adoption

Well miss nayson...Adoption is all well and good but when I see the number of kids in orphanages waiting to be adopted and the fact that so few of us are either willing or able to adopt...

I tend to have second thoughts on that being a logical solution.

"If a woman aint ready and/or doesnt want children then the worst thing we could do to any child is force that child to be born to a mother who doesnt want her/him."

Actually, that's not the worst thing. The worst thing would be murdering that innocent child. If a child is born to a mom that doesn't want him, at least he is still alive. The mom can put the child up for adoption.

"If a woman aint ready and/or doesnt want children then the worst thing we could do to any child is force that child to be born to a mother who doesnt want her/him."

Actually, that's not the worst thing. The worst thing would be murdering that innocent child. If a child is born to a mom that doesn't want him, at least he is still alive. The mom can put the child up for adoption.

Kudos to you, Vinny. Very, very good point.

Thank you, Ms. Nason.

Thank you, Ms. Nason.

Mr. ambrasino...

Innocent ?

Not according to your own religion which teaches that were all guilty of "sin" from birth which also according to the beliefs of bible thumpers would include conception...Right ?

So innocent my ass.

Again...The worse fate for any child would be to be born to a "mother" that doesnt want that child.

Mr. McHugh,

Whatcha say old friend? Long time, no talk. 

Anyway, the Bible does not say that people are sinners before birth, it says that they have a sin nature before birth, which is part of having free will. A person cannot actually sin before birth. Though, the "Bible Thumpers" term is pretty original, I have to say.

You believe that birth to a mother that doesn't want a child is worse than no birth at all?

The question is not as 'black and white' as so many of you want it to be - on either side of the question.

First, I think both sides need to set aside some clenched assumptions/assertions/denials.

Yes, it IS a life we are talking about. Actually, two - that of the unfolding life of the embryo as it grows to a full fledged human, and that of the woman, or too often the case, the girl whose womb is holding that life.

The claim that the life from the very moment of conception is more important than the life already in full existance is self contradictory.

The assertion that no-one opts for abortion as an 'easy out' is just as foolish as the one that all decisions to abort are done without genuine heartfelt prayer.

Both sides are missing a great deal of the truth by focussing on what the other says, instead of what the real problem is. Abortion is only the symptomatic colleague of unintended pregnancy.

And, Yes, being born to a mother who doesn't want you is a very bad thing. It is now known that the environment in utero is important to the development of a child too. If the woman, or often girl, is constantly worried, fearful, stressed, as well as feeling that bearing that child is not what they need to be doing, or is not safe for them, then the forming of the child will suffer too. Where's the protection for that life?

Where's the clambor for an end to rape, incest and spousal abuse in all of this, as those are all too frequently at the base of the spiral to abortion - if not the direct cause, way too often earlier occurances that set sexual activity in motion that is not governed by mature judgement.

If you truly believe that the life of an innocent child is so very important, as all of us should, then you'd better be stepping up to stop all the wars in our sphere of influence as well. If you think it is unconscienable to choose to end the life of your own embryo, then you must admit that it is even more unconscienable to allow our own nation's military actions to kill someone else's child. Even more so to require that the killers be our own children.

Getting pretty darned gray out there, isn't it?

The bottom line on abortion comes down to who gets to make the decision. It is not up to me, or you, or Catholic Bishops to decide that for anyone but ourselves, within our own close circle of family, faith and doctors.

Yes, Adopt! Foster! Support!

Educate! Advocate! but do not legislate reproductive freedom!

Ms. Sarah, we have been making this point, over and over, a little further down.

Thank you miss lyons and my apologies for having missed the point of your article...

I will also agree that forcing medical procedures on those who dont want them is wrong.

Abortion is forcing a medical procedure, murder, on a baby that doesn't want to get killed.  So, Mr. McHugh, if you are against forced medical procedures, why do you support abortion?

Because mr. ambrasino...

The rights of the woman takes precedence over the rights of a being that hasnt even been born yet AND what I said before...

The rights of the woman takes precedence over the right to life?

By the way, you don't have to be born to be a human. If you would like to discuss this particular topic, I would be happy to.

Indeed miss martin and I find it rather hypocritical that while pro lifers would deny a woman's right to an abortion if they could, we still have so many children not just in washington but in all the other 49 states as well waiting to be adopted by loving parent(s)...

You have to take into account the fact that most of those children are foster children who were taken away from their parents because their parents were unable to care for them. There is actually a shortage on babies, by which I mean that there are more parents who want to adopt than babies to adopt (and though many Americans have decided to adopt babies from other countries, this is extremely costly compared to adopting from the States).

The thing is, people usually just want babies. Therefore, a mother who wants to put her child up for adoption would actually not have much trouble finding a loving family for her child. She would just have to find an agency and be very dedicated to finding her child a loving home.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple. You can argue about the mother's right to choose. You can say 'What if she was raped?' You can tell me that it sucks to be born to a mother who doesn't want you. But despite ALL that, fetuses are living, breathing, unborn babies, and killing them is wrong.

Bullshit...

Have you even bothered to look at the adoption statistics ?

The fact that you have children being taken away and then put into the orphanages just excaperates the problem although I will say that better they be taken away from abusive homes than left there to be abused further.

And as for the families who are simply having problems caring for their children then instead of removing the children...More must be done to help the families.

Abortion aint murder sweety...

Unless your prepared to call jehovah a murderer for killing all those first borns in ancient israel and I dont think you have the brass boobs to do that.

