[NYCFarmboy]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...abortion_x.htm

Democrats urged to reach out to abortion rights critics

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats need to reach out to voters who oppose abortion rights and promote candidates who share that view, the head of the party said Friday.
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told a group of college Democrats that their party has to change its approach in the debate over abortion.


"I think we need to talk about this issue differently," said Dean. "The Republicans have painted us as a pro-abortion party. I don't know anybody in America who is pro-abortion."

Dean's approach echoed similar arguments advanced in recent months by former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"We do have to have a big tent. I do think we need to welcome pro-life Democrats into this party," said Dean.

The effort to attract such voters comes as Senate Democrats are preparing for confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Roberts' views on abortion are already being intensely scrutinized.

Dean did not mention the looming confirmation hearings. He discussed the abortion debate after a student questioned why the party was supporting Bob Casey Jr., a Pennsylvania Democrat challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.

The chairman tried to draw a distinction between Casey and Santorum, even though both men oppose abortion rights.

"You have to respect people's positions of conscience," said Dean. "I think Bob Casey's position is a position of conscience."

Dean, a former Planned Parenthood board member, said the difference between his party and Republicans is that "we believe a woman has a right to make up their own mind and they believe (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay should make it up and Rick Santorum should make it up for them."

John Brabender, a consultant to Santorum's re-election campaign, said Dean's distinctions were meaningless. "It makes absolutely no sense for Howard Dean to attack Rick Santorum unless he's also attacking Bobby Casey," he said.

DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said, "Howard Dean's rants are a perfect example of why the American people have lost faith in the national Democratic party."

[dcmacdaddy]

Intersting points from Dean. I do think the pro-choicers let the pro-lifers frame the debate such that we are talking about "pro-choice vs pro-life" as opposed to "pro-choice vs no-choice". For me, the issue has never been about whether or not abortion is terrible--I think it IS--the issue has always been about government interference with a woman's body. And the pro-choicers need to emphasize that point, that they are arguing for minimizing government control over a woman's body.

For me, the argument is very simply: Abortion is terrible, the government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body is MORE terrible. That's where I stand.

[alex_kac]

But its not just her body. That's the problem. Its also a child's body, and even more important - his life. And that's where this debate REALLY is centered.

Pro-life advocates believe:
1) Government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body IS terrible.
2) Letting the woman decide that a living being within her is worthy of death is even MORE terrible.

Pro-Choice advocates believe:
1) The life within her is not a real person until its born as such only:
2) Government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body IS terrible.

To me its the slavery argument all over again - 3/5ths of a man just because of skin color, but in this case unborn == not baby. What does it matter if its in the womb or out? Its the same baby.

Its funny that this country will put a person in jail for killing animals cruelly, yet killing a human baby cruelly is not. I'm against killing animals cruelly and killing unborn human babies.

[osxisfun]

> Its also a child's body, an

That's one opinion.


Not all of us believe a zygote is the same as a full grown walking talking self nuturing human being.



Pro choice != pro abortion.

and I do hope all those "pro-lifers" out there are anti-death penalty, anti-war, pro universal health care and pro-social services ....

If they are, at least I can respect them at that level.

Unfortunately most are not. Especially the demagouges that have hijacked this issue to get elected...

ps: Roe v wade aint't going to be overturned. Republican officials need this.The elected republican power elite could no longer milk people for millions if they did.

That would leave them to run on their records.

Ooopsie! Look over there! Its a gay marriage!


PS: Why are the orphanages still full? I mean there is all sorts of life in there!

[alex_kac]

You would really equate killing innocent life to the death penalty which is killing a deserved criminal? Or war (not conquest) where one protects the home land? And what does it have to do with healthcare? I think healthcare should be universally available and I think the current system IS broken, but I also do not believe that other universal schemes are much better.

I am pro-social services, but not government funded ones. I believe that the communities of people should help - not have a beurocratic government do it.

As for a zygote - oh really. Its life. Scientists are looking for life and proclaiming finding it when they find a single celled organism, yet a zygote is not? Hypocrisy is all that it is. Even if you look at a 3 month old fetus - its far more than a zygote. It'll even continue live if born at that time, with a lot of help.

