« Silly Jawa... | Main | America and Race 2007 »

Pro-choice is bad for Democrats?

Melinda Henneberger has an interesting piece in the New York Times today in which she warns the Democrats that if they maintain their militantly pro-abortion stance, they will continue to lose voters:

Opponents of abortion rights saw 2004 as the chance of a lifetime to overturn Roe, with a movement favorite already in the Oval Office and several spots on the Supreme Court likely to open up. A handful of Catholic bishops spoke out more plainly than in any previous election season and moved the Catholic swing vote that Al Gore had won in 2000 to Mr. Bush.


The standard response from Democratic leaders has been that anyone lost to them over this issue is not coming back -- and that regrettable as that might be, there is nothing to be done. But that is not what I heard from these voters.

Many of them, Catholic women in particular, are liberal, deep-in-their-heart Democrats who support social spending, who opposed the war from the start and who cross their arms over their chests reflexively when they say the word "Republican." Some could fairly be described as desperate to find a way home. And if the party they'd prefer doesn't send a car for them, with a really polite driver, it will have only itself to blame.

What would it take to win them back? Respect, for starters -- and not only on the night of the candidate forum on faith. As it turns out, you cannot call people extremists and expect them to vote for you. But real respect would require an understanding that what supporters of abortion rights genuinely see as a hard-earned freedom, opponents genuinely see as a self-inflicted wound and -- though I can feel some of you tensing as you read this -- a human rights issue comparable to slavery.

The pro-abortion philosophy is based upon the belief that an unborn baby is the "property" of the woman who conceived that baby, so she can abort it if she wants to. It can be argued that this is similar to the argument that slave masters used: the slave was his "property" so he was free to do with him what he wanted. The pro-life philosophy is based upon the belief that an unborn baby is a whole person, albeit one who can't be seen except on ultrasounds, and cannot be owned even for the short period that he is inside his mother's womb. It's this pro-life philosophy that the militant pro-abortion crowd does not understand or even want to accept as a legitimate point of view.

Update: On a related note, Michelle Malkin remembers the other victims of abortion.


Comments (160)

Show us someone who's calle... (Below threshold)

Show us someone who's called an unborn baby "the property of the mother", Kim -- if you can.

I think you made it up, or stole it from someone else who made it up -- and looking on Google I can only find other right wing bloggers and anti-abortion websites who've said that.

Lee:What do you th... (Below threshold)

Lee:

What do you think "It's my body" means you complete moron?

So what? The comments secti... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

So what? The comments sections haven't been contentious enough lately so you insert an abortion thread?
I'll be right back, I'm outta popcorn.

<a href="http://www.catholi... (Below threshold)
Surprise:

Catholic Voters Resist Bishops' Direction: Poll Challenges Conventional Wisdom that Church Teachings Determine the Catholic Vote

Seventy percent of Catholic voters don't believe that Catholics have a religious obligation to vote for candidates who oppose legal abortion.

The majority (58%) of Catholic voters call themselves prochoice, and 62% believe "it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion."

looking on Google I can ... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

looking on Google I can only find other right wing bloggers and anti-abortion websites who've said that.

That may very well be true, Lee. I cannot recall any left-leaning candidate or organization specifically addressing the status of the baby. What I have heard incessantly is that it is the mother's body and any decision that involves the mother's domain is hers to make. So, where does the mother's rights end and the baby's rights begin? If it's the mother's body and her domain, then isn't what's being implied is that this unborn baby belongs to the mother? If that isn't what's being implied, then tell us what you think it means.

Lee: You can be such... (Below threshold)

Lee: You can be such an obstinate Literalist!

I think the fact that the father of the child has no say in whether or not the child is aborted is one element of proof in the argument Kim is making. Further proof that an unborn child is the "Poperty of the Mother" can be found at any meeting of Pro-Choice activists. "Keep your hands off my body!" is a frequent theme on placards and signs, as are sentiments like "My Body, My Choice". We can argue about semantics, but the intent of such statements is clear: My body (and anything that issues from it) is mine to do with as I wish. That's a declaration of ownership.

As for the gamble the Democrats are taking, they are assuming that Americans want greater access to abortion when in fact public sentiment could be more accurately described as a desire to see no dimunition of the right of the Mother to seek an abortion in the 1st Trimester. There's a big difference between that stand, which I accept and somewhat grudgingly support, and that of far-Left feminist groups that want abotion on demand, with no regard to the gestational stage of the fetus.
If you don't see that the point of Partial Birth Abortion is to set a precedent whereby a woman can walk into a clinic or hospital and demand an abortion, even if the fetus is viable, and commit infanticide, then you are not paying attention.

As such, the Democrats position is in the extreme, and their misreading of the situation, along with supporting a removal of any and all trimester limits to abortion, could hurt them with pivotal "swing voters".

If it's the mother's bod... (Below threshold)

If it's the mother's body and her domain, then isn't what's being implied is that this unborn baby belongs to the mother? If that isn't what's being implied, then tell us what you think it means.

What is being implied is that the fetus and the mother are one entity not two.

The issue is a bit more tha... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

The issue is a bit more than that. A lot of the really active pro-choice people are against any sort of bans because of the fallout effects -- they see it as a feminist issue, and children as a way to keep them down/control them. You know, the barefoot in the kitchen thing. You can't really shrug off that concern.

However, a lot of their rank and file - and, say, most of the women I go to school with - want access to abortion simply out of convenience. Even if contraception was free and 100% effective (which it isn't, but not by much), they'd still want access to abortion because they can't be bothered to take responsibility for their own actions and USE it.

Those people are a textbook example of choosing whatever is convenient and them making up ethical justifications after the fact. You NEED to have a firm line that says, "this is murder, this is not". And to do that, you have to choose a point were life starts.

Pro-lifers insist on conception, most serious pro-choicers seem to pick birth, and the "I can't be bothered to be responsible" pro-choicers don't want any point picked at all, if they can help it. They really don't care as long as the issue remains muddled enough for them to keep doing what they want.

Me, I'm not going to state an opinion either way, other than that they need to pick a freakin' point where life begins already and be done with it.

Further confusing everything is how the child support system is set up.

most serious pro-choicer... (Below threshold)

most serious pro-choicers seem to pick birth

My experience has been that most pro-choicers seem to pick viability outside the womb as the point at which life begins.

Lee has a very good point. Most of the liberal thought on this subject has been provided to us by conservatives. If you guys want to tell us what liberals think then please provide some links to the thoughts of actual liberals.

"They really don't care as ... (Below threshold)
Rob:

"They really don't care as long as the issue remains muddled enough for them to keep doing what they want."

Both sides are guilty of using the issue to get people to vote the way they want, regardless of how this isssue effects the daily lives of most Americans, which in the vast majority of cases is not at all.

Old Blue thinks a child in ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Old Blue thinks a child in the womb is just like a tumor, a cyst,etc. One with the mother. ww

"What do you think "It's... (Below threshold)

"What do you think "It's my body" means you complete moron?"

I think it means "it's her body" -- or was that a trick question? You conservatives are so oblique at time, never approaching an issue head-on, always obscuring meaning and avoiding questions...

It's the "property" meme that Priestap made up -- then attributed to Democrats -- that I find objectionable.

Can you show me where Democrats have said that; actually used that term?

tick... tick... tick...

So... Lee doesn't view a pe... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

So... Lee doesn't view a persons body as their property?

I call leg!

Thank God for you, Lee, you... (Below threshold)

Thank God for you, Lee, you provide me with endless entertainment with your mindless musings.

The beauty of the idea of property doesn't need to be directly quoted, you fool. It's indirectly implied by the words, "It's my body."

How long will it take before you understand a concept so simple? That clock would be ticking forever. I'm really not surprised you can't get a grip on reality though, it would be a break from your norm.

tick.. tick.. tick...... (Below threshold)

tick.. tick.. tick...

The beauty of the idea o... (Below threshold)

The beauty of the idea of property doesn't need to be directly quoted, you fool. It's indirectly implied by the words, "It's my body."

So does "it's my son" imply ownership too?

So does "it's my son" im... (Below threshold)

So does "it's my son" imply ownership too?

You tell me. It's not a concept I believe in, it's a concept pro-abortionists believe in.

Yes, Lee, your countdown to common sense clock is still ticking.

You tell me. It's not a ... (Below threshold)

You tell me. It's not a concept I believe in, it's a concept pro-abortionists believe in.

That's for clearing that up. Once again, a conservative tells us what others think without actually offering a quote.

That's for clearing that... (Below threshold)

That's for clearing that up. Once again, a conservative tells us what others think without actually offering a quote.

You're welcome. You're free to attempt to clarify the "It's my body" meme any way you like, but the implication is still there.

Here's your chance to persuade me otherwise.

Oh, and if you'd like me to... (Below threshold)

Oh, and if you'd like me to interpret any other phrases or words of the English language, I'm available...for a "small" fee of course. ;-)

Here's your chance to pe... (Below threshold)

Here's your chance to persuade me otherwise.

Thank you but I will pass. Have a great day.