I'm sorry, but who's Jehovah? And please, I was just trying to express my opinion, there's no reason to swear at me.

Indeed miss lyons...

Thats why Im here...

Do we want to talk about women's rights? Here's something to think about: 51% of babies aborted are future women. What about their rights? How can you say that you are fighting for women's rights when you are defending a procedure that has killed more than 25,000,000 people who would have been women if not for that particular procedure? Abortion ends a human life.

Ms. Lyons, I'm not disregarding your very sincere and diplomatic comment below, but Vinny has made my hair bristle again.

Vinny, you can't stake your claim in a woman's uterus. Ms. Lyons did a very good job of conveying, (to the rest of us,) the topic of "forced c-sections," and pro-lifers, being unable to discuss the "A" word. We jumped on the abortion bandwagon, not her. I think you have confused the right to live, with the right to die; we're only promised one of these. If you believe in that cross on your profile, then remember: you are not the judge, nobody answers to you, there will be retribution for our sins, and we can all be saved. Now go practice our Separation of Church and State; stop inundating this blog with your religious beliefs.

P.S. Vinny, what about rape victims and incestuous pregnancy? Or incestuous-rape that results in pregnancy? Funny, you don't consider these innocent victims.

L.S.

1) "Vinny, you can't stake your claim in a woman's uterus." I am not staking any claim. An unborn baby is a separate human being than his mother, he is not just another part of her uterus. If you would like to discuss this, I would be happy to.

2) "I think you have confused the right to live, with the right to die; we're only promised one of these." You're totally correct. It is the right to life, as found clearly in the Declaration of Independence, as one of the inalienable rights. Do you think abortion violates the right to life?

3) "If you believe in that cross on your profile, then remember: you are not the judge, nobody answers to you." I'm not judging anyone. I am simply listing the facts. You can accept them or you can reject them, but they are still facts.

4) "Now go practice our Separation of Church and State; stop inundating this blog with your religious beliefs." You clearly don't know what "Separation of Church and State" means. It means that religion will not become part of the government; that tax money will never go to a religious cause. There's only one problem with applying "Separation of Church and State" in this situation: this isn't a part of the government. Did you skip over the part in the First Amendment where government will never prohibit the free exercise of religion? Or the right to free speech? Also I find it laughable that you tell me that no one answers to me, when you are ordering me to stop exercising my First Amendment rights, as if I answer to you. Stop inundating this blog with my beliefs? That sounds a little bit hypocritical. Are you sure that you're not doing that? 

 5) "Vinny, what about rape victims and incestuous pregnancy? Or incestuous-rape that results in pregnancy? Funny, you don't consider these innocent victims." Could you please point out to me where I said that in my last blog post? Or any of my blog posts, for that matter? I have read and re-read everything I have ever posted, and I did not find that. If you want to challenge me, at least don't put words in my mouth. If you had asked me what I thought about rape or incest, you would have found something totally different than what you said that I believed. I consider rape and incest to be two of the most heinous and vile crimes ever. You said that I believe something that I don't believe, and you showed nothing to back up your claim.

(Here we go again.) That's right. You didn't mention the innocent victims that I pointed out; why? Instead, you focus on a fetus, and fail to consider the extenuating circumstances I have pointed out, (in earlier post at the beginning of this blog.)

If you consider rape and incest to be, "two of the most heinous and vile crimes ever;" (in your eyes,) would these be valid reasons to warrent an abortion?

Just answer this question, and I'll twist and manipulate our Constitution, (as you've done,) to favor my argument.

I am pleased that this post is receiving so much passion and intellectual discourse.  However, I am requesting again that you try to phrase your comments in terms of how the debate on reproductive rights affects childbirth rights. 

For instance, if you are in favor of abortion, you may want to address the issue that 35% of women who choose to stay pregnant are being forced to have "unnecessareans".  In addition, because of violations of reproductive rights, these same women are losing health insurance benefits (for no other reason than prior c-sections). Also, due to the United States' shameful maternal mortality rates, women are at 3-10 times greater risk of death in childbirth than if she chooses an abortion. There are many reasons to favor greater access to abortion, but on this post, please focus on the ones that involve childbirth issues. It's important to note that women need the right to abortion for health reasons when they face a 35% risk of unneeded and unwanted major abdominal surgery that will permanently affect their ability to obtain health insurance.

On the other hand, if you are opposed to abortion, you may want to point out that there are more rights given to women who choose abortion than there are rights given to women who choose to have babies, and therefore, our society is not supporting "choice" for women who want to give birth. For instance, there are exceptions in abortion restrictions for the life and health of the mother, but there are no laws to protect a women's choice to give life to her baby. It's important to note that abortion is a forced "choice" (and therefore not a choice at all) if our society gives less support to women who choose to have babies than women who choose not to do so. There are many reasons to oppose abortion, but on this post, please focus on the ones that affect childbirth rights. As I've said before, a woman may be equal in other realms, but she s not equal in the right to have children because there is rampant discrimination against pregnant women, most clearly in our healthcare laws. One place to start to understand how a firmly "pro-life" person can 100% support a women's right to give birth in the way and manner she chooses is to read the story by John & Amber Marlowe, available at the National Advocates for Pregnant Women's website at: http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/Marlowe.pdf.