When you make who lives and who does a matter of opinion, you start on a very slippery slope, my friend. I guess it was only the "opinion" of all those slave owners that african-american's were not fully human. Think things through, my friend.

In any case, I do not want this to become an abortion/anti-abortion debate as it won't get anywhere. I'm not going to convince you and neither you me.

[Spliffdaddy]

It takes a man to make a baby. A woman is incapable of doing it herself.
Therefore,
Abortion is a man's choice.

And this man says no way.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It takes a man to make a baby. A woman is incapable of doing it herself.
Therefore,
Abortion is a man's choice.
And this man says no way.

Unfortunately, it is the woman's choice legally, you have no say, I think that needs to be changed.

What do you think makes your POV more important than 80% of the rest of the countries? Or are you just stating your POV?

We should all be thankful you have the choice and the means to express your POV. We might not in the future.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by alex_kac

Pro-Choice advocates believe:
1) The life within her is not a real person until its born as such only:
2) Government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body IS terrible.

This is not true. Many of us would prefer to limit abortion to the first trimester (roughly), if the assault on abortion by conservatives would then end.

After that its pretty clear that we are dealing with a child, before that you're talking about an entity without a brain or central nervous system. The day after pill for example is acceptable to me...aborting a baby in the 6th month is absolutely not. (unless its a serious health issue for the mother)

Most of us would still prefer that there be no abortions...doing things like refusing to talk about condoms in school is hurting that cause.

[☺]

"we believe a woman has a right to make up their own mind and they believe (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay should make it up and Rick Santorum should make it up for them."

I really wish teh Gov would stop making my own mind up on weather I should murder another person.

Fascists. I want to make that decision for myself.

BTW the it's not that that Right wants to make your mind up for you, they are saying it shouldn't even BE an issue. That no stable sane person should even think about killing off their young.

DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said, "Howard Dean's rants are a perfect example of why the American people have lost faith in the national Democratic party."

Indeed. For one, they don't stand by their beliefs. But "Anything to win an election"

Much like Clinton in the 90s. Much like Kerry this past election.

Instead of "Here is what we believe, if you believe that way, vote for us"

They are doing the "What can we claim to believe to get more voters?

For me, the argument is very simply: Abortion is terrible, the government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body is MORE terrible. That's where I stand.

I would agree if it was just HER body she was doing it to. For example, if she wanted to kill herself (Which is illegal) she should be able to. She wants to take drugs (Which is illegal) she should be able to.

But a living growing being inside her no longer means it's just her body.

Fact is most abortions are performed for selfish reasons.

If anything, abortions used as birth control should be made illegal.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Moderator

This is not true. Many of us would prefer to limit abortion to the first trimester (roughly), if the assault on abortion by conservatives would then end.

After that its pretty clear that we are dealing with a child, before that you're talking about an entity without a brain or central nervous system. The day after pill for example is acceptable to me...aborting a baby in the 6th month is absolutely not. (unless its a serious health issue for the mother)

Most of us would still prefer that there be no abortions...doing things like refusing to talk about condoms in school is hurting that cause.

Exactly, I amm by no means pro-abortion: I think it is terrible. But, I think the government telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body is MORE terrible.


I like your suggestion, Moderator. Get the Dems and Repubs to agree that abortion up to the end of the 1st trimester be kept legal while during the 2nd and 3rd trimester it would be illegal except when carrying the child would endanger the life of the mother.

That is an acceptable compromise I could live with.

[☺]

Again.. it's just not HER body. She is doing little to HER body.

No one is arguing what she does to HER body.

I tell you what, If I was a supreme being looking back on this all. I would make human females lay eggs.

That way no "My BOdy!11" silliness could be started.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ☺

Again.. it's just not HER body. She is doing little to HER body.

No one is arguing what she does to HER body.

I tell you what, If I was a supreme being looking back on this all. I would make human females lay eggs.

That way no "My BOdy!11" silliness could be started.

Really? Umm, just how much do you know about the female reproductive process?

The placenta is directly connected to the woman's circulatory system. The blastocyte/zygote/fetus/child gets ALL its life support directly from the woman's body. It can't survive without her.