Oh, and if you'd like me... (Below threshold)

Oh, and if you'd like me to interpret any other phrases or words of the English language

Thanks, does "it's my son" imply ownership of your son?

You too, Blue.... (Below threshold)

You too, Blue.

Thanks, does "it's my so... (Below threshold)

Thanks, does "it's my son" imply ownership of your son?

I've already answered that question, you must like repetition. Here it comes again, read carefully: You tell me. It's not a concept I believe in, it's a concept pro-abortionists believe in.

I forgot who said it, but h... (Below threshold)

I forgot who said it, but he described you perfectly, Lee, when he called you an "obstinate literalist". You, the guy who imagines out loud, almost daily, what everyone else means when they say something is determined to make others point out the exact words being used.

To help Lee with this problem in this particular instance I submit this article. While it surrounds a case where parents attempted to sue a fertility clinic for homicide when their embryos were destroyed by the clinic, it also addresses the "property" aspect as applied to abortions. The article was written by a Rutgers law professor and she explains the basis for the "property" claim is that the fetus does not possess the status of "personhood".

You'd think if this idea of... (Below threshold)

You'd think if this idea of an unborn fetus as "property" is soooo prevalent then they might actually be able to find a couple of Democrats who have said that - that an unborn fetus is a woman's "property".

tick...tick..tick....

Maybe if I put on tin-foil hat and channel Rush Limbaugh... nope, still doesn't work for me. What brand tin-foil do you use, Tom?

And have you noticed how conservatives pull these memes out of thin air (or darker, smellier places) and then challenge anyone to prove them wrong.

How about proving that you're right instead, illogical Blogical - show us where a Democrat has said that an unborn fetus is "property".

tick...tick..tick...

I've already answered th... (Below threshold)

I've already answered that question, you must like repetition. Here it comes again, read carefully: You tell me. It's not a concept I believe in, it's a concept pro-abortionists believe in.

Telling me to answer my own question isn't very helpful. I am not asking you what pro-abortionists believe in, I am asking you why you seem to believe that saying "it's my [fill in the blank]" implies ownership of [fill in the blank]. I would agree that the word "my" implies possession, but I would disagree that possession is the same thing as ownership.

It is interesting to note t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

It is interesting to note that a number of Catholics are openly disregarding the church teaching on abortion and euthanasia. Directly from the pope here

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/apr/050419a.html

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

I wonder how Catholic polit... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I wonder how Catholic politicians can stay in the Dem party that openly advocate abortion and euthanasia against the clear teaching of the Catholic church.

Lee: Your continued ... (Below threshold)

Lee: Your continued use of the "tick...tick..tick..." is annoying. No one wants to engage to an arrogant bully.

Drop it already.

Oyster:<blockq... (Below threshold)

Oyster:

I forgot who said it, but he described you perfectly, Lee, when he called you an "obstinate literalist".

That would be me, and I've noted that there has been no response to my anecdotal examples, nor to the excellent article you cited. That's Lee for you!

Blue Neponset:Your... (Below threshold)

Blue Neponset:

Your question, "So does "it's my son" imply ownership too?" is silly. No. It doesn't imply ownership. It implies that he came from you and not someone else. What it has to do with "It's my body" escapes me. What are you trying to prove with that?

Because, "It's my body" does indeed imply ownership. So does, "It's my heart". It's in my body. Should I have a right to have it removed based on the fact that it's not viable on its own?

Blue:Wow. Let me ... (Below threshold)

Blue:

Wow. Let me see if I can help you. I'll just provide part of my original answer: It's not a concept I believe in... See the definition below for further study.

Lee:

From Dictionary.com. "Implied: involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood: an implied rebuke; an implied compliment."

Explain to yourself what "It's my body" means, Lee, and you'll have your answer. I don't believe you will, however, because you simply enjoy being a contrarian, even when you're wrong, which is...a lot. Your argument reminds me of "what the definition of is is."

It's turned into a nice day here, so I'm getting the kids outside. Have fun twisting yourselves into knots.

Langtry, I'm waiting for Le... (Below threshold)

Langtry, I'm waiting for Lee to read the article and demand that I prove the author of the article is a Democrat.

Because, "It's my body" ... (Below threshold)

Because, "It's my body" does indeed imply ownership. So does, "It's my heart". It's in my body.

So every pro abortion person who says "it's my body" means that the mother owns the fetus and as a result can do anything she wants with it like sell it or borrow against the value of it? That seems to be what many on this site are saying. It seems like a facetious argument to me and I don't believe the pro-abortion crowd thinks a fetus is personal property.

Oyster's illustration is ob... (Below threshold)

Oyster's illustration is oblique - no surprise. The writer uses the term "property" in a case-law context - not someone declaring a fetus is "my property"

And there's no indication that the speaker is a "pro-abortion" - which is the whole point here kiddie s - that "pro-abortion" people use the term "property". all the person you cited is doing is being speaking lawyer-ese.

BZZZZT! Air ball, Oyster. You can read Kim's post, and other tin-foil blogger's writings, to find where conservatives use the term "property" to describe an unborn fetus. Context is your friend.

"Property' seems to... (Below threshold)
doubled:


"Property' seems to have spooked Lee quite a bit. What if we call it 'total control of' , as in I can destroy it at my whim? Would that work better for you? The fetus is still a human who has no say in it's future/destiny, something you would rail against if it was a slave (wouldn't you?).

The best quote ever is from Joe Walsh : 'The people I can't understand are those who are pro-choice , but at the same time anti-capital punishment. Says it all to me.

"Langtry, I'm waiting fo... (Below threshold)

"Langtry, I'm waiting for Lee to read the article and demand that I prove the author of the article is a Democrat."

Ahh, I see that as I writing my reply Oyster reread the article and found the fatal flaw by his/herself -- smart crustacean!

Care to try again? I'm not asking you to prove my thesis, I'm asking you to prove Kim's and illogical Blogical's and your own, so I don't think its asking too much of you.

I don't believe the pro-abo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I don't believe the pro-abortion crowd thinks a fetus is personal property.
------------------------------------------------
What does the pro-abortion crowd think a fetus is?

And a friend just pointed o... (Below threshold)

And a friend just pointed out that an oyster is not a crustacean - I apologize, Oystey.

Lee, So what do thi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
So what do think the fetus is instead of using your common diversionary tactics?

doubled: "What if we cal... (Below threshold)

doubled: "What if we call it 'total control of' , as in I can destroy it at my whim? Would that work better for you? The fetus is still a human who has no say in it's future/destiny, something you would rail against if it was a slave (wouldn't you?)."

Wow, sorry to pop your bubble, double, but I don't believe that definition matches US law - that an unborn fetus is human and that an abortion is murder.

Speaking of the law - slavery is illegal , but you don't support that too - or do you?

"So every pro abortion p... (Below threshold)

"So every pro abortion person who says "it's my body" means that the mother owns the fetus and as a result can do anything she wants with it like sell it or borrow against the value of it?"

You're constricting the issue of ownership by using the phrase "like sell it or borrow against the value of it". Whether or not they say they "own it" they do implicitly say so by doing what they want with it like having it removed. On the other hand, some people do indeed sell them, but the new parents do not take the child until it's born so abortion doesn't even come into the equation then, does it?

As long as law defines it as property because it does not fulfill the definition of "personhood", I think we have our answer.

I ran across a quote once by a staunch liberal, who went by the handle "Butch", who described an unborn baby as a parasitic growth that has the "potential" of becoming a living breathing person. I'd like to put the property question to him.

I don't believe that defini... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I don't believe that definition matches US law - that an unborn fetus is human and that an abortion is murder.
---------------------------------------------------
So what do you think a fetus is or you cannot think for yourself?

Great example Oyster. I pa... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Great example Oyster. I particularly think that this part is applicable to the discussion.

"In the case of abortion, the person who "owns" the putative property is the very person who seeks to destroy it (presumably with the help of a medical professional). Therefore, under ordinary circumstances, there will be no one to bring an action for violation of a property right."

No pro-choice advocates use... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

No pro-choice advocates use this line of reasonoing, huh Lee? 5 minutes of Googling provided this:

"The supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution, guarantees Americans have the right to their property. Are pets not considered the property of a human? Humans provide pets with food, water and a habitat, just as a mother provides a fetus a habitat inside of the womb, along with food and oxygen."

http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=36986

I think Jay Tea tried to introduce you to the concept of Googling recently...

Lee says: 'Speak... (Below threshold)
doubled:

Lee says: 'Speaking of the law - slavery is illegal , but you don't support that too - or do you?'

Not sure what the hell you are trying to say here, I would think that my quote from Joe Walsh would make my position clear, but being a sharp reader who argues the points made doesn't seem to fit your modus opperandi.

Anyone who bases their morality on what feckless politicians say is legal/ illegal and therefore 'moral' is secular to a fault.

If slavery was still legal in the U.S. would you own a slave?

As long as law defines i... (Below threshold)

As long as law defines it as property because it does not fulfill the definition of "personhood", I think we have our answer.