I do not want to see "twisting" of the Constitution or insults to fellow readers. I want to see thoughtful comments where people understand that whether or not the fetus has rights, those rights do not prevail over the mothers' rights. Women are being forced to have "back alley" births just to avoid being cut open against their will.  These same women are then having their children taken away from them by Child Protective Services for no other reason than they did not want to have surgery forced upon them!  Do these facts not anger and upset you as much as the abortion debate? Must I remind you that abortion is legal in all 50 states? The only right being taken away is the right to have a baby with the people you want (there are doula bans across the country right now), in the way you want (there are "Bradley method" bans), in the place you want (women who have home births are being put in jail), etc. Please read this sign posted at an Ob's office in Utah: http://www.blogher.com/birth-plan-doula-natural-birth-not-here-you-dont. Maybe it will help you understand that the current sad state of women's health care and reproductive rights is widespread. Doctors and hospitals are blatantly taking away women's rights to have the birth they want, and there are no repercussions.

I don't know whether the fetus has rights, but I do know that the "a-word" debate is taking away the rights of women who want to give their fetus' life (and thus, rights). It is an upsetting moment for abortion opponents to realize that the abortion restrictions they support are the same laws that are taking away rights of women who do not want abortions! It is similarly upsetting for abortion proponents to realize that abortion laws are being "twisted" to take away other reproductive freedoms from women who are past 26 weeks in their pregnancies - rights that were completely supported by our society beforehand such as the right to give birth at home! Did you know that the first U.S. President to be born in a hospital was Jimmy Carter? Now, women are being prosecuted for birthing their babies at home!

Let us join together to support pregnant and childbearing women! Show the childbirth advocates, who believe we are not mature enough to discuss how abortion laws are affecting childbirth rights, that they are wrong!  Let's discuss how these laws, whether you support them or not in their intended manner, are being twisted with unintended consequences!

L.S.

Me not mentioning rape or incest gives you no right to put words in my mouth. If you want my opinion on rape/incest and abortion, here it is. I do not think rape or incest warrants an abortion, unless the mother is injured so badly during the rape that she cannot possibly give birth. Rape and incest are horrible, but the child is not the perpetrator. The child does not deserve to be killed; his is a product of the rape, he is not the rapist.  However, you demanding me to answer a question when you did not even mention the questions I asked you is ridiculous. I asked you two questions that you did not answer.

Also, can you please tell me how I've twisted the Constitution? 

"Agreed," Ms. Lyons. Now let me see if I can convey to Vinny, my Pro-life and Pro-choice stance, on abortion.

Okay Vinny, time to answer your questions....

Vinny, I think abortion can violate the right to life; sometimes in the mothers case.

You might be stating facts but they are one-sided, dealt out with emotion, and inconsideration for the women faced with this choice.

You also missed the the part in The Fist Amendment about, "libel, slannder and private action." When you suggest women faced with this choice are "killers," your violating our Constitution.

I didn't put words in your mouth; only pointed out that there was another side, you'd failed to consider. Now that I see how you really think, I'm even more appalled than I was before.

(Ms. Lyons, I lack the words to politely discuss the last comment, stated by Vinny.)

If someone thinks a rape victim should be forced to bare a child, conceived through this atrocity........ They're not pro-life. You can't be willing to destroy a life and claim your pro-life.

L.S.,

More often than not, abortion violates the right to life in the unborn human's case.

You telling me I deal out my facts with emotion proves your hypocrisy beacuse everything you post is full of emotion:

 "I think my hair was still bristling from the c-section issue."

"Vinny has made my hair bristle again."

 You have even gone so far as to say this:

"What the F*ck interest should the state have, in a birthing- plan??????"

Wow, that's some emotional stuff for someone who accuses me of dealing out my points with emotion.

Now for the "libel, slannder and private action." This is not found anywhere in the First Amendment, yet you put in in quotations as if it is. Here is the First Amendment. You tell me where you see the direct mention of "libel, slannder and private action."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"If someone thinks a rape victim should be forced to bare a child, conceived through this atrocity........ They're not pro-life."

The fact that you consider yourself "pro-choice and pro-life" shows that you have no concept of what it is to be pro life, and your assessment of my pro-life credentials holds no importance to me.

Vinny, the fact that you stated,"the child is not the perpetrator. The child does not deserve to be killed;" directly implies that the women is at fault. Had she not had a vagina, or had not been ovulating, then she wouldn't have to make this decision.

I'm sure you would support legislation, that would force every menstruating adolescent female to take birth control. This would ensure no rape would ever result in abortion.

I have never had the displeasure of debating the abortion issue with such an evil person. You exemplify the extremist moniker. Your assertion, that my opinions have no baring on your idealistic "idocracy," leaves me with a feeling of satisfaction. You disregard human life, with your "right to life rhetoric," which takes a giant step backwards for women's rights.

You, and the like minded, are the same people that blow up abortion clinics, then claim your saving lives. No, regard for the ones you've taken. I just hope the next time your fundamentally flawed group, decides to "take action" on the "baby killers," you make it a suicide bombing.

Furthermore, I'm 28 and my son is 11, (you do the math.) You can support a woman's right to choose and still be Pro-life.

L.S.,

The argument that you just used is called an "ad-homonym" argument. This is where a person trying to prove a point personally attacks the person they are arguing with. You just made it clear to everyone that you are willing to go above the debate and attack me, which is ridiculous and it is a show of ignorance.

Onto the real "debate".

"Vinny, the fact that you stated,"the child is not the perpetrator. The child does not deserve to be killed;" directly implies that the women is at fault. Had she not had a vagina, or had not been ovulating, then she wouldn't have to make this decision."