So, this IS about the woman's body as the blastocyte/zygote/fetus/child is connected directly to her bodily systems. And what I am saying is that the woman's right to say what goes in with things INSIDE her body outweigh the rights of anything growing inside her body.

You want the life growing inside of her to have as much, or more, rights than the woman whereas I want the woman to have more rights than the life growing inside of her.

To put it quite simply I value the life of the living, breathing woman MORE than the potential life of the thing growing inside of her as it progresses from blastocyte to baby. You value the opposite. So, you keep fighting for what you value and I will keep fighting for what I value.


Notice I didn't say I don't value the life of the blastocyte/zygote/fetus/child at all. I am not anti-birth, anti-child; But when it comes down to which entity in the abortion debate I would asign more "rights" to it is the woman. Of course, this only applies to early in the term. I would gladly see 2nd or 3rd terms abortions outlawed as long as 1st terms abortions wre made legal for WHATEVER reason.

[vmarks]

I have to wonder if you aren't setting up an unborn child to be valued as 3/5ths a human. Remember where that sort of valuation got Americans the last time around.

[Wiskedjak]

Personally, I don't like abortion, however I am able to see circumstances where it might be necessary and circumstances where it might be acceptable. For me, the fundamental question surrounding abortion is the point at which the life becomes sentient.

Is an unfertilized egg life? Yes. Is it sentient? No. Is it murder to not let that egg mature into a human?

Is sperm life? Yes. Is it sentient? No. Is it murder whenever a man ejaculates anywhere but into a woman?

For me, it's not human until it looks human (totally unscientific), so I'm not opposed to early term abortions.

[☆☆☆☆☆]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Really? Umm, just how much do you know about the female reproductive process?

The placenta is directly connected to the woman's circulatory system. The blastocyte/zygote/fetus/child gets ALL its life support directly from the woman's body. It can't survive without her.

Siameze twins are connected to each other and share each other's organs in a lot of cases.

Does that mean one can kill of the other legally?

new born babies can't life on it's own too. Can we start killing them off too?

So, this IS about the woman's body as the blastocyte/zygote/fetus/child is connected directly to her bodily systems. And what I am saying is that the woman's right to say what goes in with things INSIDE her body outweigh the rights of anything growing inside her body.

Which is absurd IMHO. I would say if it was threatening her life, then yes she should have a choice. But out of convenience (Which most abortions are performed) is disgusting.

I am not all for doing away with abortions all together.

But this crap of it being used as a convenient birth control needs to stop.

[☆☆☆☆☆]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I have to wonder if you aren't setting up an unborn child to be valued as 3/5ths a human. Remember where that sort of valuation got Americans the last time around.

I know.. I simply cannot believe someone would actually put a value on such life..

[Moderator]

I wonder what this disussion would sound like if men were the one's who got pregnant.

[☆☆☆☆☆]

Originally Posted by Moderator

I wonder what this disussion would sound like if men were the one's who got pregnant.

I'd feel the same way.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by Moderator

This is not true. Many of us would prefer to limit abortion to the first trimester (roughly), if the assault on abortion by conservatives would then end.

After that its pretty clear that we are dealing with a child, before that you're talking about an entity without a brain or central nervous system. The day after pill for example is acceptable to me...aborting a baby in the 6th month is absolutely not. (unless its a serious health issue for the mother)

Most of us would still prefer that there be no abortions...doing things like refusing to talk about condoms in school is hurting that cause.

Well said. I don't think I could after ask a girl that I got pregnant to have an abortion. However, I think that if someone else wants to get one within a certian time period that should be allowed.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

That's one opinion.

Not all of us believe a zygote is the same as a full grown walking talking self nuturing human being.
Pro choice != pro abortion.

and I do hope all those "pro-lifers" out there are anti-death penalty, anti-war, pro universal health care and pro-social services ....

If they are, at least I can respect them at that level.

So, it has to walk, talk, be fully grown, and be self nurturing before we can outlaw killing it?

I am against the Death Penalty and unjust Wars. I am also pro-universal health care, but not in any form that the government is involved. If anyone has a need they should ask the community. Unfortunately people are too proud to do this.

