Health-Care Reform Package Should Not Reflect Religious Doctrine

I'd rather see healtlh care dollars spent on making sure women of every socioeconomic class had free and easy access to birth control.

...should no more be covered by tax dollars in health care then should elective surgery like breast implants and other NON HEALTH related procedures-...

How about non-health related drugs like Viagra? Just askin'...

Dragon - Since it's not up to you, or the government, to decide whether abortion, or a sex-change operation, or any other medical procedure is for the HEALTH of the person, none of this stuff should be specifically excluded. A person's health care decisions should be between that person and their doctor...nobody else

Dragon - Since it's not up to you, or the government, to decide whether abortion, or a sex-change operation, or any other medical procedure is for the HEALTH of the person, none of this stuff should be specifically excluded. A person's health care decisions should be between that person and their doctor...nobody else

Exactly.

Reds-

A person's health care decisions should be between that person and their doctor...nobody else

Fine. Then don't send me the bill. You want me to pay for elective procedures, but not have any input into them? Right- that's not gonna happen. If you're going to take my money for things NOT medically necessary and are controversial to say the least, then expect me to voice my opposition. I would like an answer to this since you brought it up: do you believe that at any time in the history of our civilization, that any doctor has ever said to any man, "Sir, your health is in danger and the only way we can heal you...is to make you a woman". Do you believe that? All I'm asking for is ONE time - do you believe that has EVER happened - I won't even make you back it up.

Between the years 1967-1990, only 151 abortions (.004% of all abortions) were to save the life of the mother. That means 99.996% of abortions during that time were not to preserve the health of the mother. Those stats aren't convincing enough for me to say, "Well, since roughly 5 women's lives were saved each year, I'm willing to pay for the slaughter of millions of babies during that same time period".

You want privacy in these areas? Fine. Have the privacy. But no federal funds should go to anything like this.

I'm not sending you the bill...and neither is the government.

I'm curious. I have heard that they are discussing abortion coverage in the bill, but I have not heard anything about elective surgery such as plastic surgery. Have they discussed it to anyone's knowledge? I sincerely doubt anything like that will be covered. Also - for anyone in Canada - are abortions and/or elective surgeries covered there?

None of the proposed bills proposed spending tax dollars on abortions anyway, so congratulations on winning your strawman argument.

My sister, who served in the military, was injured and had to have reconstructive surgery on her face (a 'nose job'). You may not have 'knocked up' anyone, but other men do. I'm a woman, and I never got anyone 'knocked up' either. Keep it in your pants, and stop using emotions, threats, and intimidation to 'get it wet' and then we'll talk. Or, grow ovaries - then I'll care what you think about women getting 'knocked up'.

A combat wound and a nose job for vanity are two different things. And as far as other guys knocking up women, let them pay for their mistakes.

It's called being a man and taking responsibility for your actions. Something the people of this country embraced not too long ago. Before we found out we can just blame others for our actions and get away with it.

Andi-

Are you suggesting that a man cannot have a valid, considered opinion regarding abortion simply because he is not capable of getting pregnant? Whether or not I can or cannot get pregnant has no bearing at all on the reality of abortion. The situations or individual circumstances don't change the facts of what abortion is or does. So, my position is as valid as yours and my wife's (who is staunchly pro-life). What's your reasoning for why her position should be invalidated since it disagrees with yours (and she's been "knocked up" twice).

I absolutely care about women getting "knocked up". A woman has both a right and a responsibility to take care of her body. However, while they have a right to their body, they have zero rights over the body living inside them. I find it ironic that you afford the pregnant woman rights over her body (so long as she's pro-abortion) but the living person inside her is denied those same considerations and privileges. Really seems to be the anti-thesis to the idea of "choice".