We aren't talking about the law we are talking about the beliefs of the pro-choice crowd. My understanding of the "it's my body" argument is that it refers to the idea that the government doesn't have the right to tell you what you can do with your body, i.e. the gov't can't make you undergo chemotherapy, get a heart by-pass operation, or remain pregnant during the first trimester. The argument has little to do with what is and is not property.

"What is inside of a woman'... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"What is inside of a woman's body strictly and solely BELONGS TO HER, not to you or anyone else. And because her body is her personal property, she is free to do with it as she pleases, whether you, or anyone else, likes it, or not. "

Judith Barnett

Lee, you're wrong. You're ... (Below threshold)

Lee, you're wrong. You're being obtuse again and you seem to have no problem conflating an issue to prove non-existant points.

Pro-choicers rely on the very law as a basis for their argument for abortion. To ignore that is ridiculous. So if we're separating one's "body" from the contents of it in defense of the, "It's my body" argument, then pray tell, what is the unborn child inside? Why, we're told time and time again it's a "fetus". If they are not in possession of the fetus or it's indeed NOT their property, then why do they have a right to destroy it?

Just one more clear cut question. Since you're telling us exactly what "It's my body" DOESN'T mean, how about telling us what it DOES mean?

My understanding of the "it... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

My understanding of the "it's my body" argument is that it refers to the idea that the government doesn't have the right to tell you what you can do with your body, i.e. the gov't can't make you undergo chemotherapy, get a heart by-pass operation, or remain pregnant during the first trimester.
-------------------------------------------------
Since it is your body until birth, so in principle the pro-abortion crowd believes that the gov can't make you remain pregnant until birth? This is the logic of that belief, right?

Lee said, "It's the "proper... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Lee said, "It's the "property" meme that Priestap made up -- then attributed to Democrats -- that I find objectionable.

Can you show me where Democrats have said that; actually used that term?"

Kim didn't use the term Democrats. Can you show me where Kim attributed this to Democrats? The clock is ticking Lee. Tick Tick Tick.

Congratulations Eric! You ... (Below threshold)

Congratulations Eric! You did it.

You only had to go back five years to find a quote in the comment section of a blog I have never heard of from a woman I have never heard of. Kudos to you. I think that proves beyond all doubt that the "fetus is personal property" theory has widespread support among the pro-abortion crowd.

"...the gov't can't make... (Below threshold)

"...the gov't can't make you undergo chemotherapy, get a heart by-pass operation, or remain pregnant during the first trimester."

Or remain pregnant, nice twist, lumping it in there with disease. Thats' part of the problem. It's treated like a disease.

Kim didn't use the term ... (Below threshold)

Kim didn't use the term Democrats.

The title of the post is:

Pro-choice is bad for Democrats?

Blue, I am puzzled ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Blue,
I am puzzled by the logic of the pro-abortion crowd wrt "my body" theory. Since it is my body until birth, I can do whatever I want with that body without government intervention until birth, right?

No, Kim, sigh: The ***Pro-C... (Below threshold)
jim:

No, Kim, sigh: The ***Pro-Choice*** philosophy is based around the belief that a partly-developed fetus is not yet a human being. It is a collection of cells that will one day become a living person.

For this reason, it is believed that aborting a fetus in the 1st 2 trimesters is not killing a human being. It is destroying some tissue.

You can agree or disagree with this philosophy, but please don't misrepresent it. It is based on a difference of opinion on what constitutes a human being - and not some sort of idea that an unborn baby is human but is still property.

It's still a tough decision to make, because it's a decision about whether or not you will have a child - ***not necessarily*** how you believe it is: whether or not you will KILL a child.

As a man you hate, Bill Clinton, said: abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. We want to be able to have a world that people can bring children safely into and have them prosper. It's a difference of opinion you're talking about, as to when a fetus becomes a living human person.

As much as it might make it easier to hate your perceived enemy, those who are pro-Choice are not evil monsters who lust after killing babies to preserve their own convenience.

"My understanding of the "i... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"My understanding of the "it's my body" argument is that it refers to the idea that the government doesn't have the right to tell you what you can do with your body, i.e. the gov't can't make you undergo chemotherapy, get a heart by-pass operation, or remain pregnant during the first trimester. The argument has little to do with what is and is not property"

This is a false argument. The government can't force you to get treatment your own benefit, but CAN force you to get treatment for the benefit of others. For example, the guy in Denver quarantined for TB. Therefore, we're back to the argument about when life starts. Once we define that, this should all go away.

Life starts almost from the moment of conception. Not because the bible does or coes not say so, but because science says so: A human is always a human, once a human sperm fertalizes a human egg the DNA can't be anything other than human. Once the egg starts multiplying, it meets the definition of life. See:
http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm

For this reason, it is beli... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

For this reason, it is believed that aborting a fetus in the 1st 2 trimesters is not killing a human being. It is destroying some tissue.
--------------------------------------------------
Jim,
So you believe a 6-month old unborn baby (or fetus in your terminology) who can survive outside of the womb is simply some tissue?

Since it is my body unti... (Below threshold)

Since it is my body until birth, I can do whatever I want with that body without government intervention until birth, right?

No, I believe most late term abortions are illegal in this country. I also believe the vast majority of Americans, pro-choice or otherwise, are ok with that.

Lee Ward, "Show us someo... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Lee Ward, "Show us someone who's called an unborn baby "the property of the mother", Kim -- if you can."

"1. I support self-ownership, and hence oppose coerced euthanasia or delegated self-murder. This also leads me to support a woman's self-ownership, which is why I consider a fetus a part of a woman's body and therefore her property. "

Lee Kilough - Self Described Pro-Choice Libertarian Atheist

"Congratulations Eric! Y... (Below threshold)

"Congratulations Eric! You did it.

You only had to go back five years to find a quote in the comment section of a blog I have never heard of from a woman I have never heard of. Kudos to you. I think that proves beyond all doubt that the "fetus is personal property" theory has widespread support among the pro-abortion crowd."

I don't think that was for your benefit, Blue. It was for Lee who plainly asked:

Show us someone who's called an unborn baby "the property of the mother", Kim -- if you can.

Not only did Eric do that, but so did I. And you both choose to ignore it and you moved the goal posts to not only including a time frame but how many people said it.

Now who's being dishonest here? But then Kim didn't answer the question herself, so I'm assuming you'll discount anyone else's answers based on that too.

Since it is my body until b... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Since it is my body until birth, I can do whatever I want with that body without government intervention until birth, right?

No, I believe most late term abortions are illegal in this country. I also believe the vast majority of Americans, pro-choice or otherwise, are ok with that.
---------------------------------------------------
You still haven't answer my question about the inconsistent logic of the pro-abortion crowd. Since the logic is based on the theory of "my body". It is my body until birth. So the logic of that theory leads to the obvious conclusion that a woman can do whatever she wants to do with her body until birth. If the pro-abortion crowd cannot follow the logic of their theory, then they should crap that rhetoric "my body". I think it is intellectually inconsistent and morally dubious at best.

"For this reason, it is bel... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"For this reason, it is believed that aborting a fetus in the 1st 2 trimesters is not killing a human being. It is destroying some tissue."

Wow, that's a relief. Now I'll have to go and slap myself for being depressed. I didn't lose two 6-week old nieces or nephews last week due to a miscarriage, only some tissue. Nothing important, really.

Yeah, that'll brighten me right the f*ck up....

Oyster,I could fin... (Below threshold)

Oyster,

I could find a quote from so way out Rightie about how the sixteenth amendment is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean it is a widely held belief of most Conservatives. Kim and others seem to be claiming that the "fetus is property" argument is widely held by the pro-abortion crowd. Lee challenged you guys to back that assertion up and the evidence you came up with is as thin as gruel. You can believe anything you want, of course, but if you are trying to convince people that Lefties believe this or that then it should be rather easy to come up with direct quotes from Lefties about what they believe. YMMV.

So the logic of that the... (Below threshold)

So the logic of that theory leads to the obvious conclusion that a woman can do whatever she wants to do with her body until birth.

Very few people believe that. If a fetus can survive outside the womb then it is clearly separate and distinct individual and killing it would be murder.

You can believe anything yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You can believe anything you want, of course, but if you are trying to convince people that Lefties believe this
--------------------------------------------------
Blue,
At least, from the discussion here, I found your using "my body" theory and arbitrarily limiting it to the 1st trimester to be intellectually inconsistent and morally dubious at best.

Well, Blue, my example is f... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Well, Blue, my example is from less than a year ago, and makes at least 3 examples of this sentiment you and Lee insisted didn't exist... well at least not recently... well it's not held by all that many people. And that's just from quickie searches.

But keep moving the goal posts. Liberalism is a religion, and you can't let reality ruin everything you believe.

<a href="http://media.www.f... (Below threshold)

Here's another: "Just as a property owner has a right to have a trespassing person removed from his house, even if they were originally invited, a woman has a right to remove a trespasser from her body." A fine product of our liberal universities, eh?

Not good enough for you? How about this from your run-of-the-mill liberal?

"No one should be claiming that its a matter of dependency, it is a matter of property. While that UNBORN child is inside the mother, it is the property of that mother."