Originally Posted by osxisfun

Unfortunately most are not. Especially the demagouges that have hijacked this issue to get elected...

ps: Roe v wade aint't going to be overturned. Republican officials need this.The elected republican power elite could no longer milk people for millions if they did.

That would leave them to run on their records.

Ooopsie! Look over there! Its a gay marriage!

PS: Why are the orphanages still full? I mean there is all sorts of life in there!

Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. Hopefully in my lifetime.

Orphanages? Full? Where? Maybe in foreign countries, but not the US that I know of. Most people I know have a hard time adopting.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

For me, the fundamental question surrounding abortion is the point at which the life becomes sentient.

I understand your point, and that question certainly plays a role. However, the question isn't only about the baby. To think that way is to view a pregnant woman as an incubator with no say in whether she wants to have a baby. That's why I think you have to take into account whether the woman wants to give birth or not, rather than only the age or developmental stage of the baby.

To illustrate, we can't force people to give a blood transfusion to someone who needs it to live. It doesn't even matter if the person who needs the transfusion is a fully sentient adult, it still would be wrong to force someone against their will to provide it. In the same way, I don't think you can force a pregnant woman against her will to use her own body for the baby.

At the least, you have to balance the two issues. But you seemed to ignore the mother's perspective completely in your post.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It takes a man to make a baby. A woman is incapable of doing it herself.
Therefore,
Abortion is a man's choice.

And this man says no way.

Well said.

Originally Posted by zerostar

Unfortunately, it is the woman's choice legally, you have no say, I think that needs to be changed.

What do you think makes your POV more important than 80% of the rest of the countries? Or are you just stating your POV?

We should all be thankful you have the choice and the means to express your POV. We might not in the future.

82.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot. You got any sources?

"We might not in the future" What the Hell does this mean? You think the democrats are going to elect a pres. in 2007 and there's something we should know about her/him?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Really? Umm, just how much do you know about the female reproductive process?

The placenta is directly connected to the woman's circulatory system. The blastocyte/zygote/fetus/child gets ALL its life support directly from the woman's body. It can't survive without her.

So, this IS about the woman's body as the blastocyte/zygote/fetus/child is connected directly to her bodily systems. And what I am saying is that the woman's right to say what goes in with things INSIDE her body outweigh the rights of anything growing inside her body.

You want the life growing inside of her to have as much, or more, rights than the woman whereas I want the woman to have more rights than the life growing inside of her.

To put it quite simply I value the life of the living, breathing woman MORE than the potential life of the thing growing inside of her as it progresses from blastocyte to baby. You value the opposite. So, you keep fighting for what you value and I will keep fighting for what I value.

Notice I didn't say I don't value the life of the blastocyte/zygote/fetus/child at all. I am not anti-birth, anti-child; But when it comes down to which entity in the abortion debate I would asign more "rights" to it is the woman. Of course, this only applies to early in the term. I would gladly see 2nd or 3rd terms abortions outlawed as long as 1st terms abortions wre made legal for WHATEVER reason.

Why can't they have equal rights? I am allowed to fire a gun in a safe way in which no one gets hurt. But if I do it in a way that someone gets hurt/killed I am a criminal. Why can't it be the same way for a woman and child?

Why can't people accept the responsibility for their actions? Abortion is a purely selfish act.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Why can't people accept the responsibility for their actions? Abortion is a purely selfish act.

Do you want abortion to be completely outlawed with there never being any possibility of women having one?

[nforcer]

I do not understand conservative opposition to abortion. Most children share the same political views and affiliations as their parents. Conservatives would never choose abortion for their own would-be children, so it does not hurt them. If liberals want to kill their own would-be children, why not let them? That would be one less potential vote against something conservatives want in the future. If liberals want to abort themselves out of existence why not let them?

[Ω]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It takes a woman to make a baby. A man is incapable of doing it himself.
Therefore,
Abortion is a woman's choice.

Fixed™

See how easy it is to show the logic behind your argument is seriously flawed...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BRussell

That's why I think you have to take into account whether the woman wants to give birth or not, rather than only the age or developmental stage of the baby.

