First thing I thought when I read that thousands had signed the petition was for the thousands of babies that were slaughtered.

this just in...SCOTUS de-facto Roe reversal allows dems to pile-on to their anticipated majority in the mid-terms.

quick facts: the religious-right sitting this one out due to pagegate scandal & the absence of "energizing" anti-gay canards, fiscal conservatives disgusted by continued deficits & federal borrowing, small govt conservatives disgusted by continued federal intrusion into states-rights, "america-firsters" disgusted by continued Iraq occupation, & "we were here first" historical-revisionist conservatives disgusted by continued hispanic immigration.

now lets alienate the remaining women voters.

so how few dems gotta actually vote for the congress to flip?

oh yea, before I'm tared n feathered, I'm a pro-biz indie & former Reagan Republican (sigh-where'd that party go?) who's a veteran & single parent.

goodby class of '94...

Thousands of babies? Do you mean thousands of fetuses? I am also opposed to abortion on a personal level, but an abortion ban is a terrible idea.... Imagine abortions being performed with coat hangers and curling irons. Our poverty rate will skyrocket, our number of unwanted children will soar, our young woman mortality rate will rise.... And what happens to the women who are caught? Do we imprison them? Our prisons are already the most proportionally packed in the world. Do we fine them? For what? Something they did to their own bodies? If you really wanted to decrease abortions, you would be much better off supporting more widespread contraceptives. An outright ban on abortion would not only be unconstitutional, it would also be a terrible mistake.

We will have a system where states that want abortion can have it and those that don't, don't. Majority rules. Sounds fair to me.

Do you think this will satisfy the pro-lifers? I don't think so.

Why would it be unconstitutional? Can you show me where the right to an abortion is in the Constitution?

OMG! Thousands of women taking responsibility for their actions! Thousands of men acting responsibly instead of impregnating anything in sight! And what about the back-alley abortions? There was a rise on dangerously performed abortions by unqualified doctors in unsanitary conditions since Roe v. Wade! What are all those back alley butchers going to do if they’re not performing dangerous unnecessary medical procedures?

Prog, don’t be such a sap! If and when Roe is overturned the issue will be sent back to the States where it belongs.

Exactly Bane.

Should be a states issue.

Blackmail anyone?

"Thousands of babies? Do you mean thousands of fetuses?"

Even if you are "opposed" to abortion that you ask that question is what indicates that the threshold of our moral values is drastically different. The fact that 4000 abortions are performed every day speaks to the enabling effect of Roe to dehumanize the "fetus".

Although I believe the "coat hangers and curling irons" leftist type hyperbole is ridiculous, abortion demands taking into account the realities of the situation. I think both sides are going to have to comprimise their "values" to come to a realistic, pragmatic and achievable approach.

The social acceptence and erosion of values that easy availability abortion has injected into our culture has not been a positive. I would assume even the leftists here would not be proud of it, rather they comfortably think of it as "unfortunate but necessary". I dont see history looking on the practice and saying "wow those folks sure were moral".

"supporting more widespread contraceptives"

Where do you live that its hard to get some kind of contraceptive? Thats a cop out. Some people wont use them. It comes down to personal responsibility and nothing more. Roe has allowed people to ignore that and as an after effect eroded that aspect of personal responsibility. This is not a good cultural byproduct and that possibly leads to many other problems.

"ban on abortion would not only be unconstitutional"

Who says?

"it would also be a terrible mistake"

I agree but to continue as we have would be immoral. What to do? The problem is endemic of a troubled society. The fix is neither easy or quick but requires a fundemental change in our values as a culture. Those changes simply wont happen under a liberal "progressive" mindset as it has come to be defined. I can live with a morning after pill, I can live with abortion for up to ~ 4 weeks. I dont like it, I dont agree with it, I think its wrong but I am willing to comprimise. But partial birth is nothing but murder pure and simple.