So the logic of that theory... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So the logic of that theory leads to the obvious conclusion that a woman can do whatever she wants to do with her body until birth.

Very few people believe that. If a fetus can survive outside the womb then it is clearly separate and distinct individual and killing it would be murder.
---------------------------------------------------
So your MORAL compass is based on the advancement of technology then? 100 years ago, an unborn baby cannot survive outside of the womb at 6 months, so it is OK to "destroy" it. Now it can, so it cannot be "destroyed". So you will revise your morality when technology can allow baby to survive outside of the womb at 2 months?

Oyster, from you first link... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Oyster, from you first link at 4:03:
"According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted this month, most Americans consider themselves pro-abortion rights. I am one of them. And according to a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted in July of 2003, 79 percent support fetal homicide laws. In principle I am one of these people as well."

I am flabbergasted that people can think this way and still sleep at night. The author clearly writes that she wants lawmakers to be careful to acknowledge that it is wrong for anyone to kill a fetus... anyone except the doctor the mother chooses to do so.

Well, Blue, my example i... (Below threshold)

Well, Blue, my example is from less than a year ago, and makes at least 3 examples of this sentiment you and Lee insisted didn't exist.

Are there any conservative that can avoid thinking in absolutes? Lee can speak for himself, but I never stated or thought that the "fetus is property" sentiment didn't exist. I stated and think that it isn't a widely held belief in the pro-abortion crowd and that it has little to do with the "it's my body" argument.

I will try to state this as clearly as I can:

If you want to claim that a group of people all believe 'X' then you should be able to provide many current examples of individuals belonging to that group expressing that opinion. So far, dispite your links, Lee's challenge has gone unmet. If you want to call that moving the goal posts then go right ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to believe five year old articles and blog comments are evidence of a widely held liberal belief.

The fact is that is the way... (Below threshold)

The fact is that is the way the law states it. The fetus is property. The fact that pro-choicers rely on that law to be upheld is a defacto admission that there is an undetermined number of them that find merit in it. But they will gleefully twist it, as has been demonstrated here by some, in a way that doesn't make them sound like what they're doing is destroying a human life. Period.

What we've gotten here is comparing it to disease treatment, moving the goal posts and one person declaring when it's a human and when it isn't.

Very few people believe tha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Very few people believe that. If a fetus can survive outside the womb then it is clearly separate and distinct individual and killing it would be murder.
-------------------------------------------------
Blue,
Many prominent liberal dems openly support partial birth (ie late term) abortion. I don't see much protest from the pro-abortion crowd. If I miss it, please help me if you have widespread disapproval among the pro-abortion crowd.

The right to abortion that ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

The right to abortion that the SCOTUS pulled out of their hat in 1974 is based on the right to privacy. Since 1974 so much has been learned scientifically about conception and growth in the womb of the mother. It is proven that a baby in the womb in the second trimester feels pain. But to Blue and Lee, the lump of tissue is just that. I think it is time to revisit this decision. Abortion is mostly used as birth control from irresponsible women. ww

WW: the men are just as ir... (Below threshold)

WW: the men are just as irresponsible. I'm just sayin....

But they will gleefully ... (Below threshold)

But they will gleefully twist it, as has been demonstrated here by some, in a way that doesn't make them sound like what they're doing is destroying a human life. Period.

You shouldn't take it so personally Oyster. Pro-abortion people aren't trying to twist anything. They truly believe a fetus that isn't viable outside the womb isn't a person.

If I miss it, please hel... (Below threshold)

If I miss it, please help me if you have widespread disapproval among the pro-abortion crowd.

Will do. Take care, I have to go.

Blue, Have a good w... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Blue,
Have a good weekend. I am still puzzled by the logic of "my body" theory though. If a baby is still inside a woman 's body until birth, it is still her body. So she should be able to do whatever she wants with her body. The gov cannot compel her to remain pregnant until birth according to this logic.
Please help me understand the logic whenever you can. Thanks.

They truly believe a fet... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

They truly believe a fetus that isn't viable outside the womb isn't a person.

But, if it's any consolation, they should be entitled to healthcare.

The best quote ever is f... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The best quote ever is from Joe Walsh : 'The people I can't understand are those who are pro-choice , but at the same time anti-capital punishment. Says it all to me.
...
I would think that my quote from Joe Walsh would make my position clear, but being a sharp reader who argues the points made doesn't seem to fit your modus opperandi.

All right, smart guy. So how would you explain the people who are pro-life, but at the same time pro-capital punishment?

Blue, I believe your intent... (Below threshold)

Blue, I believe your intentions are honorable and you're being as honest as you can be. By "twisting" I mean redefining so as to avoid saying what's patently obvious. That the human growing inside them is indeed seen as property, part of their body that they have every right to do whatever they want with and they use law to uphold it. A law that states it is the property of the mother until birth. That in itself implies that the child and mother are separate.

Nevermind contradictory law that says an unborn child can inherit property, yet IS property.

As far as Lee goes. Forget it. He's waaaay off. He's made unsubstantiated claims and then made demands that they be proven wrong. You took it a step further and are unsatisfied that direct quotes can't be found in an abundance to satisfy your requirements.

The point has been made here, clearly and concisely. That is irrefutable. I can't force you to accept it.

Blue Neponset, "So far, ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Blue Neponset, "So far, dispite your links, Lee's challenge has gone unmet."

Lee Ward, "Show us someone who's called an unborn baby "the property of the mother", Kim -- if you can."

That is absolutely untrue, you are a liar! We fullfilled Lee's original chellenge several times over. Then because you are disingenuous assholes you changed the challenge, all of a sudden the challenge is to show that it was Democrats who said it, then it's show me people who have said it recently, then it is show me that it is a widespread sentiment.

Show me you that you have a brain, because I don't see any evidence of it.

So you believe a 6-... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

So you believe a 6-month old unborn baby (or fetus in your terminology) who can survive outside of the womb is simply some tissue?

A 6-month old fetus is hardly just tissue if you look at an ultrasound (and/or have had a child) and, really, someone who waits 6-months to have an abortion shouldn't be given that choice.

But this is not to say abortion should be made illegal. I think if someone should have the option up to two months - the fetus looks more like a tadpole at this stage, has limited functions in terms of nerves/brain/etc. and would hardly be mistaken for a child. A line needs to be drawn, since the option of no option is just simply unrealistic.

And for those who don't think it's unrealistic, start adopting children. And if you feel that these children aren't your responsibility, and you shouldn't have to inconvenience yourself by adopting and taking care of them, shut the hell up. Your opinion is invalid.

You can't have it both ways and have credibility. I would adopt another child in an instant if that option was available - and anyone who REALLY gives a damn about this issue should be willing to do the same (I'm in the process of adopting right now and becoming a father for a second time. I have a natural child as well).

There are too many people with a self-righteous stance on this issue who have no place in this argument because they would never step up to the actions of their convictions. But, in a real world, women should have a right here - and if you're going to take that away, you better as hell have a safety net for the millions of children you've just saved.

All right, smart guy. So ho... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

All right, smart guy. So how would you explain the people who are pro-life, but at the same time pro-capital punishment?
---------------------------------------------------
Brian needs some help to understand. Let me use a simple example so that Brian can see it.

What crime did an unborn baby commit to be worthy of death? What crime did Saddam Hussein commit to be worthy of his death penalty?

This is another priceless example: liberals trying to kill as many innocent unborn babies as possible while defending the murderers.

But, in a real world, women... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

But, in a real world, women should have a right here - and if you're going to take that away, you better as hell have a safety net for the millions of children you've just saved.
--------------------------------------------------
So women should have the right to kill their retarded children as well, esp single moms because raising a retarded child is a great burden to the mother and the society as well.

A line needs to be drawn, s... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

A line needs to be drawn, since the option of no option is just simply unrealistic.
-------------------------------------------------
How about the compromise that abortion should be legal only in the case of mother 's life, rape, and incest? Are you OK with that?

most of the women I go t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

most of the women I go to school with - want access to abortion simply out of convenience. Even if contraception was free and 100% effective (which it isn't, but not by much), they'd still want access to abortion because they can't be bothered to take responsibility for their own actions and USE it.

Oh yeah, that's what the problem is. All those women who are so turned off by the Pill's effectiveness that they'd prefer to just sleep around and then pop into the corner pharmacy for a quickie abortion.

Where the hell do you go to school?

So women should hav... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

So women should have the right to kill their retarded children as well, esp single moms because raising a retarded child is a great burden to the mother and the society as well.

You cannot tell if a child is retarded in the womb. You can only tell if he/she has downs syndrome - and a few other birth defects through amnio. So, no, if you have to wait for the amnio, you are already well past two months. This decision has to be made prior.

And by the way, indignant LAI, are you prepared to adopt?

How about the compr... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

How about the compromise that abortion should be legal only in the case of mother 's life, rape, and incest? Are you OK with that?

In terms of the mother's life, yes, she she should be saved. As far as rape and incest - if they get it before 2 months.

These are real world decisions, LAI. Things are not so black and white in the real world. Obviously you aren't sharp enough to understand that based on your grand-standing.