You have, once again, put words in my mouth. I never said any of that. If you had asked me what I thought, I would have told you that the abortion doctor is the killer, and that the mother is simply a person who is getting unknowingly taken advantage of. I know women who have had abortions. In fact, I have friends who have had abortions. But, apparently it is too much for you too just ask my opinion on the topic; you have to take it upon yourself to put down what you think is my opinion, and for the second time, you are wrong.

"I'm sure you would support legislation, that would force every menstruating adolescent female to take birth control. This would ensure no rape would ever result in abortion."

 As usual, you are wrong in an attempt to put words in my mouth and assume what I believe. I would strongly stand against this. You think that you have won the argument and you get a feeling of "satisfaction" from strongly standing against what I don't even believe. You are zero for three.

"You disregard human life." My entire argument has been against abortion! Have you read anything I have posted?  

"You, and the like minded, are the same people that blow up abortion clinics, then claim your saving lives. No, regard for the ones you've taken. I just hope the next time your fundamentally flawed group, decides to "take action" on the "baby killers," you make it a suicide bombing."

This is part of the ad homonym argument I discussed earlier. Nothing but a despicable show of foolishness, and a completely pathetic argument.

What I am accused of is not true in the least. This is slander, and you were just talking about how we are protected from it in the First Amendment, when you mistakenly took me for calling women "baby killers." Well, is it slanderous to say that pro-lifers would blow up abortion clinics and then claim to be saving lives? I think that is very slanderous, but what do you think?

L.S., I have heard a lot of pro-choice arguments, (and a lot of weak ones), but I must say, you by far have put together the weakest argument ever, composed of ad-homonyms, and of putting words in people's mouths. Most pro-choicers are simply content with talking about abortion, but not you. You feel that to win, you must accuse the person you are arguing with that they want to blow up abortion clinics in cold blood. If you have to resort to methods like those, then you should keep your thoughts to yourself.

Vinny, as I've stated previously, "abortion is a lose-lose situation, for all involved."

Mr. ambrasino...

Its "nice" that you "care" so much about children but care nothing at all for women and/or women's rights.

Thats become all too apparent in your posts.

So you think it right and moral to force women who are victims of incest and/or rape to bear the children of their attacker ?

Well...That would fit in with your biblical teaching that if a man rapes a woman then all he has to do is pay the father 20 pieces of silver and then marry his victim...Moral my ass.

So what would the modern day value of 20 pieces of silver be ?

Im sure that many rapists out there would like to know.

Oh and by the way mr. ambrasino...

Speaking of the constitution and the first amendment in particular...

You are ware that religious beliefs have no place in secular law...Right ?

Hello Mr. McHugh,

Do you think it right that a child should have to get punished through abortion for a crime he didn't commit?

Actually, you are wrong about the Bible verse. It's not talking about rape. Here it is, Deuteronomy 22:28,29 (thank for citing the verse, by the way):

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days (he may not divorce her).

This is clearly not about rape. This is about fornication.

So you read from the Old Testament. Enough said Mr. Ambrosino. If you want to debate the Bible, I'm game.

Thomas, you and I both know what it's like to debate with "Fundies." Vinny is the worst kind, because he picks and chooses scripture with bias, then subjects the rest of us to it, in God's name.

The Bible doesn't clearly distinguish between a fetus and a child. Like all religious beliefs, the Bile is subjective. Because Vinny cleaves to the Old Testament, he needs to read Exodus 21:22-24. Either way it is interpreted, would vehemently conflict with Vinny's Pro-life views.

Actually, Mr. McHugh "read" form the Old Testament. I was just repsonding to his misreading of the Scripture passage.

The address in the Old Testament you quote says that if two men are fighting, and they injure a woman who then has to give birth early, they will pay the fines.

If the woman or the baby is injured, the men will be injured to the same degree. I don't see how this conflicts with my pro-life views.

The New Testament supercedes the Old Testament, but they are both Scripture.

Also, Ms. Hope, where have I picked and chosen Scripture, and then subjected you to it? And, I'm beginning to think that you actually consider personal attacks fair game.

"then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth....."

Wow Vinny, I didn't think quoting the Scripture of the book,(that lay open in your profile photo,) would be considered a "personal attack."

When you called me "ignorant," that was a personal attack. You told me that I, "should keep my thoughts to myself." Yet, you became outraged, when I told you to "stop inundating this blog with you religious beliefs." Plus, you've called me a "hypocrite,"and your now doing these exact same things to me......Jeez Vinny????

Maybe I am ignorant on the subject of "abortion." Remember? I chose to keep my teenage pregnancy. But don't you try to say your religion has no baring on your beliefs, (the ones you spew on this site.) I'm not ignorant on the Bible. I don't need to go through your comments one by one to know what is religion based. 

It is not a personal attack to call someone the worst kind of fundamentalist?

I never called you ignorant. I pointed out that you were making an ignorant argument. I called you a hypocrite when you called me emotional yet refused to acknowledge the emotion in your own posts. Do you think what you did was hypocritical?

I never said my religion has no bearing on my beliefs. How could it not? My religion is the most important thing to me. It is impossible for it not to have bearing on how I think. I have every right for my comments to be religion based.

I think that if the woman wants to have a VBAC, she should be allowed to. These doctors talk about safety, but honestly, women had babies at home with no one to help them but their daughters, sisters, and mothers for thousands of years, and it seemed to work out just fine.

Now, if a doctor tells me that something is going to possibly risk my baby or me, then sure, I'm probably going to listen to the doctor, however if I don't want to have something done to me, then why should I have to have it done?