At what point do you draw that line in the sand...4 weeks...6weeks? We have to accept that just like driving, drinking, military service..etc there is an arbitrary age that must be picked and then enforced. More than likely few will be happy with it.

You ask "what happens to the women who are caught? Do we imprison them?"

No but I think medically rendering them unable to get pregnent again is logical and appropriate but difficult to implement for various reasons. Its certainly cheaper than incarceration, much more humane and provides a long term 100% solution for offenders. No recidivists with this crime and punishment. This also addresses your contreceptive issue...permanently.

“Thousands of babies? Do you mean thousands of fetuses?”

How about we stop mincing words. We’re talking about a live individual. The fact that it grows tells you s/he is alive and the fact that the process can start outside the person supplying the egg and sperm and then implanted in any one of a number of willing surrogates tells you it’s an individual.

“And what happens to the women who are caught?”

What would happen if they were caught killing their born child?

“Our prisons are already the most proportionally packed in the world.”

And for this we should just ignore any and all atrocious and criminal acts? Why bother locking up “other” murderers or rapist or drug pushers or terrorist? With that mindset we’d really make an impact in creating a safer environment for innocent lives (NOT).

“Do we fine them? For what? Something they did to their own bodies?”

Uh no… try to keeping up here – it’s about the child. There should be punishment for killing an innocent unborn child.

“An outright ban on abortion would not only be unconstitutional, it would also be a terrible mistake.”

And how do you see it as unconstitutional? Perhaps if there were provision for the life of the mother it might be. What if we allowed for that provision? Would that then satisfy any constitutional issues? Outside of saving the life of the mother, I don’t see any other issue that could be remotely considered “unconstitutional”.
Also, if you think banning one of the most horrific acts that man has every committed would be “a terrible mistake” then your mind is terribly warped. Sadly you have plenty of company.

Did you even read any of the links provided? Women are being lied to and their lives are FOREVER changes in a negative way. Thousands of women left physically and emotionally traumatized from abortion. This gruesome act has made us a far more barbaric and cold society and you want to portray is as simply a “choice” like any number of other choices we make through out the day. The big difference is that choice involves another life!

I like the fact that there are women who are now coming forward to sue those responsible for lying to them, for mutilating them, forcing them into abortions and many of the other things that make this whole industry sick.

"I think medically rendering them unable to get pregnant ..."

Are you insane?

That should be, if there were NO provision for the life of the mother, it might be unconstitutional.

Rather appropriate cartoon

If you want to take away someone's choice in a matter, then you are taking away a right. That's it! The issue has nothing to do with you or your life or the life of your family. You want to have control over someone else, you basically gain a slave in the matter of abortion and you get to control what goes on in the womb of millions of women.

It is not murder, it is her choice to do what she will with her body and what is inside her body. That is her right given to her as a mother. And that's what pisses you Conservatives off.

Your goal is to take away choice. A fevered devilish act.

If you don't understand what a "right" is, then you should not be deciding what a right is.

Considering Conservatives think Bush is a swell guy, it really doesn't matter what you think. You've already been marked as stupid.

Prog,

You do realise that your position essentially is that having children is a horrible thing...you should think carefully about that.

USA...and that applies to late term abortions also for you? The ones where the baby could survive outside the womb with the proper medical help?

Oh, and while you are talking about "choice"...why do you guys oppose a choice where I put my Social Security money into a private account? Why do you guys oppose school choice where I should be able to send my kid to another public school if the one he's in right now is not teaching my kid? Why do you guys oppose my CHOICE to carry a concealed weapon as a law abiding citizen?

Thanks in advance of what clearly should be some lucid answers from you.

If the day comes where abortion is outlawed, I have a couple of enforcement questions?

First assumptions: It would only be outlawed on a state by state basis not at the federal level. currently about 1/2 of the states would lean towards outlawing abortion.

1. Would contraception that is currently the subject of debate that they may cause fertilized zygotes to not implant into the uterus be outlawed as well? If so, what would be the standard? Who would pay for the enforcement of "contraband" contraception states that still permit abortion?