This is another fine exampl... (Below threshold)

This is another fine example of Lee getting caught in his own web of obfuscation and doublespeak -- next he'll be calling kim a liar.

You cannot tell if a child ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You cannot tell if a child is retarded in the womb. You can only tell if he/she has downs syndrome - and a few other birth defects through amnio. So, no, if you have to wait for the amnio, you are already well past two months. This decision has to be made prior.

And by the way, indignant LAI, are you prepared to adopt?
------------------------------------------------
I assume that you are not willing to adopt. So you would rather all these children be killed? There are a lot of people out there looking to adopt children. We went throught the process once. Do you know how much it costs?(20-30K at the time). Still there are people out there waiting in line.

So your logic is the children are burden to society, so you would rather to have them killed in the womb? Why not outside the womb if economic burden is your logic?

Brian needs some help to... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian needs some help to understand. Let me use a simple example so that Brian can see it.

What crime did an unborn baby commit to be worthy of death?

Is that the pro-file position? That babies shouldn't be killed because they're not criminals? How interesting. Please point me to the formal statement of that position so I can learn more.

How about the compromise th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

How about the compromise that abortion should be legal only in the case of mother 's life, rape, and incest? Are you OK with that?

In terms of the mother's life, yes, she she should be saved. As far as rape and incest - if they get it before 2 months.

These are real world decisions, LAI. Things are not so black and white in the real world. Obviously you aren't sharp enough to understand that based on your grand-standing.
---------------------------------------------------
Great, you and I seem to agree with the compromise. So pick it up with the pro-abortion crowd who are ardently opposing to these compromises. They insisted on the health provision.

Looks like you don't have problem with my proposed compromise. You even improve it by the restriction to 2 months for rape/incest. So I am with you. Now go pick it up with the pro-abortion crowd.

Is that the pro-file pos... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Is that the pro-file position?

file=life, of course.

s that the pro-file positio... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

s that the pro-file position? That babies shouldn't be killed because they're not criminals? How interesting. Please point me to the formal statement of that position so I can learn more.
---------------------------------------------------
Don't try this cheap diversion tactic. Tell me why you want unborn babies to be killed and murderers not to face the death penalty. Again, what crime unborn babies have done that you think worthy of being "destroyed"? I gave you the explanation for you. If you can't understand it, then go study.

Is that the pro-file positi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Is that the pro-file position?
-------------------------------
Simply that human life is so precious that when you are deliberately taking another person 's life, you should be ready to pay with your own life.

Still why do you want unborn babies to be killed?

I assume that you a... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

I assume that you are not willing to adopt. So you would rather all these children be killed? There are a lot of people out there looking to adopt children. We went throught the process once. Do you know how much it costs?(20-30K at the time). Still there are people out there waiting in line.


So your logic is the children are burden to society, so you would rather to have them killed in the womb? Why not outside the womb if economic burden is your logic?

So passionate about your own ignorance, you don't even feel the need to read my post, moron. I AM adopting. Would you like to know the actual cost for us? $19,300 for China. Would you like to know the process? The paperwork you need to fill out? Do you understand that domestic adoptions might cost $10,000 or less depending on how you do it?

Of course not. Because you don't read and you don't listen. And OBVIOUSLY, considering that you feel the need to suggest cost as a deterrent, you are making excuses for why others might not be able to adopt - not me. Always the same with you people. Self-rightous without any actions to back it up. Screw you.

So passionate about your ow... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So passionate about your own ignorance, you don't even feel the need to read my post, moron. I AM adopting. Would you like to know the actual cost for us? $19,300 for China. Would you like to know the process? The paperwork you need to fill out? Do you understand that domestic adoptions might cost $10,000 or less depending on how you do it?

Of course not. Because you don't read and you don't listen. And OBVIOUSLY, considering that you feel the need to suggest cost as a deterrent, you are making excuses for why others might not be able to adopt - not me. Always the same with you people. Self-rightous without any actions to back it up. Screw you.
-------------------------------------------------
You didn't read, did you? I said despite of the high cost, MANY PEOPLE are still waiting in line to adopt. So your arg is moot. Why don't you do pick it up with pro-abortion crowd. I don't believe you.

You didn't read, di... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

You didn't read, did you? I said despite of the high cost, MANY PEOPLE are still waiting in line to adopt. So your arg is moot. Why don't you do pick it up with pro-abortion crowd. I don't believe you.

I'm aware there are many waiting to adopt - and haven't argued that. And yes, I have considerable problems with those on the pro-abortion side who are way over to the other side of this argument. There are compromises that need to be made, and I think 2 months is a realistic one in terms of the development of the fetus and the amount of time people should have as a deadline for this decision - but I don't speak for anyone but myself. And I gather you don't as well.

'm aware there are many wai... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

'm aware there are many waiting to adopt - and haven't argued that. And yes, I have considerable problems with those on the pro-abortion side who are way over to the other side of this argument. There are compromises that need to be made, and I think 2 months is a realistic one in terms of the development of the fetus and the amount of time people should have as a deadline for this decision - but I don't speak for anyone but myself. And I gather you don't as well.
--------------------------------------------------
I agreed with your compromise, didn't I? I AM FINE with your compromise: MOTHER 's LIFE, RAPE & INCEST before 2 months.

So now pick it up with the pro-abortion crowd.

"There are compromises that... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"There are compromises that need to be made, and I think 2 months is a realistic one in terms of the development of the fetus and the amount of time people should have as a deadline for this decision - but I don't speak for anyone but myself."

You know one of the problems with the whole abortion debate is that few people are even willing to make compromises.

I have argued with people who believe it is okay for a woman to abort a baby up until the point that the cord is cut.

Then you have people who believe it is a human being with rights the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg.

Stiff, with due respect, yo... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Stiff, with due respect, you are the one acting self rightious. I can understand the passion but please don't accuse. You don't know these people, their lives or what they have done or what they are planning to do. You are being totally judgemental. And yes, I have adopted a special needs child who is now 32. She was 9 when we adopted her.

I think there is no compromise simply because you have to decide if the baby (fetus for the lefties) is a life or not. I personally don't believe you can become a life, grow into a life or any other mix. You are either a life form or not. How you answer that is how you will decide. ww

Tell me why you want unb... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Tell me why you want unborn babies to be killed and murderers not to face the death penalty.

Are you even capable of making an argument without lying about what your opponent is saying? I don't think so.

human life is so preciou... (Below threshold)
Brian:

human life is so precious that when you are deliberately taking another person 's life, you should be ready to pay with your own life.

So your position is that you are willing to die for the right to kill other people. Interesting. Doesn't sound very "pro life" to me.

First of all...unless men a... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

First of all...unless men are willing to have any level of govt dictate forced vasectomies...you really have no right to give your opinion about a woman's reproductive system...
Choice is not only about the pregnancy...it is about a lifelong commitment...
sorry but but in our nation..at this time much more responsibility is placed upon the mother thn the father...men expect women to be on the pill..but we don't want a condom to interfere with our pleasure..

Choice is simply that...Choice..it is ironic that so many men don't want the govt to interfere with our right to possess an OBJECT..a gun... have no problem with govt interference when it comes to a woman/pregnancy/motherhood..

ww's 5:49 statement to Stif... (Below threshold)

ww's 5:49 statement to Stiff is remarkably simple and profound at once.

As the parent of another special needs child who is now 15, I share his (regrettably) unique perspective on the value of "life."

Just wondering...how many p... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Just wondering...how many posting here have or plan to adopt?Not just because of a reproductive situation...but your desire that every birth be taken care of?
Why are most single parent families headed by women?
I mean shouldn't it be 50/50? ...So a woman who becomes pregnant should be forced to carry to term even though the father is no longer present?
It is not about abortion...it is about women being forced to carry ...give birth and society claiming..."your the mother...you're responsible"...\

Nogo Postal:How no... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Nogo Postal:

How noble of you to include every man in your "we". How the hell do you know what I think about contraception?

"Choice is simply that...Choice..it is ironic that so many men don't want the govt to interfere with our right to possess an OBJECT..a gun... have no problem with govt interference when it comes to a woman/pregnancy/motherhood.. "

Again, you make assumptions that that only men are against abortion, and only men are for owning guns. A gun is a tool, not a living being. You can argue with me all you wasnt about "choice", but that doesn't change moral truth.

Wow, good thread. For the ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Wow, good thread. For the most part, well argued without the screaming or ad hominem.

Stiff, while I am opposed to abortion, I don't want to adopt a child at this point in my life. However I have never created a child. I have never chanced creating a child. If there was that chance (i.e. no contraception available) I simply did not have intercourse. You see creating a child is not the same a catching a cold. It is very easily preventable by exercising self control and personal responsibility.

Also if by some rare quirk of fate, I still created a child I would have proudly raised it and I never would have chanced intercourse with a woman who would have killed our child had one been created dispite our efforts to prevent it. Again it's called personal responsibility.

If you're not willing to do the time, don't do the crime and all that.

I believe that if abortion was not a legal form of after the fact cantraception than there would not be millions of carelessly created fetuses as there are now. Sure there'd be some, but there are more than enough people who want to adopt children for those few that would be created.

