I had not even thought of this but a co-worker pointed it out - along with the fact that they chose the best embryo's for implantation - destroying the least viable. I am tired of all the regulation that they are putting on my uterus - it is not a hotel it is part of MY body. When is this insanity going to stop? I think it is wrong for people to bring children into this world that they can not afford to support - but I am not going to force them to have an abortion.

Beat me to it!

I will have to start campaigning for his opposition.

Lundgren, the candidate. I have seen him on the ballot many times for other offices, what a duffs.

I'm in the 'burg but we still hear about Alan Grayson over the bridge?? LOL sorry his commercial (that he has to re-edit) was hilarious!!

ooooooooh slippery slope!!!

mannjhn,

If you were having a child and the government came in and told you that you were not legally allowed to have the child, how would you feel?

There are plenty of reasons that the gov't could force an abortion if they are allowed access to control the womb and reproductive activities, disease, genetics, population control. If the gov't is allowed to control something so PERSONALLY INTRINSIC, where does it stop?

assult

This is such a typical, small minded, rebublican sound bite! Wake up partner, the world & it's issues are NOT black & white, it's all grey! According to you, there are only 2 choices to your scenario. Murder,or simple assault. If someone beats up on someone else, they should be charged with attempted murder. There is nothing "simple" about an asssault of any kind. There is also nothing simple about a womans right to chose what happens with the rest of her life. You people want women to just keep on doing what you tell them to, but answer me this, where are you when she needs to feed those children, house them,clothe them??? You are in congress trying to take away any means they have of taking care of these children you claim to protect! We will NOT sit silently by and allow this to go on! In this instance, silence is NOT golden, it's deadly!

Every sperm is sacred!

(Please assume the sarcasm button has been pressed).

@ mannjhn

I asked my mother this question and if these are her only two choices she will stick with the simple assault. My father shoved her down the stairs at 38 weeks pregnant and as a result Raymond Charles was stillborn. She will never forget her loss however she also will not give control of her granddaughters uterus to the extremist that are trying to highjack them. She lost friends and family to back room abortions and she will not let us go back their.

Little known fact - the only reason we have the abortion debate is because the AMA wanted to be the ones to perform abortions so they could increase their income. It use to be that Midwifes provided the service. When the AMA won their argument they set-up comittees that a woman would have to appeal her choice and have the "father" give his permission.

I suggest everyone read "Beyond Choice" by Alexander Sanger

http://www.prochoice.org/cfc/resources/factsheet_clinicians.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8563453

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwifery

mannjhn...you are the one attempting to make this a cut and dry issue, by insisting, (forcing, how ironic of an anti choicer to force the issue)... that people give you a cut and dry answer on simple assault/murder resulting in a miscarriage...okay, I'll play. If it means the difference of giving a zygote/embryo/fetus the same rights as a born human, then simple assault it is. But I have to say you have very little faith in our justice system and women, because our justice system can give both murder charge and/or assault without granting full rights to the unborn. Case in point:Scott Pearson, was a few years back, charged with a double murder, his wife and unborn son. The state in which his trial was held did not have a statue that declared the unborn have full rights. So how was this possible? The first reason being, the fetus was viable. The most important reason was that the family of the murdered wife TESTIFIED that she had declared her desire to give birth and raise the unborn. They testified that she had converted a room in her house into a nursery, bought furniture, diapers, toys, etc. Needless to say because the murdered wife had DECLARED her desire to give birth, raise the fetus as her child, Scott Pearson was found guilty of the murder of his wife, and the murder of his unborn son. Moral of the story is, "you don't need a cannon to kill an ant." Think that is a chinese proverb, or a line from a movie, and I don't think it is an ant, maybe a fly....lol...Anyway...

You miss the pro choice stance...abortions will continue whether it is legal or illegal. My question to you...How do you want a women to choose abortion?...safe and legal, or coat hangers and back alleys. And what type of punishment would you choose for the women that have illegal abortions? Would you throw a woman in jail who aborted her rapist pregnancy?

@mannjhn An assault that causes an aborted pregnancy would be battery and aggravated assault, not simple assault.

It's the iconic argument, isn't it scotch? Let's care about the baby when it's in the womb, but once it's out then the baby's on his own. Who cares about health reform? Health reform is about government overreach- but abortion, that's about rights. Yup yup.

On a less sarcastic note, I have a serious question for pro-lifers: You are aware that the father of a child is automatically granted parental rights and that the mother must sue in order to have the father denied those rights, correct? You're aware that if you illegalize abortion that means you're essentially giving a green light to rapists being involved in their offspring's livelihood? And that's supposed to be better for the child because...?