At the least, you have to balance the two issues. But you seemed to ignore the mother's perspective completely in your post.

I don't think I'm entirely ignoring the mother's perspective. I feel the mother has a right to back out of a pregnancy, but that the decision needs to be made early in the pregnancy.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Do you want abortion to be completely outlawed with there never being any possibility of women having one?

Yes. Unless it will, with 100% certainty, kill the mother. I think that might be the case 0.00000000000000000001% of the time.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Ω

Fixed™

See how easy it is to show the logic behind your argument is seriously flawed...

Your "logic" is flawed because a woman can't do it alone.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by nforcer

I do not understand conservative opposition to abortion. Most children share the same political views and affiliations as their parents. Conservatives would never choose abortion for their own would-be children, so it does not hurt them. If liberals want to kill their own would-be children, why not let them? That would be one less potential vote against something conservatives want in the future. If liberals want to abort themselves out of existence why not let them?

That's sick logic.

However, the case could be made that those liberals who raise children will become conservatives.

[Ω]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Your "logic" is flawed because a woman can't do it alone.

I was not happy with the Fixed™ myself, but Modified™ does not have the same effect.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I don't think I'm entirely ignoring the mother's perspective. I feel the mother has a right to back out of a pregnancy, but that the decision needs to be made early in the pregnancy.

That decision should be made before having sex! Prevent it in the first place.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Railroader

That decision should be made before having sex! Prevent it in the first place.

And thus you've brought us to the ridiculousness of a conservative movement that won't even tell kids that condoms can prevent pregnancy!

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Railroader

82.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot. You got any sources?

Was going off this:

80 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal; 70 percent approve Medicaid Funding.

A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in January revealed that 80% of Americans think that abortion should be legal in all or some circumstances, up from 77% in 1977. 70% said Medicaid should pay for at least some abortions, despite the elimination of virtually all federal funding of abortions since the enforcement of the Hyde amendment in 1977. By a 60-37% majority Americans support the 1973 Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortion, an increase over the 53-to-40% majority of 1977. An NBC News-Associated Press National Poll conducted in October 1978 showed different results on the question of whether Medicaid should be used to finance abortions. 48% of 1600 adults felt that the federal government should help a poor woman with her medical bills if she desires an abortion; 44% were not in favor of federal support, and 8% were undecided. The Harris Survey on abortion, conducted in February among a representative sample of 1199 adults, showed 60% in support of legal abortions, the highest level recorded in the series of polls. About 4 of 10 Americans (39%) would vote against a candidate they otherwise agreed with if they opposed his or her stand on the abortion issue.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by ☆☆☆☆☆

I know.. I simply cannot believe someone would actually put a value on such life..

Why don't you ask your Insurance company and your banker how much you are worth?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It takes a man to make a baby. A woman is incapable of doing it herself.
Therefore,
Abortion is a man's choice.

And this man says no way.

This is your best joke!

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Railroader

That decision should be made before having sex! Prevent it in the first place.

In the best circumstances it is certainly the best idea.

Unfortunately, the woman can find herself stuck with an a**hole.

I agree with abortion, as long as it is used as a last resort, and that people are not acting as if it were a contraceptive measure. But the woman as a carrier of that being should be the one to decide. But never on a fling, and always with all the tools she may require to make a good decision..

[SonOfZimph]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Why don't you ask your Insurance company and your banker how much you are worth?

Wow that was about a silly response if I ever saw one.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by SonOfZimph

Wow that was about a silly response if I ever saw one.

Yet, you really should ask... You'd be surprised...


Glad you escaped MacNN abortionists?

[Spliffdaddy]

Why not let the voting public decide if abortion should be legal?

heh. A liberal/feminist's worst nightmare...allowing the citizens to vote on something.

There wouldn't be legalized abortion if it weren't for liberal activist judges. Fortunately, we're fixing that problem. Looks like I'll live to see abortion become a felony.

I'll continue to fight for father's rights - and the right for single people to adopt children. While the liberals fight for the ability to terminate young lives.

[I♥MacNN]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Yet, you really should ask... You'd be surprised...


Glad you escaped MacNN abortionists?