So I respectfully disagree with your argument that you shouldn't be anti-abortion unless you're willing to adopt.

And Nogo, thanks for helping to disprove Lee and Blue's argument about the "property" thing right in this very thread. Not that it wasn't disproven before you arrived.

Nogo & John,Actual... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Nogo & John,

Actually polls have shown that more men than women are pro-abortion and the greatest supporters of abortion are men in the 20-30 range (who I believe have the same level of respect for women as Bill Clinton.)

"Just wondering...how many ... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"Just wondering...how many posting here have or plan to adopt?"

Posted by: nogo postal

Is that supposed to be an argument about hypocrisy? Has it ever occured to you that there are people on WAITING LISTS who are ready to welcome a baby TODAY? Has it occured to you that outside of government, the organizations that handle or facilitate adoptions are prolife? It probably has, but I won't hold my breath for you to admit it.

Pro-Life?...I am assuming t... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Pro-Life?...I am assuming those who are Pro-life oppose Capital Punishment...and are horrified by
http://icasualties.org/oif/

I have met a number of Pro-Life people who are consistent in their beliefs...but I have met too many more who are not...

Nogo,So you think ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Nogo,

So you think that killing a terrorist or capital criminal is the same as killing an unborn child (or fetus)?

So your position is that yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So your position is that you are willing to die for the right to kill other people. Interesting. Doesn't sound very "pro life" to me.
------------------------------------------------
Brian,
CAn you be honest just once? Bunyan 's question again

So you think that killing a terrorist or capital criminal is the same as killing an unborn child (or fetus)?

Tell me why you want unborn... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Tell me why you want unborn babies to be killed and murderers not to face the death penalty.

Are you even capable of making an argument without lying about what your opponent is saying? I don't think so
-------------------------------------------------
So what do you want? I answer your question. Now do you have the honesty to answer my question?

The Commandment reads: "Tho... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

The Commandment reads: "Thou shalt not murder". It obviously doesn't refer to "killing", because there are many places in the OT that show God telling Israel to kill their enemies. English is an incomplete language. Anyone wanting to completely accurately interpret the Bible needs to know at least Hebrew and Greek.

Capital punishment is a valid form of governmental law enforcement. Should it be used only at greatest need, and monitored very closely? Of course. A weak canard, Nogo.

I believe that if a... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

I believe that if abortion was not a legal form of after the fact cantraception than there would not be millions of carelessly created fetuses as there are now. Sure there'd be some, but there are more than enough people who want to adopt children for those few that would be created.

It's a tough issue. Lets put it this way - there are few people, I think, who use abortion as a means of birth control. First of all, it's profoundly unhealthy for their body to undergo that over and over - but for those people who do actually think like that, they deserve no sympathy.

Secondly, there needs to be changes made in this country's adoption program. It is VERY difficult to adopt domestically without worrying that a birth mother - even an unfit one - can take that child from you fairly easily in a court of law. Either that, or if you opt for an open adoption, there are some horror stories of birth parents "blackmailing" adoptive families (either by asking them for money a times or other intrusions) because they are allowed certain power under the law as well. Now, this is still incidental - there are many wonderful birth parent relationships with adoptive parents - but under our system everything is made difficult.

Now, back to the abortion issue. Sure, anyone who uses abortion as an abuse, a method of birth control, out of ignorance - well, those people don't really deserve much sympathy for their situations. However, life is complicated. There are other reasons women make that choice. Nothing in this world is black and white. Furthermore, it really shouldn't be the governments place to decide whether it's illegal or not. Take a look at the government's interference in the Shiavo case. Perfect example of a personal matter that shouldn't be interfered by people who barely know how to balance the budget in their own district.

And sure, not everyone is in a position in this world to adopt - but it's the militant attitude by those who have no intention of doing anything except pronouncing their beliefs that irks me.

And sure, not everyone is i... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And sure, not everyone is in a position in this world to adopt - but it's the militant attitude by those who have no intention of doing anything except pronouncing their beliefs that irks me.
-------------------------------------------------
Again pick it up with the pro-abortion crowd. They are impeding the progress to make adoption easier in this country. The pro-abortion crowd don't want people to promote adoption in schools even.


However, life is complicate... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

However, life is complicated. There are other reasons women make that choice. Nothing in this world is black and white.
------------------------------------------------
Yup, but when it involves a human life, that choice should be restricted the most difficult circumstances. Again, the pro-abortion crowd is the militant one. They don't want any restrictions (hiding behind the health exception). So I agree with you that the pro-abortion crowd and the liberal dems are really militant wrt abortion. They even want to bend the constitution to have a religious test for judges.

LAI,Would it surpr... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

LAI,

Would it surprise you to know that Planned Parenthood actively opposes crisis pregnancy clinics that promote things like adoption and parent education? Would it surprise anyone? It shouldn't.

John, Thanks for th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

John,
Thanks for the reminder. The pro-abortion crowd is really militant as Stiff has mentioned.

"there are few people, I... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"there are few people, I think, who use abortion as a means of birth control"

The data do not support that conclusion. "Unplanned" pregnancies went from around 100,000 per year to over a million per year after abortion was legalized.

"it's profoundly unhealthy for their body to undergo that over and over"

Actually it's profoundly unhealthy, both mentally and physically, to do it even the first time.

I do agree with you about adoption laws.

I disagree with your about the "governments place". Since the dawn of civilization, the "government" has had a place in deciding which homocides were legal which were not.

Getting back to the origina... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Getting back to the original article Kim posted about, I find it remarkable that a leftist would even mention slavery in this context. Even the fact that Henneberger acknowledged that the argument exists is surprising to me. I've always seen many parallels between slavery and abortion. But it's been my observation that the left would go to great lengths to deny that those parallels even existed.

By passing all the distractions that often pop up when abortion is discussed, at the very core of the issue is one's beliefs. Either you believe a fetus is human and worthy of basic human rights, or you believe that it is something less than human and not worthy of basic human rights.

The same thing was true of slavery. At the very core of the issue, the pro-slavery people believed that black people were less than human and not worthy of basic human rights, while the anti-slavery people believed that blacks were human and worthy of basic human rights.

Also the pro-slavery people were careful to use semantics to soften the reality of the situation. You didn't call it "slavery" you called it "that peculiar institution". And they did not secede from the union because of "slavery", it was because of the North's "economic suppression" of the South and those inalienable "state's rights". I have many, many friends (almost all of my current close friends, actually) who grew up in the south and even today they still make that same argument as the only reasons for the Civil War with complete conviction.

Similarly, today those on the left don't say "abortion" or "terminating the life of a fetus". It's all about "choice", "the right to choose", "a woman's reproductive rights", "reproductive health", etc.

I believe the judgement of history will be the same on the pro-abortion people of today as it is on the pro-slavery people of the old South. But I can't prove that without a time machine...

But yeah Melinda, I am one of those who thinks abortion is a human rights issue comparable to slavery.

Back to the original quote.... (Below threshold)

Back to the original quote... Democrats have been running pro-life campaigns more often, haven't they?

I recall people making note of it during the 2006 season, that the Democratic candidates were running pro-life and social conservative and were winning.

There's two whole classes that aren't well represented in our two party system, social liberal-economic conservatives and social conservative-economic progressive/socialist-ish sorts.

As for the other, I'm reminded of the stereotypical male dominant shaking his fist and yelling, "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out."

That's the sort of "I can do with it what I want" attitude of pro-abortionists. It's definitely a class of property.

Some Muslims are like that... believing that they have a right to kill their children if they see the need.

It's not quite the same thing as believing a father has the right to sell his children, but it's certainly in the ball-park and has been a cultural reality in the past, and in some places, in the present.

"I brought you into this world and I can take you out."

Oh... and another abusive male classic, "What happens in my home is none of your business."

I suppose that we're supposed to see it all as some huge struggle against the patriarchy but the language parallels the bad parts of the patriarchy rather than setting up in opposition with something different.

In either case, it all depends on where you live.

You bring up an interesting... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

You bring up an interesting point, Synova. In all the examples you cited, the "dominant" men used power to hold on to what they thought was theirs. While it may not always bear itself out in practice, the New Testament admonishes parents to "not exasperate" their children. While the meaning of that can be debated, the passage makes clear that for the Christian, all relationships belong in God's hands. Bringing it back around to abortion, the Christian prolifer sees the fetus as a person, and as such is in relationship with him/her, and responsible before God to preserve and protect it.

Here is A Pro-Choice arg... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Here is A Pro-Choice argument from 1859 notice how similar the arguments are to today's supporters of Pro-Choice. We've even heard similar arguments in this thread.

The whole slavery question is just a matter of a small religiously based minority trying to impose its morality on everybody. The northern Congregationalist, Unitarian and Quaker preachers draw huge crowds with their anti-choice sermons, but theirs is not the only Christian view.

"In the south, the Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodist denominations strongly support a person's right to own slaves. Who are Henry Ward Beecher and his fellow agitators to impose their own views on so many other unwilling Christians?

"The law does not say that a person must own slaves. It is a matter of choice. Those who believe slavery is wrong need not participate in it, but they have no right to prevent others from doing so.