2. I would predict that there would be a mysterious increase of "miscarriages" if a ban came into being after taking a "vacation" to a jurisdiction that permitted abortion (Canada, Other States, Even potentially on a boat outside the territorial waters of the US). Would the states that ban abortion prosecute women who travel outside the jurisdiction to terminate a pregnancy? Would those states have the power to restrict travel of pregnant women to jurisdictions that permit abortion? Would they require some testing before allowing travel to a jurisdiction that allows abortion to ensure that the woman is not pregnant and/or is not considering an abortion?

3. Who is going to pay for the enforcement of restricting contraband pharmacological abortionfactants (e.g. RU486) from being sent to the homes of women desiring an abortion in a state that does not allow abortion? Who would be punished for sending the medicine? It would have to be a federal crime due to interstate issues?

4. What would be the process, who would pay for and who would investigate all miscarriages in states where abortion is illegal to make sure it is really a miscariage and not an illegal abortion?

5. Who would be punished and what would the punishment be for women getting abortions in states where abortion is illegal and there is no doctor to punish? (Went to Canada, purchased RU486, went home and took prescription, abortion completed)? Will it be a felony?

6. What would we do with the 1000 - 2000 additional unwanted children per day given up for adoption? Who will pay for their upbringing? Who will pay for the additional children on public assistance (the people with money can afford to terminate as before R v W)?

What about my "choice" to take drugs and get high? And what about my "choice" to have sex with small furry animals? And what about my "choice" to teach my high school class about the joys of Vishnu? And my “choice” to walk naked on a freeway? And my “choice” to marry the Olsen Twins? And my “choice” to sacrifice my first born son to the god of the harvest? And my “choice” to fly in a passenger airline with a live wolverine on my lap? Just who are you to tell me I can’t do what I decide with my own body?

Oh, I forgot … a civilized society!

"Are you insane? "

No, are you stupid? Prog asked what to do if it is outlawed at some level. What do you think someone would chose, sterilization or 5 years in jail. What would be better for all concerned, sterilization or 5 years in jail. What would keep someone from being influenced by the criminal population yet insure the crime would never occur with them again.

"let’s sterilize all women with an IQ of less than 104; and any woman that voted democrat,...blah blah blah."

Way to construct a liberal strawman. Where did I advocate that? Address the points I made or go away with the over the top BS.

USA says::

"It is not murder, it is her choice to do what she will with her body and what is inside her body."

Its called a baby you piece of human refuse.

"And that's what pisses you Conservatives off."

Your completely clueless arent you?

"You've already been marked as stupid."

Wow with such an airtight arguement I've seen the error of my ways. What a well reasoned rebuttal.

4000 children a day aborted by predominently "liberal" women is OK but outrage at panties on some scumbags head, no geneva rights for terrorists and listening to foreign calls.

Glad to know your priorities are in order.

what i cannot understand is people who are pro-life are also pro-abstinence. if you are pro-life, i would think you'd want sex education in school and condoms distributed to teens who have decided to have sex. maybe not IN school itself, per se, but if you are pro-life, you can't be anti-birth control. well, i guess you can be whatever you want...

and ps - teenagers (and everyone past the age of teen) are going to have sex. no amount of bible thumping is going to stop it. sorry, it just isn't. if we are restiricting reproductive choice in this way, you have to have SOME means for people to not get pregnant.

and 'bane' - you may 'choose' to do those things. none of them are related, your ranting illogical and obtuse. not many people 'choose' to bring wolverines on planes cause you might not be able to even bring toothpaste on planes. your argument stinks and is innapropriate. please try again.

In 1932 Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote in "A Plan For Peace“, "To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization."

Well, at least you're in good company, why not summary executions for abortionists? No recidivists with this crime and punishment. Is cutting off hands for thieves beyond your sensibilities?

whoops, you're late for your book burning.

Bane your reading comprehension is abysmal.

Sparky, if abortion was illegal whats your bright idea for punishment.