Why can't the doctors just prepare for the c-section in case of emergency and let a woman go ahead and try to do a VBAC? My mother was in labor with me for two full days before they finally decided to do an emergency c-section.

I do have a problem with home births, because I feel that with all the medical discoveries made, we should take advantage of them, however, that still should be the woman's choice. If she wants to risk her life or her baby's more than neccessary, then go ahead and let her.

On a slightly different note, the insurance companies are just disgusting. It's discrimination, plain and simple, and it needs to stop now.

Yes, your right. Although, even I am taken aback by the astronomical number of abortions preformed each year in the U.S. I think educating girls and women, before they find themselves in this situation would be the smartest thing we could do.

Antiquated, "Abstinence-Only" programs, (I believe,) are contributing to the high numbers of abortions. Instead of criminalizing young girls for having an abortion, give them the tools to prevent one. Not just easy access to birth control, but comprehensive information. Children are receptive, especially when parents are willing to discuss sex. When you fail to acknowledge that your teens are, (more than likely,) going to be sexually active, your contributing to this mess.

As for people like Vinny; fail to understand that for most Pro-choice advocates, abortion is the last thing we want to see happen, (or, it's the last I want to see happen.) If their side would recognize the need for preventive measures and lobby for women's rights, we would all see less of the "A" word. 

Ma'am, I do understand why abortions can be neccessary. My own grandmother had an abortion because she was only thirteen when she first got pregnant. Do I think that it was a mistake? Absolutely. My grandma suffered emotionally for the rest of her life because of it, even though she later had two healthy boys (my father and my uncle). I understand that rape victims don't want to have to go through nine months of torture, and I thank God every day that I've never had to go through something like that. However, a life is a life. I just can't see it any other way. The only way an abortion can be the right choice is if the baby's birth is going to kill the mother. I know I probably shouldn't word it like that, but that's just how I feel.

Exactly! If you would do away with abortion, you have to do away with unintended and unwanted pregnancies by preventing them. That takes education, access to contraceptives and better healthcare for those who face the stresses of poverty and pregnancy together, as well as a better attitude on the part of men and boys who are as big a factor in the problem as the women and girls, but have the decided advantage of not being held captive to the body growing the baby.

This is why schools have health class. Besides, if a teenage girl thinks she's old enough to have sex, I'm sure that she knows that this could possibly lead to a pregnancy. Are we next going to say that the parents of serial killers should be put in jail for not being good enough parents? While I do agree that your parentage has a lot to do with how you react to life situations, it has nothing to do with your perception of right and wrong, or of cause and effect.

Wouldn't it be better for her to have had the baby, given it up for adoption, and then known that she had made an extremely responsible choice (and that her child was alive and well)? Why should someone have to suffer for the rest of their life because of a choice they made when they were practically still children themselves?

What I mean by the "cause and effect" statement is that if a girl knows HOW to have sex, I'm sure that she knows that she could get pregnant.

That seems a very valid comparison.

An organ can't live on its own outside your body, and while an unborn baby in its first trimester can't either, it is growing so that it will be able to one day. An organ doesn't feel (and sure, it's debatable whether or not fetuses can feel, but they will develop the ability, and an organ won't). It doesn't eat, or urinate. It doesn't have a heartbeat. It doesn't have little bitty organs developing inside of it. An unborn baby is nothing like an organ.

And this girl you know, does she wish that she had killed her baby instead?

And we're back at the beginning..........Ms. Nason, I'm not asking you to lobby for abortion. You can hate, detest, and loath the fact it exists, but this isn't about YOU!

If you ran the world? I'm sure we'd all eat our vegetables, go to bed before 9 p.m. and wait until we were married to have sex. But, you don't run the world. The fact that your trying to hold the rest of the U.S. to your "idealistic standards;" really starting to piss me off.

 When abortion was banned, many women went under ground and were exploited, even killed. All for what? So people like you wouldn't judge them! Your so biased by the feelings that YOU'VE GIVEN the fetus, you forget the feelings of the living, breathing, urinating-women, that must make this decision.

I will never see it your way, because there is two sides to this issue.

So people like me wouldn't judge them? Can I just say, thanks for putting me into a ridiculous stereotype.

The feelings I've given to the fetus? Look, honestly, I really don't care if you consider fetuses as babies or not, one day they will be, and killing them is wrong.

And no, I don't judge women by their choices, because it is NOT my place to judge people. Not even close.

But all insults and sarcasm aside, seriously, can you explain to me why abortions are neccessary? What's so terrible about carrying a baby to full term and just having it? Even if you don't want it, you can put it up for adoption. You can put it up for adoption before it's even born. So, honestly, please tell me why women have abortions. Or anybody could really. Or a woman who's actually had an abortion, why did you choose that?

I'm not going to lie, I have absolutely no experience with adoption agencies, or even with pregnancy itself. So would somebody please tell me what the deal is?

Yes, though abortion is never a 'good' thing, it is sometimes the better choice of the few available.

PRo-Life folks tend to pretend that there is nothing worse than not entering this world. I wish that were true.

Good point, I've never thought of that argument before.

With the following exception: The fetus cannot survive without the mother. Her body is absolutely necessary for its full formation and maturation, and that takes nine months and a great deal of energy, so the mother's life is affected greatly. At some point earlier than the normal completion of gestation, the fetus normally has progressed to a point where it can actually survive when removed from the nurturing confines of the mother's womb. That point is, without extreme medical intervention, no where near the normal cut-off point for abortion. And before you go shouting about 'later-term' and 'partial birth', you need to admit that they are extremely rare, and not performed on a child that would otherwise have had a reasonably healthy life.