"The anti-choice forces say that a slave is a full human being with all the rights of white people. The Supreme Court says otherwise. In the Dred Scott decision, the court clearly stated that Negroes are not equal and that slaves are not entitled to full civil rights. If the anti-choice forces are allowed to alter the Constitution to change Dred Scott, will any of our rights be safe? If they can take away the right to own slaves, they can take away any right. It is a Pandora's box to change the Constitution or overturn established legal precedent.

"And what of the cost of emancipation? There are already many poor citizens, and resources are scarce. Can we afford the economic havoc that would be wrought by suddenly destroying the Southern economy and creating millions of new free citizens? The world is much more complicated than the simplistic anti-choice slogans indicate.

"Also, isn't it maddening that so many of the anti-choice leaders will never even have to face the slavery issue on a personal level? Virtually all of them come from states with only minuscule black populations (true in 1859). They will not have to live with the economic and social burdens their policies will cause those in slave-holding regions.

"Clearly, the anti-choice forces are frustrated by their inability to abolish the right to legal slavery. Unable to win by democratic means, they have resorted to violence and murder in Kansas, Missouri and Harper's Ferry, Virginia. Will we allow fanatics like John Brown to determine public policy in this country?

"The majority of Americans do not support abolition of the right to free choice in the matter of slavery (also true for 1859). That majority must be heard. Remember, we are not pro-slavery, we are just pro-choice!"

The pro-choice slavery argument fails because it ignores the critical point about the humanity of slavery. The pro-choice argument for abortion fails because of a similar omission about the nature of unborn children.

One cannot be pro-choice and claim not to make a value judgment about human life. The whole pro-choice argument is based on an assumption about the lack of intrinsic value of young human life. That assumption, and not the diversionary "pro-choice" argument, is the real issue, which abortion supporters prefer not to address.

Sorry forgot to link the so... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Eric, all I can say to that... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Eric, all I can say to that is "wow".

That was a real gem, Eric. ... (Below threshold)

That was a real gem, Eric. Link saved.

One cannot be pro-c... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

One cannot be pro-choice and claim not to make a value judgment about human life. The whole pro-choice argument is based on an assumption about the lack of intrinsic value of young human life. That assumption, and not the diversionary "pro-choice" argument, is the real issue, which abortion supporters prefer not to address.

And, once again, for the pro-life crowd - for those who are willing to adopt or support a life that might never have been, props to you. For those who have a pro-life stance and propose to do no more than vent your views without taking any action - keep quiet.

And, for those people who feel it's justified to hurt or kill some doctors or burn down planned parenthood clinics, go to hell.

For the pro-choice crowd, you need to get off your high horse and start doing much of the same.

Child-bearing is disempower... (Below threshold)
kim:

Child-bearing is disempowering? What a crock of bull that is. Where did that come from?
============================

Child-rearing is disempower... (Below threshold)
kim:

Child-rearing is disempowering? What a crock of bull that is. Where did that come from?
============================

"{And, once again, for the ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"{And, once again, for the pro-life crowd - for those who are willing to adopt or support a life that might never have been, props to you. For those who have a pro-life stance and propose to do no more than vent your views without taking any action - keep quiet."


Well thank you for imposing your morals on us. Aren't you being every bit as judgemental as a bible thumper? You would fir in wonderfully with Jerry Falwell.

Stiff, Have you ev... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Stiff,
Have you ever run an orhphanage? Have you adopted 5 children yet? If not, please shut up. You are a cheap pro-abortion pretender.
Go pick it up with your pro-abortion crowd.


Stiffs wants to pretend he ... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Stiffs wants to pretend he can occupy the perfect middle, a place of non-judgmental judgmentalism. He (or she) is better than everyone else, because there is not an ounce of hypocrisy that abides in him/her. Maybe I'll achieve that high and lofty position some day. Probably not.

Doesn't matter whether it's... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

Doesn't matter whether it's this argument or another one. Simply put, for everyone they should either put up or shut up. The problem is there are too many people in this world with alot of hot air and no investment in the choices they propose. This goes for me as well. If I have no investment in an issue I can't conclude that my uninformed opinion has the weight of someone who's in the thick of it. And if I don't have that investment, and I choose to be militant in my opinions (especially when they might involve life and death), than my opinion on its face is invalid.

And that's not being "better" than anyone - it's admitting I could be wrong from time to time, which is something I have rarely seen declared by the other side in reading many of these postings on this site (rarely).

Stiffs, Since you a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Stiffs,
Since you are thumpinng your chest for claiming to have adopted one child, I have to treat you as a phony. I know several couples who have adopted 2 children each from China, Russia, Bulgaria etc ... They could not have children of their own, so they adopted these children MAINLY to satisfy their OWN DESIRE to have children. They don't thump their chest as they have done a great rescue service for these fortunate children. They are simply thankful for being able to adopt these mostly healthy kids. I know a couple running an orphanage in China and adopted 5 abandoned girls. A few friends of this couple went beyond their financial limit to adopt sick kids (one terminally ill) from China.

I cannot be sure since I don't know you personally. But you sounds like a phony to me. I know people who worked at CPC who provided food/clothing/shelter/money to help young women to go thorugh pregnancy and adoption. As John pointed out, Planned Parenthood tried to shut these centers down. Until you go and pick it up with these militant pro-abortionists, I have to treat you as a cheap phony. Also, your rhetoric seems to be typical of pro-abortion liberal who pretended to be middle of the road.

You are a cheap pro... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

You are a cheap pro-abortion pretender.

Really? Please explain that one. I've stated quite a few times here my opposition to those who stake claim on the far left of this issue. Then again, I have a problem with those on the far right of it as well. Moreover, any extreme on any issue, as far as I'm concerned, is a virtual loser of a stance. That's why it's referred to as extreme.

Stiffs, Stuff your ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Stiffs,
Stuff your cheap phony argument. If you cannot say that the US is better than North Korea, then you are really lost. If you care about abortion, then go pick it up with the militant pro-abortion crowd. Don't pretend to be a "progressive" here.

Stiffs, Your thumpe... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Stiffs,
Your thumped your chest by claiming to make one adoption. On this thread you dare not pick a bone with Planned Parenthood, who tried to derail adoption effort of CDC (who spent their own time and money to help women to choose adoption over abortion). You claimed to care about adoption, yet you are completely silent on this thread. You are simply a phony pro-abortion pretender to me until you go pick it up with the militant pro-abortion crowd. Your rhetoric is typical of pro-abortion liberal who dare not admit who they are.

My wife and I have ALWAYS w... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

My wife and I have ALWAYS wanted to adopt, and we have a genetic child (for a long time we weren't able to) and we're not doing it for any greater purpose than wanting another child in our lives. And this daughter we're getting will not have much of a choice in the matter - more reason we need to be valid as parents and appreciate beyond all measure what we'll have when we get her this summer (if the referrals move along).

Now, I don't expect the world to be able to adopt, but there are alot of kids our there that need homes. And I'm hardly as you say a "pro-abortion liberal". Not even sure what that is. As I mentioned, I hold a middle ground on this issue because, well, it's not a simple black and white one - and compromises need to be made. And that's simply that.

My beef, as always, is with blowhards of any stripe who have alot to say while they sit on their ass in front of their computer, but little to do about any of it. And I've got nothing to tell the "pro-abortion crowd" because I don't represent them and wouldn't.

Label all you want. You'll still be wrong.

My beef, as always, is with... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

My beef, as always, is with blowhards of any stripe who have alot to say while they sit on their ass in front of their computer
---------------------------------------------
Another example of your phony pretention. You are one of those blowhards sitting on his ass in front of his computer. What are you doing here? Go pick it up with Planned Parenthood if you truly care about adoption.

Stiffs, Have a good... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Stiffs,
Have a good evening and be a blowhard sitting on his ass in front of his computer. I have better things to do than to discuss with a phony like you.

StiffsI haven't part... (Below threshold)

Stiffs
I haven't participated in this thread and have observed only.
In my experiences, at my church, in my neighborhood, at work and in my everyday life, I don't know any couples that have adopted that have a casual view of abortion. All the adoptive couples I know have a strong view on the matter...and it is very anti abortion. Most of the women in my circle of friends that have suffered miscarriages (some have adopted and others have conceived and delivered healthy babies) share the same sentiment.
But these are personal anecdotes....

Frankly, I have more respec... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Frankly, I have more respect for someone who has principles, even if they are opposed to mine, than someone who values compromise as good in its own right. While there are many things not worth fighting over, if I really believe that abortion kills a living human, why should I not cry out against it? I was a baby once, inside my mother's womb, totally dependent on her. Why should I not wish for and fight for the same protection of other unborn babies, regardless of their circumstances. Millions of people have overcome humongous odds in life to find joy and success. Just because I haven't adopted doesn't mean I haven't played a part in helping others do so.

All the adoptive co... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

All the adoptive couples I know have a strong view on the matter...and it is very anti abortion.