"Well, at least you're in good company, why not summary executions for abortionists? No recidivists with this crime and punishment. Is cutting off hands for thieves beyond your sensibilities?"

You debate like a liberal...all BS and no substance.

If the crime rates rise in the twenty years after Roe is overturned... don't say I didn't warn you.

Crime rates always rise with a Dem in office (this is statistically true) so should we abort all Dems?

Zute,
To begin with, you Nazi ignoramus, if abortion were “illegal” the punishment for violation of law would have meet the standard of American jurisprudence; in 21st Century America forced sterilization as a punitive measure is draconian; as the right to procreation is an absolute.

Next, to overturn Roe would be to restrict the legality of abortion on demand not make it illegal, Christ, could you be less informed?

Finally, the philosophy that criminal behavior by an individual will inherently become criminal behavior by their progeny has been discredited by every study of eugenics of credible repute.

Don't try to help the pro-life argument; you give conservatives a bad name.

Georgia, brilliant solution to a social problem. People who might possibly commit a crime should be aborted in advance. Now that is a compassionate solution to a social problem if ever I saw one. Death penalty for every potential criminal before the crime is committed, no matter what the crime.

Bane, you are right to bring up Margaret Sanger and her philosophy considering she is the patron saint of abortion advocates. It is important to understand the philosophy that motivated the abortion and birth control movement. Hardly a benelovent one.

I'm not saying that it is a good way to prevent crime... it's just something to think about.

*Chuckles*

Ah the abortion debate is back! Woo Hoo!

First off I'll start with the case at hand. I see no need for late term abortions. The kid is almost ready to come out as it is, you've already put up with it for 6 months. If you don't want it then give it up for adoption! Why kill the little bugger? Seriously, what sensible reason do you have for killing it that late in the game? Give me one good reason why late term abortions shouldn't be illegal?

Seriously, keep your before 6 months old abortions, keep your morning after pill. Are you telling me that the pro-abortion guys won't accept that? (I know a general answer here but I'm looking for our pro-abortion folks answers.)

Honestly, I wish we had more responisbility for our actions all around. That means controling our own bodies in not having sex for starters. Then if you do have sex to ensure that if you don't want a kid you don't have one. There are dozens of ways to prevent a pregnancy. Heck, I'm even for the morning after pill. Do all of these things and you don't need abortions!

Of course, there's a huge portion of folks too stupid or messed up to not do any of these things. In the end no legislation can fix stupidity or a lack of responsibility, but it can stop rewarding or enabling that behavior!

Bane obviously I've struck a nerve...good. The purpose of my post was to generate a heated intellegent response...well 1 out of 2 aint bad.

Now to your idiotic responses.

"To begin with, you Nazi ignoramus"

Calling me a Nazi...I knew you were a lib at heart.

"the punishment for violation of law would have meet the standard of American jurisprudence;"

So your for putting folks in jail and not giving them the choice. Fair enough.

"forced sterilization as a punitive measure is draconian;"

As opposed to putting someone in an 8x8 cell for 5 years. Remember these are people who DIDNT want the children in the first place. Maybe that thought, as it seems many do, escaped you.

"as the right to procreation is an absolute."

I must have missed that part of the Constitution. Could you cite it for me please.

"Next, to overturn Roe would be to restrict the legality of abortion on demand not make it illegal,"

A position you seem to think I took. but never did. I did say: "I think both sides are going to have to comprimise their values to come to a realistic, pragmatic and achievable approach."

I also said: "I can live with a morning after pill, I can live with abortion for up to ~ 4 weeks. I dont like it, I dont agree with it, I think its wrong but I am willing to comprimise. But partial birth is nothing but murder pure and simple."

What part of that dont you understand sparky. Is english your first language?

"Christ, could you be less informed?"

Could your reading comprehension be any poorer? I never advocated complete repeal you nitwit.

"Finally, the philosophy that criminal behavior by an individual will inherently become criminal behavior by their progeny"

Never said that either but I guess thats lost on you as well.

