19,000 children died today from PREVENTABLE causes. You anti abortion nuts don't worry about those kids or work to save them because its easier to save an imaginary kid, you don't really need to do anything.

First you save the living, breathing children. The anti-abortion crowd is vile.

dr lava said,"19,000 children died today from PREVENTABLE causes." And the "solution" is to kill more "imaginary kid(s)"?

I give you the left, ladies and gents,devaluing life to the tune of countless millions dead in the past few decades.Huzzah!

That is vile. It truly is.

If someone wants to castigate people for having the wrong focus for their good deeds, why not tear animal groups a big one. Do you know how much a hip replacement for a dog costs? Do you know how many people could be helped if crippled dogs were humanely put down and the money used to help all those dying kids?

Help a dog. Kill a kid.

(There are logical problems with this, but they apply every bit as much if not more to dr. lava's either-or scenario.)

The difference of course lava, is that death is a part of life. Everyone dies. You will too.

However, murder is not a part of life. A child dying because of illness is not the same as the child that is murdered. Do you get that? We are trying to prevent murder. So please answer the following question in one word (either "for" or "against").

Are you for or against murder?

I love this "Well, there's problems, so doing ANYTHING is wrong!!!" mentality.

You know, there's slavery in parts of Africa. I guess civil rights are just not needed until that ends.
-=Mike

nehemiah,

Murder may not be "a part of life", but it is a plank of the DNC.

"...an imaginary kid." Please say that to an expectant mother who happens to want the child.

"First you save the living, breathing children." Just because it's not oxygen, doesn't mean the child is not breathing. Please get a clue.

19,000 children died today from PREVENTABLE causes.

That's just a diversion to take the heat off the death dealers. The pro-abortion crowd cares nothing for such children apart from using the tragedy of their deaths for political purposes. The only solution the pro-abortion crowd has to offer is to kill them before they die from other PREVENTABLE causes.

First you save the living, breathing children.

Science 101: Abortions kills living, respiring children. The pro-abortion crowd's belief that a child in the womb is not a living, respiring human is unsupported by any scientific evidence.

Like some pagan religion, the pro-abortion crowd sacrifices their children to the god of convenience. This pagan practice is incompatible with any civilized concept of human dignity and the value of human life.

Was the death of Wade Edwards considered late term abortion? Wonder if his death was a tragedy?

Wonder if BreckBoy and waffle mamma think the death of any child is a tragedy?

Did people like Chris Reeve walk yet?

"dr lava" would give a million murdered babies for one good spine. Apparently Chris Reeve could only find 999,999.

Abortions aren't tragedies? ...per the Democrats.

The "logical" next step is to REQUIRE every woman to abort at least one child so she can embrace the coolness of killing someone!!

F**ked up?? You bet!

I love the hypocrisy of the pro life crowd.

You are all for bringing embryos to term. Then once they are breathing unless they've been born to families with enough financial means to take care of them, those who are resident in homes where there is no father or the parent is a drug addict or a teen mother or just lazy and unwilling to do much more than collect welfare you rail against the burden these parents and their children place on the money contributed to the federal funds used to support them.

The ever so virtous rallying cry of righties rings so hollow. You want women who might otherwise abort to have kids so you can have a field day marginalizing their unseemly behaviors. Seems you revel in the rhetoric directed towards women who have little ability to take care of themselves much less a child. But no, oh no, let's make sure those kids are born so they can have a miserable existence and we can feel ever so righteous for giving them a chance at such an existence.

What's so great for a child born into despair and institutionalized prejudices, treated as an outcast amongst the righteous? Tell me, what's so moral about your attitude once those chidren are born into such circmstances?

Sometimes I really think you people live to be wretched to humanity.

civil behavior,

Do you not know the EXACT correlation of the current onslaught of "those who are resident in homes where there is no father or the parent is a drug addict or a teen mother or just lazy and unwilling to do much more than collect welfare" is in line with all of those little bundles of death your side yearns for every day ? They go together,don't you get it?

People were more responsible back when it was understood that killing a baby is a crime. Watch the abortion scene in the original "What's it all about Alfie?". Even Hollywood used to know what a horror that attrocity is. Now,you and they embrace it. Disgusting.

It takes a man and a women (normally) to make a women pregnant, and then the men are telling the women what they can and can't do with their bodys.

Hell, all you men that are against abortion are probably secret Taliban members. Isn't it up to the women if she wants to carry the baby to full term and birth? Are you men willing to pay the women for the medical expense, and make sure the baby has everything it needs?

If not, I suggest you men leave this up to the women, as you are the cause of the problem, not the cure.

Personally, I am against abortion, but I damn sure don't speak out about it one way or another (until now) because that is a problem a women has, and she will, in the future have to answer for it. So gentlemen, please shut up!

Hey "cb" how just killing the ones that are having the abortions also. That way you get them out the way also.