Vinny, then that would also be gender discrimination. Making women bare children because they can, could also have a detrimental impact on their future. Are the feelings of a women less important, than an unknown fetus?

Vinny: Yes, the chromosomes are split; the genetic code is there within those cells at the moment of fertilization, and this has the POTENTIAL TO BECOME A HUMAN BEING. It is not a human being, as many factors have to be in place for that to happen, such as 9 months, sometimes sooner, when the fetus can survive on its own. It is still connected to the woman. Many religions will also state that the fetus 'becomes' a human being when the 'soul or 'spirit' enters the body. No one knows when that happens. Some people believe that the spirit is eternal, and it does not matter what shape or form it takes because it never dies. If you believe in reincarnation, then that POTENTIAL TO BECOME A HUMAN BEING may be irrelevant anyway. We can split hairs or agree on some of this, however:

Just because you believe it is NEVER right for a woman to have an abortion, I believe that is it sometimes necessary and an absolute right for the woman to have an abortion. If you are basing your ideology on your religious beliefs, I can accept that, but I base my ideology on humanist principals that encompass a wide range of social issues and personal integrity. If you believe an abortion is morally wrong, then I can accept that (that is what you believe); however, I believe that a woman has a right to have an abortion, which I believe, in and of itself as a necessary procedure, is NOT morally wrong.

Pro-choice people don't go around telling Pro-life people what they should be thinking or doing; they just don't want Pro-lifers to criticize or undermine their own rights by making it legally impossible for women to have a choice about their own health and quality of life.

... and Vinny, you will never have to worry about being faced with this predicament. My point is that you cannot speak for others when it comes to a decision as personal and difficult and sometimes necessary as abortion.

This is why we have a separation of Church and State. You practice what your religion tells you, but our government has to allow for PERSONAL civil rights to trump any religious doctrine.

Ms. McNamara,

"It is not a human being, as many factors have to be in place for that to happen, such as 9 months, sometimes sooner, when the fetus can survive on its own. It is still connected to the woman".

As I said earlier, humanity is only defined genetic code. It is not defined by whether a person is biologically dependant on someone else. If someone has their own set of DNA, they are different than their mother. If that DNA is human, they are a separate human. It is not defined by whether or not a person can survive on their own.

"Just because you believe it is NEVER right for a woman to have an abortion".

I never said that. I believe that abortion is right when the mother's health is at serious risk, or when she is injured during a rape to the point where she cannot give birth. However, one in ten thousand abortions are because of rape/incest. We need to keep in mind that abortion ends a human life, no matter the circumstances.

"Pro-choice people don't go around telling Pro-life people what they should be thinking or doing"

This is not my experience with pro choicers.

"This is why we have a separation of Church and State."

Can you tell me where the exact phrase "separation of Church and State" is found in the Constitution?

"Vinny, you will never have to worry about being faced with this predicament."

So the fact that I will never be faced with this predicament means that I shouldn't have an opinion on it?

The problems faced by the people suffering in Darfur is a predicament you will never face. Does this mean that you shouldn't be able to say anything about it, or form your own opinion on it?

Your are correct in saying that my faith beliefs/worldview sway my opinion on the evils of abortion. However, I would like you to consider that your "humanist principals" are your faith beliefs/worldview and have swayed your opinions.

Why would the government allow for your worldview to trump the worldview that is not based on "humanist principals" but rather based on orthodox Judeo-Christian ethics?

"Pro-Life" makes the decision for everyone. You have the baby whether you want to or not, whether you can afford to, physically, financially, emotionally, maritally, ethically, sanely, or not.

The pro-choice way keeps that terribly difficult decision in the hands and hearts of only the people directly involved.

If you don't believe abortion is ever OK, then you should educate your children to know that they need to not have sex if they aren't ready to be parents. You need to teach your sons that their private parts will not shrivel up and fall off is they don't get to 'use' them 'early enough'. You need to show them that you are serious about making the world a good and healthy and safe place for all children, fetal stage or fully grown. You need to only have sex when you want to make a baby. You need to clean up your own doorstep instead of pointing and judging everyone else's according to what you think a real, good, nice, healthy doorstep is.

You are the one who wants the law to impose your religious view on everyone else, and refuses to allow others to disagree with you. The idea that you should certainly have the freedom to make your own decision, has to go the other way too - you have to allow others to make their own decisions, based on their own beliefs, experience, situations and available resources.

"The pro-choice way keeps that terribly difficult decision in the hands and hearts of only the people directly involved."

What the pro-choice way really does is promote a procedure that has ended the lives of 50+ million innocent humans. The pro life way looks at other options, like adoption, and respects the right to life, as well as the preciousness of human life.

"You are the one who wants the law to impose your religious view on everyone else, and refuses to allow others to disagree with you."

Through what? I hope you're not referring to this blog, because everyone who posts is in a way imposing their beliefs on everyone else.  

"What the pro-choice way really does is..."

... Lets people who are already in a tight financial situation, avoid adding another person to feed, clothe, house and provide necessities for. It has allowed people who knew they were not in a good position to care for and raise a child to not do so, thereby relieving hardship, easing stress and allowing them to either grow up to, or work toward, a more stable setting from which to begin or enlarge their family. It has enabled people to get out of untenable situations without the added stress of providing for a child, or additional children, and to avoid subjecting another child to a cycle of rape and misuse. It has empowered people to make a decision about their own situation, based on their own conscience, their own religious beliefs, their own family, their own convictions and their own will, when the alternative might have made life for them a great deal harder.