"Don't try to help the pro-life argument; you give conservatives a bad name. "

I'm not. I was just throwing ideas out for discussion. Sorry you feel so insecure and threatened.

“Remember these are people who DIDNT want the children in the first place.”

What, are you kidding me! If it was so important for them to NOT have a child why are they doing every that would provide for that possibility? Could it be that we’ve made it easy for them to do away with the “problem” after the fact? Perhaps if abortion was illegal and punishable, then individuals would start being more responsible for their actions.

"I can live with a morning after pill, I can live with abortion for up to ~ 4 weeks. I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it, I think its wrong but I am willing to compromise. But partial birth is nothing but murder pure and simple."

And at what point is it “murder pure and simple”? Is it at 39 weeks or 36 or 32 or even 28? Where is the line drawn where it’s no longer murder? Is it just some arbitrary number that we’re suppose to agree on? Why would you be willing to compromise on murder?

The way I see it only one of 2 stances can be correct. Either, A.) The ensuring mass of cells from the sperm entering the egg is just that – a cell mass. And only at the approximate time of xx weeks after the initial start of all of this does the soul (or unique life for the atheist) enter the mass and become a baby or B.) At the moment the sperm enters the egg (conception) there’s a transition where 2 individual cells join to become a living soul, a human at a unique stage of development.

If prospect A is correct then you have to correctly GUESS at what point does that transition occur. If you guess wrong and abort too late then you’re destroying a human life or in other words murdering.

If prospect B is correct then anything you do after the moment of conception to destroy this life is again committing murder.

Since there is probably no “proof” that either side could show the other that their prospect is correct, then it appears to me ANY abortion is the potential of murdering an infant innocent of any wrong. Again - Why would you be willing to compromise on murder?

Why is is that liberals have no end to their rights and no beginning to their responsibilities?

Why is it that the only difference between a fetus and a human being is the cleft of a womans vagina?

Why is an unborn baby equivalent to a simple mass of tissue?

Gozer, that's a pretty liberal position. There are many folks who won't allow the morning after pill (and pharmacists who refuse to honor prescriptions), don't want contraception available, believe that abstinence is the answer, and want to murder the doctors who allow women to have the choice during whatever trimester (how's that for pro-life, murdering adult humans?). If you could convince the pro-lifers to engage in your brand of tolerance there might be a way to reach some degree of resolution. However, I think that highly unlikely in such a polarized country as the USA.

“It is not murder, it is her choice to do what she will with her body and what is inside her body. That is her right given to her as a mother.”

Let’s see, you just defined her as “a mother”. That implies she has a CHILD. Aborting that CHILD is murder. Ironic as you might find it, she doesn’t even have the legal right to do "anything" she wants with her body. For example if she were to use illegal drugs, she could get thrown in the slammer. Or, if she were to mutilate herself she could be sent to a psychiatric ward. So even with regards to her own body there are limitations to what she can legally do without repercussions. Forget about the fact that we’re talking about a life other than her own.

“(how's that for pro-life, murdering adult humans?).”

Are you really that thick?

Let’s suppose a scenario. You and your wife have a newborn. I show up and for whatever reason, decide to kill the child. Would you be against having me put to death? Suppose I went further and killed your wife too? Would you be against having me put to death then? I think most people would find those 2 killings gruesome and potentially warrant putting me to death to prevent me from killing again. Why? – Because I’d be guilty of committing a crime against innocent lives.

Pro-lifer’s consider that the same as with those who perform abortions. They are killing innocent lives. Putting the abortionist to death would prevent them from doing it again. Why do you find murdering an unborn child acceptable?

*Chuckles*

Nate, you'll find that I've got a few "liberal" positions on things, though you should also remember I'm more than willing to back up my beliefs and opions to the hilt. :D

So yeah, I'm a bit more open when it comes to sexual issues, but at the heart of it I'm the same as my conservative friends. I want folks to take responsibility for their actions, and to that end I want to give folks the chance to do so while at the same time minimizing the mistakes that can occur.