Don't disagree with you. And I, as well, are anti-abortion. It's a horrible act - but life is never so easy - that is my point here.
And I would propose the same thing that I did before - if you TRULY want to illegalize abortion, really stop it, you have to be willing to take care of all those unwanted children out there.

To me, this is a no brainer - and would do my part easily. And as I mentioned, anyone else who would do the same has the will of their convictions and I would support their view on this 100%.

But there are many out there who are happy to vent their pro-life views without actually committing to do what it takes if we were lucky enough to have abortion made an illegal act. This is really my problem here. And as far as a compromise, I'm pragmatic.

Lets face it - if you believe that every life is valued, at what point do you condone war? If you believe that beliefs on religion should never be compromised, at one point do you condone killing as a result of religious conviction?

Life is just not as simple as your principles. You can have them, but if they result in no change in this world, what good are your principles? So 2 months. That life, if you are in a position of having to take it because of the reality of the world and what you can accomplish - and what you are willing to do - beyond 2 months in my opinion you are dealing with something more than a series of cells or a tadpole - and, I'm sorry, but a series of cells are not a person in my opinion. My wife and I have been through IVF. If we had any surviving blastocysts, we would happily donate them to science because, as far as I'm concerned, they are not a human being - yet - and would otherwise be frozen or destroyed. There are many ways to look at all of this, but simply because you only see this issue in ONE way does not make you more righteous than anyone else, or more deserving of consideration.

And I've been through the hell of trying to have children, and know that value of that life - and would be willing to do my part in taking as many children as I am able, but unless others were willing to do the same, nothing will change. And unlike others I don't live in a fantasy world. So compromise on this issue must be considered, unless you have other ideas.

Have a good evening... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

Have a good evening and be a blowhard sitting on his ass in front of his computer. I have better things to do than to discuss with a phony like you.

Once again, full of alot of hot air and no answers but a few insults and a few self-righteous comments. Oh, and that's right, you can't adopt because it's "too expensive". Nice rationalization.

Once again, full of alot of... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Once again, full of alot of hot air and no answers but a few insults and a few self-righteous comments. Oh, and that's right, you can't adopt because it's "too expensive". Nice rationalization.
------------------------------------------------
I don't need to thump by chest about my adoption as a phony like you.

Here is your own work here
My beef, as always, is with blowhards of any stripe who have alot to say while they sit on their ass in front of their computer, but little to do about any of it.

You like to call people here blowhard while you are doing the same thing. Is this not phony?

In regards to what I refer ... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

In regards to what I refer to as "reality":

My parents grew up the in the 30s and 40s. They always trusted their government. I grew up during Watergate. I had no such fantasy. I live in a town where in order to get my draining ditch cleaned our so it doesn't flood my street, I have to "know somebody" in the local government. Nice, huh? But that is how things work here.

We have a government that is bought and sold by special interests and voting groups. As an individual, you mean nothing to the people who are supposed to represent you.

It may sound cynical to some, but that is reality. If it differs a little elswhere, well, that's nice, but it's hardly the norm - otherwise things wouldn't be so screwed up.

...and it's in this reality that I also see abortion never stopping. Maybe it might be made illegal, but it will never stop. Just like "just say no" didn't keep kids from not having sex. Maybe a few, but it really didn't change anything.

So in the real world - this one - issues like abortion and war and life and death cannot always outcome the way you want in your fantasy world. Compromises are made, cold as they may seem. And in this context, i propose what I put forth. And I hardly consider it a compromise. I consider it a doable option for a government that doesn't care unless their poll numbers drop enough - and then, not even.

Lets put it this way - if your representatives REALLY wanted to outlaw abortion, why didn't they do it when they had the white house, the senate and the congress? Compromise that one away.

Stiff, I agreed to ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Stiff,
I agreed to the "compromise" you proposed already: MOTHER 's LIFE, RAPE and INCEST in the first 2 months? That 's your own compromise and I agreed to it. Are you trying to back out on that since you didn't mean. Stop being a blowhard like the rest of us here. Be true to your words.

You like to call pe... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

You like to call people here blowhard while you are doing the same thing. Is this not phony?

The only one's I'm calling blowhards are those who have alot to say and nothing to contribute. I've told you what I'm willing to contribute. What are you willing to do? Nothing, right? Well, there you go. THAT's a blowhard. The only phony is the person calling for an end to abortion just as long as they don't need to support any of the unaborted children themselves - always someone elses problem. Tell me you're willing to take these at least one of these kids and I'll have some respect for your opinion. Otherwise, your opinion is hollow.

I agreed to the "co... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

I agreed to the "compromise" you proposed already: MOTHER 's LIFE, RAPE and INCEST in the first 2 months?

Oh, I know you do - and I appreciate that. Sometimes I get a little wound up.

The only one's I'm calling ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The only one's I'm calling blowhards are those who have alot to say and nothing to contribute. I've told you what I'm willing to contribute. What are you willing to do? Nothing, right? Well, there you go.
------------------------------------------------
I contribute far more than what you do, but I don't need to blow my horn as you do. That 's why I think you are a phony. I know many who have done far more than I can do like living in China for 20 years running an orphanage, adopting 5 girls in addition to their own genetic children. They don't blow their horns as you do. That 's why I can tell that you are a phony since the people who do the real work don't blow their horns like that.

They don't blow the... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

They don't blow their horns as you do. That 's why I can tell that you are a phony since the people who do the real work don't blow their horns like that.

Nobody here's blowing their horn. I've just made a simple proposition here - be willing to live up to the convictions of your opinions. There are people doing far more than any of us, no argument there. Could I do more in this world, sure. But if you can't even make the pledge to accept that you have more responsibility than to simply put your opinion out there - with nothing at all to back it - than THAT is what I take issue with.

And as I said, if you're willing to contribute to this - if you are willing to take some of these kids (granted, this is hypothetical now), than I support your call for an abortion ban 100% - because you're not just talk then.

But if it's more difficult to accept that kind of responsibility and easier to call me a phony so you don't have to answer the question, or consider it, go to it. It's a diversion, and insincere.

And as I said, if you're wi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And as I said, if you're willing to contribute to this - if you are willing to take some of these kids (granted, this is hypothetical now), than I support your call for an abortion ban 100% - because you're not just talk then.
-------------------------------------------------
I agreed to your "compromise" already, right? Are you trying to back out on your compromise now? (Exception: mother 's life, rape and incest in the first 2 months). So we agreed on your proposal on exceptions for abortion? Why are trying to wiggle out? Is this not a phony pretention, then what?


But if it's more difficult to accept that kind of responsibility and easier to call me a phony so you don't have to answer the question, or consider it, go to it. It's a diversion, and insincere.
-------------------------------------------------
You are insincere and phony here. I already do far more than your little cheap talk. This is a hint for you. DO you know about Crisis pregnancy centers? These are places where people help pregnant women with care, money, shelter etc... to go through the 9 months of pregnancy then help place the babies up for adoption. If you want to do something about it, then go join one of them in your city.

If you want to be a blowhard sitting on his ass in front of his computer (using your own terminology), then try to pick a bone with people who are opposing your "compromise" and little proposal, like the militant pro-abortionists. You are trying to pick a bone here with people who mostly agree with your compromise and your little proposal to promote adoption. Is this not saying one thing and trying to do the opposite?

Ah, and since I am the biol... (Below threshold)

Ah, and since I am the biological parent of two children and have not adopted, I'd better keep my mouth shut if my opinion is that it's better to put a child up for adoption than to abort it.

Gotcha. What about those who didn't go the abortion route, even though it would have simplified their lives considerably, and chose to have and raise the child even under hardship? I guess they'd better shut up too, huh? You know, since they didn't adopt and all...

Ah, and since I am ... (Below threshold)
Stiffs:

Ah, and since I am the biological parent of two children and have not adopted, I'd better keep my mouth shut if my opinion is that it's better to put a child up for adoption than to abort it.

You're an idiot. My suggestion, if you had any ability to read, is that those who wish adoption be abolished should contribute to the care of these unwanted children. If you simply want your opinion (which I don't disagree with) without bearing any responsibility toward it, than you are a hypocrite and, yes, you should shut up. For those who keep their children, good for them. For those who want to help by adopting unwanted kids, good for them.

For those, like yourself, who simply want to complain and post your views without feeling any need to contribute - those who feel "well, it's not my responsibility", your opinion is hollow and you have nothing to offer the debate.

is that those who wish adop... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

is that those who wish adoption be abolished should contribute to the care of these unwanted children.
--------------------------------------------------
I guess you meant abortion here, but it is still a phony arg. Let 's say you cannot adopt any retarded children. Then the gov decided to allow the parents to kill these retarded children because they are a burden. YOu have no right to speak out against the killing of retarded children?

Stiff, Another reas... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Stiff,
Another reason why your arg is phony is this. Suppose someone has 4 biological kids and had to work their tails to support their kids. For some reason (including selfish reasons), you cannot have kid. When you accummulate enough money, you cannot have children anymore. Then you dish out 30K to adopt one child to satisfy your own desire to have a kid. Then you can be a blowhard sitting on his ass in front of his computer. In this case, you haven't contributed anything but for your own selfish need.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy