Right, China forces its citizens to have abortions. They round up women and carry them in pig baskets for ENFORCED ABORTIONS. They kill the baby by force, except without the woman's agreement. The only difference between them and the American abortionist is that the woman CHOOSES to kill the baby here; there she has no choice.

But it is the same principle held by pro-abortionists HERE. The principle is MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, so the one with the POWER gets to "CHOOSE" to kill. [choices for only the powerful] Ya can't very well criticize the Chinese goverment for practicing the same principle in China that pro-abortionists practice here. Might makes right in China, might makes right in America!

So, actually women in America who advocate abortion have much in common with China TODAY. They practice the abominable principle of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

Women have "choices" in America, the government has "choices" in China. Everyone has a "choice" except the one whose life is up for grabs.

TTH,

The "ostrich" bunch is avoiding your post like the plague. Lieberman is very PRO-CHOICE and if elected VP could potentially be the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

What say the abortion single issue voters NOW???

McCain (and the rest of the neo-cons) simply doesn't care about abortion and Lieberman is admittedly PRO-CHOICE and these forum members are going to vote for McCain/Lieberman because the members are opposed to abortion.

Now there's some pretzel logic!!!

Excuse me? It is TH who did not answer ME, not the other way around. Note he never answered my question about Leiberman.

As an PRO-CHOICE single issue voter, I would never vote for any ticket who had a pro-abortionist on it. Being pro-abortion is a KNOCK OUT FACTOR because it defines one's character and intelligence. If you are PRO-ABORTION, ya ain't getting my vote. There is my answer.

First off , MrRev, I usually expect more well thought out posts from you. IF McCain were to pick Lieberman, which I think is a long shot, Lieberman would be expected and commit to the party line as laid out by the president. The VP has a role and it is not to conflict with the stated goals of the party.

I honestly don't see him being picked but if he is, at the very least we know the president will be setting the agenda. We already know what Barack Abortion would do...and even Mr. W doesn't believe the bull pucky he is shoveling.

Abortion is not the single issue. It just happens to be the most important. If there were two pro life candidates, I would vote for the one that most closely matches my other issues. In most cases, that would be a democrat.

this from another MB'er just today about her priceless unborn child.

sure sounds like an expendable lump of cells doesn't it.

I like the approach to the abortion debate that no woman should feel she is forced to have an abortion. Who is pro-abortion? No one. The Catholic Church is starting to focus on the PTSD of those women who have had an abortion. As the line goes: "Abortion: 1 wounded. 1 dead."
Cherished

No one???

Baloney...this is all part of the spin put on this genocide by the abortion industry. The VAST majority of abortions are for convenience sake...in order to murder a baby(by letting it be dissected) for convenience, one must be pro-abortion and of very questionable character.

Yes, the church is doing that as those that choose to look at what they really did will eventually suffer the consequences of doing so.

Charlotte - anti abortion laws are NOT government's way of controlling women's bodies.

It simply requires that they CONTROL THEMSELVES! Afterall - if they truly wanted control, they wouldn't have unprotected sex! That is where their choice MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR - not after the fact.

A murderer uses the same logic to take a life - a husband murders his wife because her existence limits his choices and he wants choice. A business man murders his partner using the same logic. Same for a burglar or bank robber or a drunk driver.

Has society devolved to the point where we do not value LIFE if it isn't convenient? I believe we have and I believe that destruction to society began with Roe v Wade.

I don't weigh in on this issue lightly but here is the bottom line for me from a SECULAR standpoint.

Since we don't know scientifically when life begins, and since we know that one of the first senses developed in the womb is PAIN, as a CIVILIZED society, we must not take that chance that we are in fact, taking life, versus terminating an inconvenience!

The pro-abortion movement promotes the rights of women ABOVE the life of another human being.

Having a baby SHOULD NOT BE CONVENIENT. We must never take that responsibility lightly.

I sit here at my computer today with the realization that I will never be able to have another baby - and it breaks my heart that women are being taught to be so callous about that gift of life, no matter the circumstances.

If a woman doesn't want the baby, give it to me! Give it to the hundreds of thousands of couples who have lost hope of ever having a child!

But do not take life so lightly that you would endorse the taking of a life!

Huh????

Didn't I clarify who "Loserman" was???

I asked you if he is pro-abortion and you never answered!

nia17



While I understand your complaint, but why do you think that is?

Why did they get the 'get out of jail free card"? Why didn't THEIR parents make them take responsibility? Why didn't the priest? How do you know these boys didn't try and fight it? How do you know they were 'for' the abortion? or even the adoption? How do you know they weren't forced into accepting it?

Because for YEARS, Men have been told they have no choice in the matter, on whether or not the baby will be born or not.

Society has been telling men years, children do not NEED their dad's. While most of us with any common sense, know this is a lie..people STILL buy into it..

Fathers are pushed aside repeatedly in the courts, even WHEN it's in the best interest of the kids to live with their fathers.

And while yes, it is true there are SOME men who do not want to take responsibility there are far more who do, but are pushed aside by the mothers and eventually the children. as they constantly hear all the negatives about 'dad' even though he has BEEN there when the courts allow.

In many cases the mothers have filed for divorce, then hear the kids complain that dad isn't around anymore..ah, but because mommy is (because she got custody) dad's the bad guy for leaving.
And for the mother to make herself feel better about HER decision to file for divorce she adds fuel to the fire by disparaging dad to the kids.

yes, man may have made a horrible husband, but he's still the kids dad, and that relationship should be encouraged NOT discouraged.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard mothers tell their kids that because they don't 'feel like going to their dad's they don't have to go' in stead of saying, "I understand you don't want to go, because you find it boring, BUT he's your dad, and you NEED to spend time with him, so your going."

Many kids feel as if they are betraying mom, by going to dad's or even admitting they have FUN with dad or even that they still LOVE their dad and really do want to spend time with him..and because they know mom is hurting and don't want to hurt her even more they lie and say they don't.

I've witnessed it first hand with both my kids, and my step-kids, and even in my own family when my parents divorced, when I ask my kids about things they do with their dad, I make comments like, "that sounds like that was fun" then they say "Oh it was okay" "what do you mean it was okay? You didn't have fun doing that?" They finally admit they did..

My husbands ex-wife, is one who doesn't like to hear her kids had fun with their dad, she gets upset, and makes them feel guilty because they did. I can't tell you how many times we've sat in a counselors office and the counselor asking these kids "well, didn't you have fun doing that with your dad" and they look to their mother to see the expression on her face before answering, and the counselor asking them "why are you looking at your mother?" You don't know if YOU had fun or not?" When they admitted they had fun, they knew they would get punished in some way by their mom when they got home." She's one who will give people the silent treatment and withhold love or try to manipulate them until they give into her, so the kids tell her, they were lying just so she'll "love them" again.

Even as far as McCain goes, it's possible his daughter experienced those same feelings of guilt, leaving mom alone, when she went to see her dad, afraid to have fun or even admit she had fun because mom was home alone. dad could take her out to do fun things, whereas mom couldn't..I don't know the inner details of their marriage, and what caused it to end.

What I do know is that most children typically side with one parent over the other, my siblings did, they even got mad at me because I didn't, they thought I should.

OK, you want a more "well thought out" position on abortion.

Banning abortion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

I am not an attorney, so MrWondering feel free to clean up any of the loose ends I may leave behind in my presentation ...

Our constitution guarantees each citizen "equal protection" under the law ... so the real question is not some personal or religious view of when "life" begins, but when "rights" attach to a person. Obviously, that will require establishing a point in time when rights attach to any citizen.

Assuming that we have a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy and wishes to terminate it, ... by giving that fetus "rights" as a citizen, you have created a situation where you are placing the rights of the fetus above those of the woman, thereby creating a "superpriority" of rights for the unborn fetus.

Therefore, it is my belief that to be consistent with the constitution, rights can not attach to a person until they have been born and are a "seperate" living breathing citizen, at which point the rights of the mother and child are the same or "equal" under the law.

God help them if that teenage girl grows up and the left brain kicks in and she begins to see through the pro-abortion pablum. Many women do grow into thinkers with morals and they REALIZE they have been tricked into killing their unborn by the pro-abortion crowd. They have blood on their hands for tricking young women into this abomination.

GREAT post. I know first hand the raw deal that dads get and how they have an uphill battle for even the most basic rights.

Nia couldn't be further from the truth. She is just buying into the stereotypes about men. Another by-product of the feminzazi movement.

Ginsburg's shallow argument about equal protection has been dismissed by most reasoned people.

I am curious Myrev...so, if a fetus has no rights or protections, do you believe that if I were to shoot a woman that is 9 months pregnant and SHE survives...but the baby dies that I should only be charged with aggravated assault against her???? Or should I be charged with murder?

How about if I gave a RU486 pill to a woman and it resulted in killing her baby. What's the charge...simple assault??? Since it doesn't cause great bodily harm to HER, is it merely a misdemeanor since the other life isn't separate and distinct...according to you.

Those that use a strict interpretation of the Constitution are always voted down by the democrats. Democrats LOVE judges that legislate from the bench.

MyR,

If I fetus is at 38 weeks, should the mother be able to terminate the pregnancy?

It used to be that a separate life was considered to be present at the first movement, which I felt with my first when she was 12 weeks.

Now we know so much more about the process of growth from conception to birth that my last, at 19 week, could be determined to have all four ventricles of the heart, five digits on one hand, etc. We spent 20 minutes looking at her in a level 2 ultrasound. It was amazing. It was beautiful. It was life.

The doctor came in, after the nurse had completed the ultrasound, and asked if I wanted to continue the pregnancy since, due to my age alone, there was still a 1% chance of a genetic abnormality that could not be detected by ultrasound.

How callous. Here we were, a family of 5 (my husband, our 1 year old, our 4 year old, our six year old, and me) looking at this little girl inside me, and the doctor wants to know if I want to continue the pregnancy.

Personally, I think your argument that the rights of the baby are not protected until birth is a lot more sound than the argument that the protection ends at some arbitary point between conception and birth. Our society knows so much more now. The child can be saved at 20 or 22 weeks if there is a premature birth.

At conception, this life -- and it is life because it grows -- is a separate human with unique DNA. In the end, I think scientific study will be a lot more compelling an argument against abortion than religious belief. If you value human life, you value the life of the fetus.

Cherished

Neither of us may like either of those examples, but they are consistent with the constitution.

The trick is taking the emotion out of the debate, and looking at it from the logical position of when legal rights attach to a person.

:RollieEyes:



Really? Please point me to the exact spot in the Constitution that says that. I would love to read that. Wow...time to change all of our laws.

Wow...I can just see it now. Nurse in maternity ward gives 100 women ru486 in their apple sauce. 100 unborn babies dead. Her sentence, a fine and community service.

Laughable.

mimi_here




How is not allowing abortion equal to the government controlling a woman's body?


not if they are given the RIGHT information.


Lets look at the realities of this..

Since they have started 'Safe sex' education programs, abortions, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies have been on the rise.

Even the government in Uganda and India have seen the truths in that, if the leaders of those Countries can see this, why can't MOST American's??? Are American's so brainwashed into believing the lie that there is such a thing as 'safe sex'??

India Learns from Uganda:

Uganda First Lady Decries Increase in Risky Sexual Behavior

Obama says the answer to that question is "above his pay grade", so instead of erring on the side of life, he'd rather a baby be killed.

And he doesn't limit the killing to the unborn babies. He wants "unwanted babies" who are born alive to be killed as well.


I think that you are asking us to be less compassionate....less human.

Will we be better human beings if we harden our hearts against this?----> LINK