Allen,

Uh,baby here. Do I have any "rights"?

Dr Soap is a Sea Gull poster here at Wizbang...he swoops in, defecates, and flies out. He has never been involved in serious discussion here because he is not capable of engaging in informed debate. The Greek concept of debate is as foreign to him as Cuba is to healthcare....both claim ownership of it but outsource it when the temp rises above 101.

He, like Jim, should be ignored.

Anyone who reads my weblg (probably no one here) knows that I am more than a little conservative. That said, this is one of the topics on which I differ from my side of the fence.

This is simply one aspect of human life where the government has no place to be. At all. Period. Full stop. End of story. This is something that is between a woman, her husband/significant other (if available), and her God.

That said, I am firmly against any abortion that comes at a time when the fetus would be viable outside of the womb. Other than that, it is not my business, your business, or the government's business.

Of course, us minimal-government types get yelled at by both sides of the fence these days, so I will stand by for that.

Linoge,

Do we adjust the "viable" thing everytime a baby survives a little earlier than before ?

Does that then mean, that we were breaking YOUR rules up until then ?

Are babies only babies when YOU say they are babies ?

"What's so great for a child born into despair and institutionalized prejudices, treated as an outcast amongst the righteous?Tell me, what's so moral about your attitude once those chidren are born into such circmstances?"

This generalized statement makes the assumption that all unaborted children are destined to a life of despair. You might want to expand your thinking a little bit, like considering parents that want to adopt children without a stable birth mother. I personally was acquainted with a man who went through a foster care program to take in 3 children born of a crack-addicted mother. He and his wife are now in the process of becoming the proud adoptive parents of 3 adorable children. Where does the word "outcast" fit into this story? And while your at it, you can explain the "righteousness" of abortion.

Allen, you are a moral coward. Saying that it's *her* business is a cop-out of the first order.

People figured a man ruled his home and the people in it and used that to ignore horrific abuse. Now we say a woman rules her body and the people in it.

I don't see the difference.

And if her rulership of her body doesn't include control over getting pregnant or not getting pregnant then getting an abortion will not give her control. In the most drastic case, that of rape, getting an abortion doesn't make a woman un-raped. The control of her own body argument is a false argument.

Pro-life people want a woman to have *real* control over her body and her reproduction.

As for the other sanctimonious twits up there... it is NOT better to be dead than to be miserable for a time. *Circumstances* do not determine the value of a human being.

There are lots of ways to *not* have children. Talking about abortion as birth control and pro-life sorts as wanting to force unwanted children into the world is lying.

It is also a lie to formulate abortion as advocacy for women as though this is an issue women agree on because they are women.

(Like that gawd-awful "million mom march" for gun control... as if the subset of the population "moms" are for gun control. It pisses me off to be used for political purposes with which I disagree. That's taking away control from women if anything is.)

Linoge... I don't like it much but I'm willing to go with "brain activity" on both ends to define a human being as "alive."

I'm not certain I want all abortion to be illegal (and certainly not if there are serious medical issues... "health of the mother" does not include the normal risks associated with pregnancy!) but I do think it's wrong. My libertarian tendencies allow the proper role of government to keep legal things that are wrong... but that also means that I think that social pressure has a very important role to play in enforcing behavior and that I have an obligation in that respect.

Abortion is a tragedy in all respects.

dr lava:

You anti abortion nuts don't worry about those kids or work to save them because its easier to save an imaginary kid,

Are those "imaginary" children Tiller the Killer is aborting in Kansas?

Allen:

If not, I suggest you men leave this up to the women, as you are the cause of the problem, not the cure.

This little nugget of "wisdom" is just after men were called out as "probably secret Taliban members" for trying to dictate what women could and couldn't do with their body.

AND shortly after saying it took a man AND a woman to make a baby.

So just WHO IS part of a secret Taliban society Allen? The men you claim are or the women you apparently think should be ALL POWERING?

Mental...... meet midget!

"The abortions in question involved cases in which patients were more than 21 weeks pregnant and the fetuses were able to survive outside the womb. Under such circumstances, Kansas law requires two doctors to conclude that if the pregnancy continues, a mother-to-be will face death or "substantial and irreversible" harm to "a major bodily function," which has been interpreted to include mental health."

Because people don't think women should have to suffer death or "substantial and irreversible" harm to bring a child to term.

A second doctor has to sign-off that the woman really and truly needs an abortion or will suffer... not a small hurt... but death or substantial hurt that won't get better. The charges are that the doctor wasn't getting that second opinion properly.

(quote linked from the link marc posted)

One woman I know who got an abortion was a 17 year old who was forced by her parents to get an illegal one when she was five months pregnant and had felt the baby kick and move.

A *doctor* took money to do that.