That's why I'm fully against partial birth abortions. I'm personally against abortions in general, but willing to create an "artificial number" in the sand as it were. A line where no abortions can be had, but before that it's okay. So that makes me a bit different, but that's fine. I hope I can be an example that no party walks in "lock step."

USA,

Please explain how something which wasn't possible until 10,000 years of human developement created the medical knowledge necessary for it to happen is a fundamental, natural human right.

[quote]
USA,

Please explain how something which wasn't possible until 10,000 years of human developement created the medical knowledge necessary for it to happen is a fundamental, natural human right.

[/quote]

how did you figure out that this wasn't possible until (somehow) 10,000 years of human development enabled us to engage in abortions? (and haven't we only been here 6,000 years according to popular christian thought? i guess the figure could be 6,000 to 10,000 years, whatever is the truth this week... or 4 billion years, as evidence might actually suggest.... but i digress).

at any rate, mark, my question is how is it NOT a fundamental human right what a woman does with her body? people had abortions is ancient rome, so it isn't like abortions are new or anything. abortions weren't invented in 1973! hint hint.

essentially your argument is 'there's a living human in her body. we must protect it and see it born' but no protections/assistances are ever argued or made past that with any respect to or for the care of the woman who will be ultimately responsible for the child she now has to have. and the whole abstaining from sex argument, 'be responsible' just isn't reality. we truly live the human zoo, y'all. kids are having sex, adults are having sex, just saying 'be responsible' is a great start, but isn't solving this problem just yet.

one aspect of this debate that i especially love is the males coming in and stomping all around, shouting, thumping chests about 'protecting' human life. and on this particular board, there are -obviously- many staunchly pro-war intellects about. so here's what i do not get:

how can the pro-war peeps even BEGIN to have a say in aboriton ('the murder of innocent, unborn human beings') when their pro-war stance itself GUARANTEES THE DEATH of many iraqi babies/children who ARE ACTAULY LIVING AND BREATHING TODAY? save the unborn, ok, sure... i'll begin to take you seriously when you stop the promotion of killing people who are alive on earth RIGHT NOW. i don't see a single argument calling for the end of the war to protect the thousands of children that are dying TODAY in iraq. until you reconcile this glaring defect in the moral character of your argument, your argument is just, just... well, really bad.

people living in the usa? we have killed more people than osama has cause we have paid more in taxes than he has. that's a sad, sad, sad reality, my friends.

me? i'll be on militaryfriends.com!! just look for 'dems_for_osama'. we can chat about our hatred for america. wouldn't it be great if it really were that easy? wouldn't it be great if all dems were hiding from the republican bunker busters headed for our spider holes? :D

Funny,

Lets just say that we over here find a distinct moral difference between the deliberate killing of the defenceless innocent and the accidental killing of the defenceless innocent. The difference between a brake failure causing an accident and a drunk driver causing an accident: Remember, what is moral and immoral is not so much what you do, but what you were intending by the act. This is why a prostitute might be a lot closer to heaven than a clergyman - the whore is doing all sorts of wrong things, but if her intent was to, say, feed her children while the clergyman is doing the right thing but is intent on burnishing his pride...well, you get the picture. I hope.

Also, you slander us when you say that we on the pro-life side make no provision for the child or the mother - the pro-life movement pours out money and effort to succor women and their children. The challenge we're always faced with is, "ok, so you stop an abortion, will you take care of the child?". Well, we will - regardless of cost and regardless of how many there are...bankruptcy is worth not only saving a human life, but saving a poor woman from the risk of her soul in an abortion.

Finally, you can't get at me with the fact that I'm male and pronoucing on abortion - I used to be wary of speaking out, until I met several women who had been victimised by the abortion industry and they told me in no uncertain terms that I not only should, but must speak out - no worse coward out there than a man who won't take a stand on abortion because he's male.