I just did. I am worth 100 zillion dollars.

I thought it would be more.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Why not let the voting public decide if abortion should be legal?

heh. A liberal/feminist's worst nightmare...allowing the citizens to vote on something.

There wouldn't be legalized abortion if it weren't for liberal activist judges. Fortunately, we're fixing that problem. Looks like I'll live to see abortion become a felony.

I'll continue to fight for father's rights - and the right for single people to adopt children. While the liberals fight for the ability to terminate young lives.

Fine by me. Do you want to do this as a state-by-state referendum or a single nation-wide vote?

I honestly can't say which side would win in such a scenario--If we did state-by-state there would be some place that permitted it--but I don't think abortion will ever be completely outlawed.

[Spliffdaddy]

You wouldn't be getting abortions in any Southern state. You'd probably have to go to Massachusetts. Which is reason enough not to.

[I♥MacNN]

No abortions in WV either. And it's not the "south"

I know a gal that had to go about 300 miles away to get one.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Intersting points from Dean. I do think the pro-choicers let the pro-lifers frame the debate such that we are talking about "pro-choice vs pro-life" as opposed to "pro-choice vs no-choice".

The "pro-life" movement was a response. Calling a movement "pro-choice" instead of "pro killing babies" kind of prompted a change in the opposition.

[I♥MacNN]

Ethics is a personal choice, not a political or religious concern. That's why we've established "Planned Bank Robbery." Now, we personally don't approve of bank robbery, but we don't want to inflict our morals on anyone else either.

It must be a personal decision of each individual.

Education is the key since our studies reveal that 99 percent of senior high teens know that banks are robbed. But it is shocking the number of teens who don't know how banks are robbed. Or even how to load a .357 magnum, drive a get-away car, or demand, "Give me all of your unmarked, non-sequentially-ordered twenty-dollar bills." Young people need to know the wide range of career options available to them.

And we're also concerned that a lot of young people are robbing banks without proper protection. Personal injury and irresponsibility are much greater crimes than actually knocking over the First National. At Planned Bank Robbery we don't approve of unauthorized withdrawals. But we do want to offer--free of charge--bullet-proof vests, ski masks, and if necessary a get-away car. This is the compassionate thing to do!

And young people who need some extra cash from their local 7-11 shouldn't have to get their parent's permission to obtain this protection. If that were the case, hundreds more teens would be needlessly injured by narrow-minded parents who are trying to inflict their morality on their children.

Again, let me emphasize that Planned Bank Robbery does not condone or encourage grand larceny. We only want to stress it is a personal decision. We're "pro-choice"!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by finboy

The "pro-life" movement was a response. Calling a movement "pro-choice" instead of "pro killing babies" kind of prompted a change in the opposition.

Do you really think those of us who advocate for the legal right to abortion like the idea of killing a blastocyte/zygote/fetus/baby?

Seriously, can you see no nuance or subtlety in this debate or is it simply an all-or-nothing issue with you?
either someone is for the killing of a blastocyte/zygote/fetus/baby or is opposed to it?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Railroader

That decision should be made before having sex! Prevent it in the first place.

Agreed, but I'm allowing for the fact that, short of abstinence, no birth control is 100% effective.

[I♥MacNN]

Pro-lifers mustn't let people hide behind a "pro-choice" position of "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I think everyone has a right to choose." This perhaps is the most dangerous use of words. After all, who in a pluralistic democracy could possibly oppose "choice."

But those who embrace this particular "pro-choice" position are guilty of ignoring their own conscience ("I'm personally opposed") by allowing for the killing of human life ("but everyone has a right to choose").

Secondly, pro-lifers must calmly and compassionately refute the medical myths which support unscientific statements such as " it's not a human being."

Finally, pro-lifers must use the truth to refute the careless use of words by the pro-abortion camp. For while the pen may be mightier than the sword, words are more powerful than both.

[I♥MacNN]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Agreed, but I'm allowing for the fact that, short of abstinence, no birth control is 100% effective.

Do you think abortion is a suitable choice for birth control?

BTW

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

[Chuckit]

Does anybody else see Zim's new nick as "I | MacNN" rather than a heart on his posts?