Something for libs to celebrate...

Awfully polite there, Andy lol ...I cut posts as I see fit, and see nothing inherantly wrong with it...within reason, of course. Also, I know you addressed your question to Vladd, but I'm gonna answer too ...no disrespect intended.

As for abortion, you may be suprised at how often it happens as a natural aspect of pregnancy:

Note that those abortions rates stated above are spontaneous, a natural occurance, and not the result of a medical procedure.

*accounts for half of all miscarriages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

In addition:

and:

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

Mind you, I'm just stating the statistics related to miscarriage here, and not induced abortions. I've stated my beliefs that induced abortions past a certain stage of development is cruel, but that lines up well enough with the current rules that they aren't an issue for me.

 

What about at the point one already knows if it is a little boy or a little girl they are killing?

 

It's a complex issue, Vladd. There are some who believe that life begins at conception while others believe that life begins at birth. In the U.S., we are governed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade which states that a woman has a right to abortion until viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." *

Do I agree with this ruling? Not necessarily since I believe a "human life" may form before 24 weeks. Once the collection of cells becomes a human life it should be protected. I think only a doctor can determine when the "viability" factor occurs, but once that judgment is made, it should be conveyed "human life" status. Terminating the life after that point should be considered homicide.

An ironic twist about Roe v. Wade is that Norma McCorvey ("Roe" was a legal pseudonym of McCorvey's) became pro-life and is now a vocal opponent of abortion.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v_wade

 

Condoms, pills prevent life from forming but abortions kill the life that is developing and lets face it the developing process continues after birth at a rapid pace after birth so the developing inside is life for me.

As for the morning after pill. It should be legal especially for rape victims and perhaps even what did I do last night mistakes that the young and still devleoping teen makes.

I think this is a topic that needs to be delt with reason and not leftist politcs or religion.

 

I can not understand how someone can dedicate thier life or earn a living from the death of babies. I wonder how the future would judge us for allowing it.

 

Personally, although I am pro-choice for others, I could never condone an abortion of my child, but I only have so much say in it. I know a few women who are pro-choice politically, but would never consider abortion as an option for themselves.

The sad truth is... some women simply do not want to birth and raise the child growing inside them, be it from rape or not. But let's be honest here, society isn't that damn caring either...and I mean on the pro-life side.

Say a baby is born, and is put up for adoption. That's what pro-life people want, right? Ok, but do those pro-lifers intend to fund institutions that raise those children until they become adopted? All I see are cuts for such programs, or calls for donations and churches to take on the duty... what happens when that funding is insufficient? Not the typical pro-lifer's problem, they already got what they wanted. What about the unadopted, are the pro-lifers willing to fund the institutions that protect and feed those unadopted kids to the point of 18? Again, unlikely...pro-lifers goal was the birth of a kid, not the care of it. What about after 18? Unlikely after 18...see, now the kid has to become a contributing member of society...in other words fend for himself/herself.

Now, I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs, I'm just trying to point out aspects of the typical pro-lifers stance that demands the birth of the child, but has no interest in protecting and nurishing that child to adulthood, and beyond if necessary.

From my pov, if you demand the birth of unwanted children, you need to pony up some cash to help raise 'em. If you're pro-life, it's my opinion that you need to be a supporter of social (socialist) programs that protect and nurish that unwanted child, into adulthood and beyond if necessary. IMO, to do otherwise is just like a woman who wants an abortion... you're not taking on the responsibility for your actions.

 

As a man, you probably have no use for Planned Parenthood. It is however, nice that you can decide the worth of an organization and the people that work there without ever having been to one or ever being one of their clients. You seem to be able to ignore all the lives they save through health screenings because you can only focus on the relatively few abortion procedures they perform. It’s like women getting together to fight the wearing of helmets in the NFL. It’s not like they’ll ever be in a position where they’d have to be on the field without a helmet so let’s put the decision in their hands. How stupid.

 

Just to remind people why this isn't an issue...