One more point I want to make to pro-lifers: How exactly does the government determine when an abortion is "natural" versus when an abortion is "unnatural?" If a pregnant woman is involved in a high impact collision in her car that results in the abortion of her child, does that count as "natural" or "unnatural?" What about the false-positive effect (meaning what happens when a woman is accused of purposefully getting into an accident or otherwise impacting her uterus at high velocity to abort the fetus when in fact said abortion was due to an accident) and what about the false-negative effect (when a woman purposefully engages in fetus-destructive behavior but masks it so that it appears accidental or otherwise natural)? Would you criminally prosecute a woman who had an abortion in an accident? How would you distinguish if it was intentional versus unintentional? What about the health of the mother? If you cannot distinguish between the two and women see such violent acts as a legal way out of pregnancy, then the government is legally sanctioning such behavior by women. The government would be legally sanctioning any resultant causality, such as death. If a fetus is a human life that must be protected, then should not mothers who live in unsafe environments be prosecuted? What if her husband smokes? What if she is obese? What if she has diabetes while pregnant? What if she gets a blood clot? What if she's in her 40's? Should not, therefore, all abortions be illegal? And if so, what happens when a mother miscarries? What would the punishment be? How do you determine what is ethical punishment? Does she go to jail forever for being in a car accident? What about if her husband beats her and it causes the child to die (as the scenario Mann used earlier)? Would that be natural or unnatural? How do you prosecute one without being hypocritical about the other?

The point Mann is that if you make abortion illegal then there is a punishment clause that goes with that law being passed. Involuntary manslaughter and 1st degree murder and separated legally by the basis of intent. If you illegalize abortion then you have to distinguish the boundaries for when it's involuntary manslaughter and when it's voluntary manslaughter. That brings up the issue of miscarriages. If you truly believe that an unborn child is life and that abortion is murder, then you have to follow through with the logic and conclude a punishment basis. That means you have to legally impose at what level it's fanticide and at what level it's accidental. It becomes a slippery slope argument. You have to remember that any time the government gets involved in something the government becomes the standard bearer for whatever policy it is implementing. So what is the standard of homicide versus involuntary manslaughter? Without being able to answer that question, you cannot even begin to discuss the issue of illegalizing abortion. You are welcome to your personal beliefs, but when you're taking the stance that those beliefs should be reflected as government policy you then cannot opt out of following the logic to it's conclusion. If you have not thought out the punishment for committing an abortion, and if you have not thought out the parameters between when it's intentional and unintentional and whether or not it should be prosecuted, then you should not be having any discussion about illegalizing abortion.

I am the adult child of an unwed mother in poverty.

Please don't use me in your argument. My mother had an abortion before she became pregnant with me, and I would not be here if she hadn't. By my calculations it would've been before Roe v Wade, so I'm lucky nothing went wrong.

Butterfly effect.

My Aunt had an abortion when it was still illegal. It was botched and she had a hysterectomy. Sadly, she later wanted children. Instead of having her own children, she's a dedicated volunteer for the Special Olympics.

Consequences? A woman who has an unplanned pregnancy has already paid a consequence without the court getting involved. Life hands out consequences. Rape victims and incest survivors go through enough without the court instructing them on what to do about a pregnancy.

"woman induces an abortion in her 6th month in a public restroom" Stop. That is a consequence. Abortion is a consequence all by itself. There need not be a state imposed consequence on top of it.

I'm not sure how you think abortions are self-induced, but it is no picnic. It is doing a medical procedure on oneself that could result in one's own death.

The Catholic priest called me a bastard child (objecting to even baptizing me) and my Mother a whore. Because the anti-abortion movement convinced her she had committed murder, she believed God made me gay to punish her for aborting her first pregnancy.

It's nice that you hope help would be there, but I've lived the reality. The stigmatization of abortion is enough of a consequence. And I do not believe people who would put an added legal consequence on top of the reality of unwanted pregnancy are acting out of compassion for whom it affects.

And I'm done with this debate and people who only exist in theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SMjdSDTv5s

My situation is not unique. You cannot on the one hand use hypothetical examples as evidence of what could happen and then dismiss an actual real world incident of what has happened as some isolated incident. You cannot have it both ways.

All women who have abortions have already paid a price. There is no need to have a legal consequence on top of it. The burden of the decision is enough.

Laws result in judgments. Laws judge people. Believe whatever you want, but when you advocate to make that belief a law, you are advocating for a judgment.

I'm serious though. I'm done. ;) Or someone cut me off. No really, I'll stop tracking.

*huggles Romeo* I'm sorry mei mei =/

The point I was getting at is that the law dealing with abortion has to be defined; and to that extent you are wrong Mann. The law dealing with abortion, 1st degree, and 3rd degree, is not finite. That's the problem with discussing abortion. You, as an advocate against choice, must argue that the law punishes adequately at all levels. Now before you say anything, if your argument is that you think it's unwise, but you still support a woman if she aborts- that, my friend, is pro-choice. I do not disagree that abortion is a form of murder- I disagree that it is wrong. A child who has never been born has never felt pain.

I do not want to invoke your personal past here Mann, but I do want to speak on my own knowledge. I have been raped before. Many, many times in fact. I have been molested before. You want to have an insight into my childhood? I was potty trained by being beaten until I went to the bathroom. I used to be locked in a dog crate and was forced to eat and drink out of bowls like an animal. I cannot, as a human being, pretend like this is okay for a child to go through. If it happens to me it's OK. I do not matter. But I will be gorramed if I ever allow another human being to go through what I went through. The problem with anti-abortion laws is that they do not consider the grey areas. I am a grey area. 1 out of every 4 girls in America is a grey area. That's why I am pro-choice. I do not disagree with you, Mann, that abortion is a form of murder. I disagree that it's wrong to kill a child when compared to the life circumstances he or she may face. I disagree that the government, whom you've openly confessed can't do anything right, can make a competent decision in which it can justly declare who should be born and who should not. The government cannot do such a thing. And because it cannot, that is why I am pro-choice.

I support any and every measure to help reduce pregnancy- do not get me wrong here. I would love it if every school in America taught the ABC's- that is to say, abstinence first, then birth control, then condoms. I would love it if we reformed our adoption and foster care system. I would love it if the church groups you profess should be helping actually helped. I'm in favor of taxes incentivizing people to help their neighbor. I want gays to be able to marry because I want children who're going through what I went through to be raised in a family that will love and care for them. I want things to be peaceful.

I do not accept that it is a black and white issue. I fundamentally reject people like Sharon Angle who think that it is. Now, am I saying that you Mann see it as black and white? No. You seem to get that there's a lot of grey area and for that I am grateful- truly I am- I just hope that you realize that the position of pro-choice does not mean you favor abortion, but rather that you favor government staying out of pregnancy and life situations without reasonable cause.

@Mary McIrishName: Let's take it a step further! Why not penalize masturbation and other 'unproductive' uses of male secretions (i.e. condom usage, homosexual sex in general, heterosexual sex acts that would not result in a potential fertilization)?

When will these men stop legislating for a woman's body? (This is coming from a male btw)

@Jlf- Sorry if I gave the impression that I'm pro a crazy like Christine O'Donnell... I am hoping that you were talking to me because my name is Scott-English in nature (although if you weren't my apologies for my arrogance). I do not mean to impose that women should only have limited choice- my point was simply that there are so many circumstances that are considered "grey" that I cannot, as a human being, distinguish between the two. Therefore I must be pro-choice. Hope that clears it up.

Also if I still #fail...please let me know...for the love of God am I pro-choice and if I ever give the impression otherwise then I need to be corrected; no if's, and's, or but's!!!

EXCELLENT....best post of the day...thanks...

Spam.......loved your post. IMO you got to the heart of the question with pithy precision.

I think it is more the fact of children being born into poverty and the Republicans OBVIOUSLY don't really care about anybody in poverty, including non-aborted babies.

@mannjhn

You are quite correct. Republicans give more money to charity than Democrats. However, those that vote Democratic generally donate more of their time to the community than republicans do. And Independents (such as me) also donate their time to service, since our cash flow tends to be lower than either GOP or dems.

mannjhn,

Democrats do care about "unborn life." That's why they support helping poor women have access to prenatal medical care. We would rather do it through government than through religious groups because a)not everyone feels comfortable going to a church for help. b)Government will have more resources than a church will ever have, and c) church funded health care tends to be judgmental and riddled with factual errors/lies meant to make women feel guilty for existing. This does not mean we won't also give to private organizations. I support Planned Parenthood because most of what they do is give out affordable birth control, prenatal and neonatal care, and access to all ob-gyn care regardless of whether or not a women is planning on having a child.

Also for what it is worth I've seen statistics that say that liberals give more to charity. I think both sides genially want to help people and do what they can.

mannjhn...Jen, Republicans do care about those in poverty. We also believe in the concept behind "give a man a fish" versus "teaching a man to fish."

When actually do you think the republicans will enact policies to reflect this view? Republican have a nasty habit of throwing money into good social programs, but do nothing in the way of policy to make sure those programs work. Instead when they fail say, "see, we gave that program tons of money, and it still failed...we're taking our money back." Democrats aren't much better. Clinton's welfare reform tried but ultimately failed to do that. (I saw that program of forcing women to educate themselves in order to continue to receive welfare benefits, work in about 90 cases. 90 women were sent to tech school, all graduated, all received jobs.) Then bush came along and cut the program.

"give a man a fish" versus "teaching a man to fish."...is a great policy if and only if it is enacted...

I think the government gives people of faith and excuse not to help

Yes because prior to social services the country was full of rainbows and everything was perfect and everyone helped everyone else out. There was never a need to implement welfare- people should just go to church.

Right back at ya Mann