Hey I am all for abortion, without it there would be millions more liberal voters in the US. Lets face it liberals love abortion even after 30 years of willingly killing their future voters. The fact that preener Edwards wife, after suffering cancer, thinks its good to slaughter unborn children makes you wonder why she fought so hard for her life?

You can also apply this to the dems view of terrorism, they would rather get slaughtered than fight it.

mpw

Does that then mean, that we were breaking YOUR rules up until then ?

Are babies only babies when YOU say they are babies ?

How is that different from any other situation? I am simply expressing my opinion, take it or leave it. Unfortunately, even though it is a standard axiom for pro-lifers, the definition of "life" has not been nailed ot the wall yet. One could use the brain-wave cut-off point (which I can certainly see the merits of), but what good is a brainwave when the body could not continue it out of a remarkably small, remarkably supporting environment? Of course, on the flip side, what good is a body without a brainwave?

I cannot say as though I know the answer to either of those questions, but I am content with leaving it that if a fetus could survive outside of its organic life support, it is alive - like I said, a brainwave without a functional body is not terribly useful. As such, my dislike of "late-term" abortions is a logical extension of that belief. Otherwise (and I know I am going to be raked over the coals for this comment), it is scant more than a remarkably complicated symbiont...

*shrugs* Honestly, I do not know, and I find it the height of hubris that people claim they do. We have a hard enough time defining "alive" for people out here in the world with us, how do we think we can pick a point in a process we do not fully understand, even now? And, yes, I am just as guilty as all those other people by choosing a point myself... I just hate fence-sitting.

Either way, I have a hard enough time dealing with all of the idiotic laws we have on the books now, with more spawning every minute. But making laws that extend into a woman's body, and possibly before the point of a person's life? What next? Are we going to illegalize certain positions for sexual intercourse?

Oh wait, we already did that...

"Honestly, I do not know" says Linoge, and for that,we are to decide life or death.

And when you say,"But making laws that extend into a woman's body, and possibly before the point of a person's life? What next?", it seems to me that you have already established "Linoges Law"(Are you known as a "Linogician"? Just wandering.)which dictates that all babies who can live outside the womb canNOT be killed. Come on "L" baby, dive deep into your linogistics, and I'm sure you'll find that you're arguement just broke water and it's a breach birth.

I'd say it's time to kill that little sucker.

What we have is the left changing the definition of abortion as just another means of birth control. There are other means of birth control that do not require the termination of a life.

However, the old Friedan/Steinem concept that abortion is 'like removing a hangnail', has taken root and thrived. Now the child is called a mass of unviable tissue, but the dehumanization of the fetus still remains constant. The focus is not on the unborn child, but the mother's 'health'; which now includes 'mental health', and that can be anything including 'depression'.

It's funny how during the age of the Steinem feminists it was "I am woman, hear me roar'; indicating that women were powerful and could make their own decisions...yet a woman is considered by the abortion crowd as being incapable to tell her mate to 'back off', or to use a condom.

"Seems you revel in the rhetoric directed towards women who have little ability to take care of themselves much less a child."

Ah yes, a woman acts irresponsibly and carelessly, gets pregnant and CB's first thought is "kill the baby". Tell me CB, suppose she is quite capable of caring for a child, suppose her partner is willing to provide for her and the baby - is abortion still OK?

I hope you do answer. I already know your answer, but I want to hear it from you. Because it would prove the obvious. That your empty rhetoric is just that - empty - and filled with the usual spittle spraying hatred you engage in every time you post here.

Abortion is wrong. Everyone knows it. It is an un-natural act. It is the ending of life.

Abortion has become the new birth control for promiscuous people that refuse to accept resonsibility for their actions. I would bet you that a vast majority of women who have had abortions carry guilt and wonder what their child would have been like had they not decided to end that life. What a burden to carry. Dr Lava and Allen must be so proud of their strength. ww

civil behavior:

You are all for bringing embryos to term. Then once they are breathing unless they've been born to families with enough financial means to take care of them,

My father was adopted. I'm damn glad someone didn't decide to abort him instead.

*sighs* And now the rhetoric, name-calling, and general-purpose obnoxiousness that this "debate" always comes down to rear its ugly head.

I guess some people are just unaware of the definitions of "possibly", "opinion", and "hypocrisy".

Linoge,

It's "possible" you're a mealymouthed,smokingjacket wearing (You know,with the patches on the elbows ?),eighteen year old dating (Well,actually,probably not.),"Say there old chum," saying, kind of pretentious a-hole,but that's just my "opinion" of people who talk of a womans soveriegnty over her bodis,while simultaneously expressing a "desire" to "protect" a "viable tissue mass".

You're a pompous twit,and you wouldn't know decisiveness if It screamed at you from a burning bush.Grow a set you cany*ss little wussyboy....And stop whining about the name calling you pantywaist!

Funny, I did make a decision, and have explained it in every post in this thread. You, however, obviously disagree with it, and that disagreement seems to cause