haha. You beat me to it by 2 minutes.

exactly why their libertarian stolen fiscal ideas (tea party), won't work in a socially conservative environment.

Well, you know, Jon Kyl, who regularly has sexual relations with Kangaroos, elm trees and scuba equipment,** says that almost all of the nation's abortions are carried out by Planned Parenthood.

** Like Kyl's Planned Parenthood comments on the floor of the Senate, this was not intended as a factual statement.

Hey it's only July too.

I just get nuts when I hear that anti-abortion support is equal to controlling a woman's body. What nonsense.

She has all the power in the universe to choose or not to choose to have sex, to use birth control methods, or to abstain, knowing the risks.

Hello! Risks. There are risks in living.

Murder of the unborn is not an acceptable way of reducing risk. It is murder. Period.

More often than not, those 'consequences and risks that you speak of fall/forced almost entirely on the woman; very rarely do we hear of man's accountibility as child support requirements are weakly enforced while we hear the meme of men 'forced to pay' for the children's support; not to mention the push to reduce child, mother, education support at the state/government level. where is the equality in the moral outrage?

Yeah, don't forget rape. We're at risk for that, too, because we're probably asking for it.

Well said, Melissa.

@MrNYCguy Your statement would make a lost more sense and have a lot more credibility if it weren't for the fact that the legislation to obstruct women from legally obtaining an abortion also obstructed them from obtaining contraceptive.

Regardless of your moral stance on abortion, it's legal. You say that a woman has the power to choose? Well she does. With abortion legal a woman has the power to choose what she wants to do with her body. Without it legal her choices are limited. With the choice being restricted you've fundamentally restricted and controlled what a woman can and cannot do by limiting choices.

Your logic and line of thinking just make me see red.

Once you concede the right of the state to limit one medical procedure, you have ceded the right to control any medical procedure, e.g. circumcision, use of stem cells for treatment, transplants, and so on. I certainly do not want to cede my rights to a medical procedure. I don't care if MrNYCguy wants to give away his rights, but he should not be giving away other people's rights.

Murder of the unborn is not an acceptable way of reducing risk. It is murder. Period.

So is dumping your newborn in the trash barrel, or chloroforming your 2 year old to death, or any of the other means of disposing of the unwanted baby.

If a woman does not want to have a child but finds herself pregnant, she should not be forced to give birth. That can be dangerous on a psychological level (unwanted children can sense they are unwanted which leads to all kinds of emotional problems) or murder of the child.

Also, abstinence doesn't always work, and often birth control methods are faulty. Sex is sex and has always been a biological force, and not everybody is as disciplined as you seem to be, Mr.NYguy.

_

@ MrNYCguy.......birth control could possibly abort a fetus every month. Your ignorance is showing.

Only lady legislators should vote on laws about lady parts.

@MrNYCguy...whose name provides two very excellent reasons why he should just STFU.

@MrNYCguy... I'm sure that every woman gets up in the morning after knowing they've been pregnant for a while and says... "Geez, I know I'm prego and all but if I have this baby I won't be able to go out and party and go shopping and, like, get my nails done and stuff if I'm a mom. I think I'll just go get an abortion today!"

What if a woman is raped? What about fatal consequences during the pregnancy? What about incest or drug abuse or a horrible disease being involved? You are really telling me that you'd rather the mother die or a child living a life full of hurt and pain than to abort the pregnancy?

This should be a personal choice between a woman and her doctor. Period. No government involved.

A year was spent on ObamaCare, I'm sure you posted the same thing then.....right?

Yes, because multiple laws restricting a women's access to a LEGAL procedure and a law aimed at helping every citizen of a society gain more adequate access to healthcare so that they don't have to die from curable disease or accident ... those are so totally the same thing. /sarcasm

Abortion restrictions will probably bring more "jobs", mostly the kind that serve as alternatives to intercourse.

Maybe it's a secret plot to raise the price of health care?

Well at least we kmow what comes after the No in the party of No.

No abortions

And No jobs

All this from the party that abhors government involvement in health care.

@ddmp, I totally agree! IMO, if men could get pregnant, the right to an abortion would be in our constitution.

Absolutey agree.

Right on Cee Ing, let's do put that into law and fast. Of course, I wonder how many whiney men will run to say foul. Also, take away that payment for viagra, it's just a part of life men get over it.

dave, i'd know your writing anywhere! you tell 'em! also cudos to ddmp.

molly

Well, we'll need all sorts of law-enforcement professionals, won't we? Clinic inspectors, pregnancy monitors, informants, snitches, professional busybodies...

Inquisitors, witchfinders general, torturer, chief headsman...

Women who don't want to have a baby should keep their legs closed

And men who don't want to deal with it can keep it in their pants.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Nothing. But if you're going to make the argument for "personal responsibility", then I believe you also have to allow that it's the responsibility of the woman, no one else, to make decisions about her own body, and to make her own decisions about how to deal with any consequences that result.

Pushing for "personal responsibility" only when those decisions are ones you agree with isn't promoting responsibility-- it's a form of moral accounting, trying to balance the sheets so actions you see as somehow "bad" are countered by what you see as the appropriate punishment.

Hold the phone. So you agree with banning abortions so that poor or drug using or women with a disease have to carry a baby to full term with NO help from the government for medical costs because it's punishment for them for not "closing their legs" and to protect the baby? Something doesn't add up....

If the mother gets pregnant she should have to carry that child as a punishment for her immaturity and lack of self control.

I don't know where to start with the above quote. #1 - if pregnancy equates with punishment for an unwanted pregnancy in your opinion, then the child will be born with a big strike against it. It's mother considers the child a punishment. What a nice way to start the baby off in life. (sarc.)

#2 - A woman doesn't have to be immature to become pregnant. Even "mature" women can find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, due to a possible defective birth control device, or other mishap.

#3 - Lack of self control - Not all of us are as self-disciplined as you and MrNYguy appear to be. We probably have second helpings, and more than one piece of chocolate candy, and maybe even a 2nd beer!

If you abstain from sex you will 100% of the time abstain from pregnancy.

And if you abstain from food, you will 100% of the time abstain from gaining weight. Well, to each his own, said the woman as she kissed the cow. I, for one, love to eat and also engage in immature and uncontrolled behavior.

Also, liberals generally feel that the unborn are not viable human beings and that abortion is definitely not murder.

#3 -

Well 1indendentvoice since you seem so strict in your speech. And if we consider the old ways like in the middle east, then for every man who has sex out of wedlock will have to be castrated, that's right removal of the testicles permanently. Now there is an answer for you. Did you have sex out of wedlock? Probably yes hey, well make yourself a doctors appointment and remove those testicles, since you have violated a very big no no and lacked self control. For shame on you, you had better repent for your wicked deeds. LOL

Liberal Democrats would have every minority in the world believe that their party and policy positions represent the best interest's of racial minorities and women. In reality this is the opposite of what Democrats do- they purposely oppress minorities to feel unempowered about their own reality and then pass policies designed to keep minorities in an impoverished and oppressed existence. Why? Because disenfranchised minorities tend to vote Democrat more than any other affiliation. It's a constant feeding tool the left uses to ensure they will win elections (since the left could not win them on merit alone). Unfortunately it's the minorities who suffer and they suffer so without realizing it. If made to feel empowered minorities- such as blacks- could actually pick themselves up out of poverty and move on to a better existence. Instead the black community is made to feel it must feast on the entitlement tit of the federal government, thereby ensuring the black community will always stay oppressed. Blacks are made to feel marginalized, constantly oppressed, and constantly unable to succeed. Great way to ensure that black voters will turn out every Dem election, no? It works the same way with abortion "rights." Women are told they have a choice about whether or not they can murder their children. Women are convinced that they cannot be held responsible for their own behavior- that they are too stupid, too immature, too helpless to be expected to show self-respect and self-restraint. The argument goes that women shouldn't have to worry if they get pregnant, they can just abort the fetus thereby obfuscating them of all responsibility. After all how else could a poor, defenseless woman survive in this man-dominated world? Woman is, after all, another perpetual victim that Dems would like to keep "in her place." In reality woman has always had the ability to control herself and her body. If woman were made to feel empowered instead of useless she would realize she has value and be able to exercise self-restraint. She would feel in control of her own life and her own destiny and she would be able to, from that point on, exercise her will to achieve success. If this happened, however, she wouldn't vote Democrat- so it's completely understandable why the perpetual-oppression-machine wouldn't want her to realize her own value.

Truth is the pro-life movement is also pro-choice. No one in the pro-life movement is advocating woman be stripped of her right to choose whether or not she has sex. Woman has a choice about what she does with her body- as she should- and she can choose to not have sex or to have sex. But if she chooses to have sex then she must bear the consequences of that choice. Such is the burden of freedom. Pure choice also means pure consequence. If an individual is unable to make the right decision then the consequence will be given upon him or her as a means of correction. If he or she is smart, he/she will take that correction and not repeat the mistake twice. Yet women are put into a system where they are prevented from learning consequence because, again, woman is apparently too stupid to learn- or so pro-choicers would have women believe. Women who choose not to have sex will not burden the consequence of pregnancy and/or STDs. Women who choose not to have sex exercise their own will and are empowered to direct their own life. Women who choose to have sex who burden the consequence of pregnancy then should be forced to continue that pregnancy as cause-and-effect dictates. She will learn from that mistake and be stronger in the end. Abortion gives a cop out so that women are not forced to learn anything and are thus kept in a state of moral in-consequence, which again lends them into the victim mentality, which then lends them to voting Democrat. It's a disgusting, disgusting practice. It's absolutely insane that someone could argue a woman who has killed her child should not be charged with murder, but rather should be seen as "in control of herself." Truly the "pro-choice" movement is the most vicious attack on women and women's rights in US history.

Unfortunately, 1IndependentVoice, you are what is so wrong in this world and understand so very little of the human nature and how children can be affected when their so young. Jesus understood the human nature more than you that is why he forgave us of all our sins. Jesus knew we could never totally adher to those 10 commandments and thats why he wiped the slate clean and threw all of that out. You seem to forget his statement about getting rid of all that crap. And the apostles asked well what should we follow than and Jesus said well try to follow the 10 commandments, but why would you want to burden yourself to something you can not do anyway. Thus the lesson here 1IndependentVoice be careful what you do, because you can cause misery and despair on other people and that is what leads to the sins. And you are so definitely lost in what it is to be a Christian. Wouldn't it be better for women to have their rights and than make this a better world where women can make better choices. You have abuse, rape, violence, molestations of children, detrimental and tragic conditioning in religious hypocrisy, etc in families. Too many church's these days only teach fear and hatred and still you and others have not learned that lesson. You claim to be a Christian, sorry you need to drastically improve. Jesus is not about your fear and hatred, but of truth, understanding, love, peace and all of the other good things that go with love. So as you think these Republicans are doing so right, just remember they are the hypocrites what a true Christian would be appalled at.

But if she chooses to have sex then she must bear the consequences of that choice

Exactly. And what she chooses to do about the consequences is her choice as well. Just because you may not agree with it, does not mean that you get to say whether or not she's making the "correct" choice-- because, unless "she" is you or someone you're in a relationship with, it's none of your business.

No one in the pro-life movement is advocating woman be stripped of her right to choose whether or not she has sex.

No-- what they are arguing (as your entire post is predicated on) is that once a woman does have sex, she gives up any self-sovereignty and must act in accordance to what they think is "correct behavior"... which ultimately entails viewing pregnancy as "punishment".

And how, I ask you, is that supposed to be a healthy, proper, moral attitude?

Murder isn't something the government has to sanction as a choice. By giving her the option of abortion you are making her a victim out of a situation in which she is not a victim- remember always that she chose to be in that position. This is the whole problem with the mentality of liberal Democrats, and in general the anti-life movement. Women are not stupid, immature, fretful beings that need other people to protect or decide for them. Women can face reality just as well as any man. Reality dictates that if a woman chooses to have sex she will bear the consequence of pregnancy and/or STDs. If she doesn't want to get pregnant then she needs to feel empowered to say no. Anything short of that is short-changing her and women writ large. But then, as I stated before, such is the aim of the Democratic machine. Keep women down so that women can never achieve true equality. And when the Democratic oppression machine does so it will proudly declare such actions as "pro-women, pro-feminism."

Murder isn't something the government has to sanction as a choice

Given that a blastocyst or zygote, or even a fetus in the early stages of development, is not a human individual, the medical procedure is not murder. So the first premise of your argument is shaky at best, if not plainly false.

By giving her the option of abortion you are making her a victim out of a situation in which she is not a victim- remember always that she chose to be in that position.

Barring the obvious (cases of rape or incest), she is not a victim of anything, until someone decides that having the child is a "just punishment" for whatever that self-righteous busybody feels her misdeeds are. The only person who feels that the woman is doing/ has done anything deserving punishment here is you, after all...

anti-life movement.

There is no "anti-life" movement. Nice try at spin, though...

Women are not stupid, immature, fretful beings that need other people to protect or decide for them.

Then why do you, and the rest of the anti-abortion movement, repeatedly attempt to put into place regulations that amount to a prima facie decision made for them? If you truly believe women are not stupid, immature or fretful, then let them make their own decisions, and stay out of it.

Women can face reality just as well as any man. Reality dictates that if a woman chooses to have sex she will bear the consequence of pregnancy and/or STDs.

Because, of course, those are the only two outcomes in your Manichean view of the world. How is that reality?

Once again, who is turning this whole thing into a stick to beat women with? I'm cetainly not promoting "pregnancy as punishment", am I?

The woman is the one who is deciding that her pregnancy is a punishment, not myself or the rest of society. If her pregnancy were not seen as a negative she would not be seeking an abortion in the first place. The fact that she is seeking an abortion means she sees that pregnancy as something negative i.e. a punishment. So yes, if that is her line of thinking, then she should be forced to bear her consequence. She is not a child and therefor doesn't have, nor should she have, the ability to run crying and screaming to someone else to make up for her mistakes. That's part of what's collectively known as adulthood. Again women aren't excused of their adult responsibilities no matter how much certain portions of the population would want to keep them oppressed.

Abortion is murder. It is a human being that is being killed. Medical science would disagree with your assertion that a fetus or a zygote is not human. I suppose this is also why you- who are also a collection of nothing but cells- are valueless? See if we play the "it's just a cluster of cells" game it ends badly, being that the whole of biology is nothing more than a cluster of cells. At what point does it become a human? At one point it valueless? Slippery slope, indeed.

As I stated before I was negating instances of rape. Rape would be an example of when a woman did not choose to have sex. In that instance society is the body that failed the woman and therefor society should burden the cost. Should the child be murdered? No. But the woman should be given assistance by society until she can place the child into a home that can care for the child, or until she able to do so on her own. I do not at all oppose aid to women who have been raped. Presumably speaking segregating rape and incest is unnecessary. If a woman is voluntarily having sex with a family member then she presumably would be aware of the consequence and therefor, again, is making the choice to suffer pregnancy. In most cases incest would be the result of rape- father on daughter, brother on sister, that sort of thing. In which case we are being redundant by saying "rape and incest."

I am adding the same spin to the anti-life movement as they do to the pro-life movement. I suppose I was just fancying a word play....

I am quite curious what you think the consequences of sex are if not pregnancy or STDs? I suppose you are going to say one can utilize protection during sex and therefor have sex without running the risk of either? Ah yes, but that doesn't work 100% of the time. And indeed many people of the anti-life movement will use the potential failure of a condom as evidence enough as to why abortion must stay legal. So that seems beyond a tad bit contradictory (again). Anytime someone has sex they are running the risk of contracting an STD or becoming pregnant. That is biological fact. To insist on a reality in which someone can naively ignore those two possibilities is pure insanity. A woman does not have the right to murder her child as a means of avoiding her bad choice.

Killing a human = murder.

Actually, no. The unjustified killing of a human = murder. I would much prefer it if humans never killed each other, but as it happens they do, it's important to approach the subject intelligently rather than to hold totalitarian attitudes to the subject. Life is messy, and so is death.

Sometimes, murder is just a question of timing. If one soldier kills another from the other side during combat operations, it's not murder. If one soldier kills a prisoner taken during combat after the operation is over, that's murder. If a criminal suspect engages in a shootout with police and dies as a result, that's not murder. If a cop kills a subdued suspect, that's murder. No matter the timing, one human has killed another, but it's only murder if the circumstances either do not warrant the killing or make the killing difficult to avoid.

Now, in the case of abortion, I am actually perfectly willing to regard a fetus as human. The result of the copulation of two humans is not likely to be an aardvark. And there are few things I like better than fouling up the opposition's script. The only reason the other side insists on the humanity of a fetus is to try to make a morally messy and difficult thing into something simple. It's all a cheat.

In contrast, the fact that the fetus is inside the body of a woman is a very significant thing. There are many circumstances which may warrant or make abortion essentially unavoidable, the most important is the one already mentioned. And the only party in a position to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is the woman who is pregnant. All other parties are just kibbitzing and should butt out, and that goes double for men.

Once the baby is delivered, then it's different. Timing and circumstances make the difference between a justifiable killing and murder. And if you are not in the responsible position, you have no business judging.

Again I was not commenting on instances in which medical problems may arise. All humans have the right to self-defense and murder is not considered an instance in which a human defends their right to existence over someone else's attempt to deny that right. Soldiers and police officers are then granted a special extension of other-defense. There are situations in which this may be utilized by civilians as well, but in general other-defense is an attachment to self-defense. All of which are not considered forms of murder. In the case of a woman whos life is in danger by her child, she then has the right to choose whether or not to exercise her right of self-defense. She may not choose to do so- which is perfectly fine. Or she may choose to exercise that right- which is also perfectly fine. As I stated I am not talking about instances of rape here when referring to the matter of choice and I am not talking about denying a woman the right to self-defense when her life is in danger. But those two instances do not even account for 1/5th of all abortions performed. The remaining abortions happen because a woman chooses to engage in sex and does not want to be held accountable for the consequences of that choice.

OK, I'll ask it to you straight out: why do you feel that, whatever decision a woman makes concerning her pregnancy, it isn't "being accountable" unless she makes the decision you agree with?

To whom, exactly, is she supposed to be accountable? You? What gives you the right? Why are you special?

What gives her the right to murder?

What gives you the right to take your childhood issues out on other people?