's life? I bet you are going to house and provide for them all since you care so much. You probably always complain about welfare and taxes as most pro-lifers tend to do You can't have it both ways.

This argument and all of yours have been based on emotion, funcy has outlined some very solid arguments without getting worked up. I have seen nothing in your response that matches or refutes any of it in a substantial way. My mind remains unchanged. Unless pro-lifers can answer to the very important and pertinent questions such as those posed by funcy, very few minds will be changed. The argument against abortion is born of emotion and doesn't take cold reality into account.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Capstan

As it is practiced today, abortion is no better than a bailout for the irresponsible.

What a callous thing to say. You have no idea what it's like to be a woman much less be a woman who is facing these decisions. Pregnancy can be the most beautiful and amazing thing that could ever happen to a woman, or it can be the most devastating, emotional scarring, and horrid outcome. There are women who feel they have no choice but abort, and the rest of their lives they wonder if they did the wrong thing. Abortion is expensive, difficult to get, unpleasant, can cause infection and scarring, and can cause infertility. Do you really think women do it so casually?

I am starting to think that your stance isn't about preventing suffering or making the world a better place. This is about you wanting the world to conform to you beliefs. If we don't, clearly we must all be irrational, stupid, brutish, and murders, because only an insane monster wouldn't see it your way. You don't want to do anything towards solving the reasons why women feel the need for abortion; you just want to throw rocks at women and call them baby killers.

Let those who are able- those who have developed to the point, they can reproduce- be responsible for their own judgment, or lack of it. Sex is a gamble, even with birth control. Anyone who doesn't understand that should stay out of the casino, not go on a rampage when they lose.

So when a woman is raped, not wanting to give birth to the rapist's offspring is considered going on a "rampage" ? Are you one of those who believe women ask to be raped -- if women didn't dress or act a certain way, they would not get raped?

Do you also believe the teens who get pregnant when their father molests them also deserve this? And it's their fault for not wanting the thing that will remind them the rest of their life of the rape and abuse?

What of the inner-city 14 yr old girl who was never taught about sex & pregnancy? At 14 she's barely able to take care of herself, much less an infant. How can it be a "casino" if people don't know when they're gambling and what the stakes really are?

I have a friend who confided in me she had an abortion. She is mentally ill and was on very strong experimental drugs at the time, drugs with a high risk of damage to a fetus. She was also unstable at that point in time, not thinking so well long-term. She was suicidal and barely able to care for herself. Was the correct solution to institutionalize her against her will, strap her into a straight jacket for 9 months, force her to have a baby who is expected to have birth defects, then give the baby to someone else to raise? and who I wonder would want such a baby?

What of the woman who carefully takes every precaution but still is one of those failure statistics? Is your answer really that all adults should never have sex ever unless they're trying to make babies? Be honest: do you personally abstain from ALL sex, except to make babies?

I find it interesting that those who take the a firm anti-choice stance are never there when the unwanted babies are born. How many volunteer hours per week to do you personally give to an inner city clinic & outreach programs? Do you volunteer at the head-start program? How many bottles of formula do you buy & give to single, poor women? Are you actively lobbying for more research into contraception? How much of your paycheck each week goes to child charities in the US? How many unwanted babies have you personally adopted?

[Andrew Brunelle]

Why do other people think they can tell you what you can do with your body? You know what's going to happen if they outlaw abortions? People are going to go to back alley abortion clinics, places that will cause more infections and more death. People deserve to have options about their unborn child. The foster care system is abominable in general and an unwanted child is nothing but a burden on the mother. Why not end needless suffering legally rather than having to be all sneaky about it if abortion gets banned. State legistlators do not know what's best for you. The people closest to you don't even know completely what's best for you. Only YOU know what's best for you. Why not have the option available? I'm not saying I'm pro-abortion, just pro-choice.

It's these Christian literal people that keep fighting against someone else's abortion. Leave these people alone. Let them make their own decisions. Why not start putting gays to death too? It's in the Bible, isn't it? Just what Jesus would've wanted.

[Aleksander Krstic]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

This argument and all of yours have been based on emotion, funcy has outlined some very solid arguments without getting worked up. I have seen nothing in your response that matches or refutes any of it in a substantial way. My mind remains unchanged. Unless pro-lifers can answer to the very important and pertinent questions such as those posed by funcy, very few minds will be changed. The argument against abortion is born of emotion and doesn't take cold reality into account.

Except that I personally don't believe that reality is cold.