Whether you or I like or agree with their decision, is really irrelevent. It is not our decision to make for them, just as it would not be appropriate for anyone else to make life and death decisions affecting our families, for us.

"Through what?" ...

Through the legislation that you want to see make sure that freedom to choose is no longer available.

And let me add that the pro-choice way includes all the options of adoption, resources for aid if they choose to continue the pregnancy, etc. too. They counsel people on prevention as well.

All of this stuff you just talked about can be done without takilng an innocent child's life. There is always adoption.

"Through the legislation that you want to see make sure that freedom to choose is no longer available."

I want to make sure that the freedom to murder for convenience is no longer available. I fully support a woman's right choose adoption.

Thank you for the heartbreaking story. (And thank you for stating it without being insulting, I think some people have forgotten how to be polite in their zeal to express their opinions.)

Honestly, there will always be exceptions. I must say, I do agree with that woman. Obviously, there is a huge difference between having an abortion because you don't want the baby, and having an abortion because you know that the baby would live a life of pain. And the truth is, most women don't have abortions for that reason. A lot are simply because she wasn't supposed to get pregnant.

Actually, Caitlin, I do not think that you are right about "most women don't have abortions for that reason. A lot are simply because she wasn't supposed to get pregnant."

The vast majority of those I've had the opportunity to talk with did so because of complex reasons. Abusive situations are not as rare as most people like to think. Poverty is not either, and with the current financial atmosphere, it is becoming a big factor again. Almost all of the women I've talked to about it wrestled long and hard with the deicision, and contrary to the far right's claims, a whole lot of prayer and soul searching was invoved. Few people are really shallow enough to just consider it a convenience. I have, honestly, met only one, and I believe she was in a strange mental state at the time.

Some regret their decision, some know they did the right thing under the circumstances at the time. Almost all have gone on to have families later and genuinely know the value of their lives and that of their children.

Ms. McNamara,

"ANS: First Amendment, Bill of Rights, The Constitution: "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion..." To rephrase this, 'No particular religion should be used as a basis for Congressional law'. That's so clear."

What this means is that tax money won't go to a religious cause, that people will not be forced to attend a church or support one with their tax money. This is different than the "separation of Church and State" that many people attempt to use as an argument.

I know the effects that an abortion can have on a woman for the rest of her life. I personally know a woman who has nightmares about her abortion that occured 25 years ago.

"In a perfect world, Vinny, abortions will no longer be necessary".

Most abortions are not necessary. Over 97% of abortions are a matter of convenience. I don't know about you, but I would never want someone to have the right to take my life because of convenience. There is always adoption.

"50+ million innocent lives are lost...no, not true at all. If you believe that all living things have a spiritual realm, then you must also believe that that spiritual realm will go elsewhere, as the spirit NEVER dies, and the human body is just a physical vehicle."

Abortion is condemning someone to death who has not even had a chance to be born, yet alone do something wrong. Yes, I believe that at the moment of conception, there is an eternal soul, but that does not mean that abortion doesn't end a human life.

"A life is one that can breathe on its own and survive birth. I don't care if you agree or not."

Most babies can survive birth, if they are not killed. But, that is not the scientific definition of a life, no matter what you think. Also, a lot of sick people cannot breathe on their own. Are you really willing to say that they are not alive?

"Stop enforcing your beliefs on others".

Well, I think that's something we are both doing at this point, Ms. McNamara.

For clarification, the above reply was meant for Vinny.

Vinny, if you're going to go that way, then you could just as well say that Jeffrey Dahmers and Hitlers and Jack the Rippers and all manner of bad folks didn't enter the world.

It's just not that simple! As long as you keep trying to make it so, you are missing most of the reality.

No, because that person who may cure aids or cancer, will be born someday, in this physical world we live in.

I said: "50+ million innocent lives are lost...no, not true at all. If you believe that ALL LIVING THINGS HAVE A SPIRITUAL REALM, then you must also believe that that spiritual realm will go elsewhere, as the spirit NEVER dies, and the human body is just a physical vehicle. A life is one that can breathe (that is being able to take that FIRST breath) on its own and survive birth. I don't care if you agree or not. Stop enforcing your beliefs on others, and try to understand the human condition from a more 'human' perspective."

Sick people who are on ventilators have already taken their first breath and have been born. Even newborns who cannot breathe on their own have already 'survived birth', e.i. been "born."

Babies are not killed when they could survive birth. Late term abortions are very, very rare and are done when the mother is in danger.

Look, Vinny, you are making this personal for you. It is not. We must allow women to make decisions that are personal for them, and that are right for them, which deal specifically, intrinsically with their own lives and their own bodies. The only responsibility you need to worry about, if you wish, is to allow others to be able to make their own decisions, which may be necessary, personal and extremely DIFFICULT, without your interference.

When you attempt to interfere with someone else's life because of your own beliefs, which many times are based on religious doctrine, then you become a fanatic, and WILL attempt to enforce your beliefs upon others, which is what the "right wing" fundamentalists are trying to do in our government right now, thus trying to make our govenment totalitarian in nature.

"No, because that person who may cure aids or cancer, will be born someday, in this physical world we live in."

Well, how can you be sure that we have not delayed the cure AIDS or cancer by possibly killing the person who may have found the cure?

'Sick people who are on ventilators have already taken their first breath and have been born. Even newborns who cannot breathe on their own have already 'survived birth', e.i. been "born."'

You don't have to be born to be a human or be alive. It is your opinion that life starts at the first breath. By saying that, you are dehumanizing the unborn baby. However, your opinion is incorrect, and a person becomes a human at conception.

"When you attempt to interfere with someone else's life because of your own beliefs, which many times are based on religious doctrine, then you become a fanatic, and WILL attempt to enforce your beliefs upon others, which is what the "right wing" fundamentalists are trying to do in our government right now, thus trying to make our govenment totalitarian in nature."

Interfering with someone's life is exactly what abortion does. In fact, it ends that person's life before they have had any chance to contribute to the world. In a totalitarian state, like China, people are allowed to have only one child. What happens to other pregnancies? Abortion. Who's trying to make the government a totalitarian state now?

This is for Ms. McUmber-House.

"Vinny, if you're going to go that way, then you could just as well say that Jeffrey Dahmers and Hitlers and Jack the Rippers and all manner of bad folks didn't enter the world."

Well, I bet that you're pretty glad you were given a chance to not be a Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler, or Jack the Ripper. In fact, I bet everyone here arguing in favor of abortion is happy with the fact that their mother chose life.

"I have noticed that all those who are for abortion have already been born."-Ronald Reagan

"Vinny, you are using endless, cyclical arguments to keep from actually addressing the points made by others."

Wow. That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. I don't address the points made by others? In almost every reply I make, I quote other person.

Vinny-"Wow. That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. I don't address the points made by others? In almost every reply I make, I quote other person."

I meant "addess", as in "consider". You "address" by swatting them aside.

No, Vinny. I'm saying that, because you will not allow others the right to disagree with you without being dismissed, you will not allow others the legal right to make their own decisions on the matter. If you get your way, everyone who disagrees has to do it your way.

The other side wants everyone to retain the right to make such deeply personal, life changing, serious, complicated, critical decisions for themselves. I have to stand on that other side.

(Sarah, I'm not trying to take your response but I have something to add.)

Vinny, the answer to your question is, "No, not at all." We all respect your opinion and the beliefs, that have brought you to your conclusion.

What we, (or at least I,) don't understand is, "why?" Not why you believe the way you do, but why you should have a say, about what goes on in another persons body?

(Hypothetical scenario.) Let's say, "abortion is banned." Now, everyone is having babies. Most of these pregnancies would be unplanned; right? I'm sure some of the mothers, would try to make a relationship work with the father. Although most, would end up single-mothers. (Vinny, something about this, just seems unfair. Where are the father's consequences?)

So, how about this? I will support your abortion-ban, but on one condition: "every male, that fathered an unplanned pregnancy, must have a vasectomy." If you get a say, in women's reproductive rights, why shouldn't we have a say, in yours? I think this would be fair.

L.S. Hope, I agree.

And yes, Vinny I do also respect your view, though I don't fully agree with you, you make some valid points that I can agree with. I do not think you stupid, inarticulate or wholely wrong, though I doubt very much you would say the same to us.

You do, though, along with so many on the anti-abortion side, refuse to give any credence to the other's views, ignore the fact that we have thought long and hard about the issue as well, that we also have strong moral and ethical values, and that we all really do want abortion to become a thing of the past.

You deny the idea that so many pro-choice people assert - abortion is never good thing, but it is not always the worst thing.

You will give no chance to come to a middle ground so that we all can work together to diminish the problems that lead to the unplanned, or otherwise problematic pregnacies that make abortion a reality we all have to grapple with in one way or another.

Finding that middle ground is absolutely necessary, but it cannot happen unless both sides are willing to drop their attacks and give up a bit of what they want.

All or nothing, from either side, will just keep the war going, and only make things worse in the long run.

This is for Ms. Hope.

"What we, (or at least I,) don't understand is, "why?" Not why you believe the way you do, but why you should have a say, about what goes on in another persons body?"

I ask you "Why?" Why should a person be killed for convienance? Why do you not acknowledge that abortion violates the right to life?

If you haven't just eaten, take a look at these pictures. Warning: they are very graphic.

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/

Watch these videos, if you can. Also very graphic:

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/audiovideo.html

Now, Ms. Hope, I ask you, why would you stand so strongly for a procedure that does this to fellow humans?

Vinny, I did review one of your links. Still, I feel your missing my point.

Women's Rights doesn't advocate for abortion. Most of us, (or maybe just me?) would love nothing more, than to see abortions, cease to exist. When women and young girls no longer have to face: genital mutilation, rape, sexual-slavery, abuse and death, solely because of our gender, I'll jump aboard the Pro-Life movement.

Until then, (like I've told you,) "we lead by example."If I can give one women the strength I had, when I chose to keep my son, or, one girl the resources she needs, to prevent a pregnancy, then I am advocating for "LIFE."

Women's Rights, (for me,) is about giving women a voice, strength, and the love they need, to believe in themselves. If they falter along the way, or are unable to stand alone? I, and (I'm sure,) a thousand other women will be there, to pick them back up. From domestic violence, to sexual exploitation, each one of us brings an experience with us Vinny.

Maybe you'll never understand, but I'm okay with that.

No, I you're missing my point.

"Women's Rights doesn't advocate for abortion."

That's because abortion is not an extension of women's rights. This website would like you to think it is. No one can say they are for women's rights when they are promoting a procedure that has killed 25+ million future women. What about the rights of those women?

"Until then, (like I've told you,) "we lead by example."If I can give one women the strength I had, when I chose to keep my son, or, one girl the resources she needs, to prevent a pregnancy, then I am advocating for "LIFE.""

And God bless you for choosing life.