JaxDad,

Fortunately for the women in this country, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Power-

I see no difference. If you are "pro-choice", what is the "choice"? Abortion. Can you be "pro-choice" and not be in favor of abortion as a choice? Therefore, those who are "pro-choice" have just come up with a way to mask their belief that abortion should be a viable and available option while allowing themselves to feel like they are not advocating abortion. If you are pro-choice, you are in favor of abortion as an option. Further, why make the distinction? If abortion is not wrong, why doesn't anyone ever want to come out say, "I'm completely in favor of abortion - people aren't getting enough of them"? If I'm wrong (which I'm not) and abortion is absolutely fine, why do you run away from the "pro-abortion" label?

Rain-

Give me a break. Unfortunately for unborn children who aren't given the right to choose what happens to their own bodies, the Supreme Court disagrees with me. Are you now suggesting that the Supreme Court is infallible and always errs on the right side of everything? If I remember correctly, wasn't it the Supreme Court who upheld bigotry and segregation laws saying they were perfectly legal? You cool with that decision? Or how about Bush vs. Gore in 2000? I suppose you accepted the outcome without complaint since the blessed Supreme Court always makes the right decision.

Personally, I don't need 9 people telling me whether ending someone's life, particularly when the victim has no say in it, is wrong or not. I'm sorry if you need them to do that for you.

I see no difference. If you are "pro-choice", what is the "choice"? Abortion. Can you be "pro-choice" and not be in favor of abortion as a choice?

Why, yes, you absolutely can. Prime example: Sarah Palin. She has stated, on multiple occcasions, that she considered aborting Trig when she found out he would be born with Down Syndrome, and decided to carry him to term. (See, she's pro-life where everybody ELSE is concerned, but when it comes down to her OWN life, the pro-choice sneaks out.)

Give me a break.

I did. I responded to your post as I would any rational person, even though you're spouting off about taking away MY rights, and did so in a civil fashion. As you've proven you're both incapable of remaining civil, and close-minded on a subject which, let's face it, you'll never have to deal with and feel justified in ranting about, I will not respond to your posts any further.

Rainkiss,

As you've proven you're both incapable of remaining civil

Feel free to go ahead and back this up. I was no less civil than you. I didn't resort to name calling or insults. If you can't handle intense debate then I suggest you probably stay away from the Vine, or at least controversial seeds.

Why, yes, you absolutely can. Prime example: Sarah Palin. She has stated, on multiple occcasions, that she considered aborting Trig when she found out he would be born with Down Syndrome, and decided to carry him to term. (See, she's pro-life where everybody ELSE is concerned, but when it comes down to her OWN life, the pro-choice sneaks out.)

No, you absolutely can't. You just proved this. All of the sudden, you say, Sarah Palin is pro-choice. But what is the choice? Abortion. So, for a fleeting second, she considered abortion as an option. However, let's not pretend that having a thought about doing something makes you guilty of doing that act. If we did, how many people have you hit/murdered/cussed out in your life? But back on topic, can you be pro-life and be tempted to consider the option of abortion? Absolutely. But it's not acting on that and realizing that abortion destroys the life of the living human child, and ultimately is wrong, that differentiates between pro-life and pro-choice. Is Sarah Palin pro-life? Absolutely. So, again I say, there is no difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion because the "choice" is abortion. If you support that choice, then by definition, you are in support of abortion being employed. You cannot be pro-choice and against abortion - so let's just be honest about what you believe. You take the word "abortion" out of your label to make you feel like you're a great person for supporting women's rights, but in reality, you're in favor of killing unborn children as an option.

I responded to your post as I would any rational person

Really? Your sole contribution to this discussion was to say that I am dangerous to all women everywhere. I sincerely appreciate your civility. By the way, I noticed that when I pointed out the fact that the Supreme Court has been on the wrong side of issues before you make no attempts to address those issues. Why not? Probably because you agree with my points. Uh-oh, Rain. You agree with me and I'm an ignorant, close-minded, uncivil woman hater. Again, thanks for your fine example of civility.

even though you're spouting off about taking away MY rights

That's where you pro-abortioners are all wrong. I'm not trying to take away your rights. You have no right to kill another person. We on the pro-life side are merely trying to EXTEND rights to the unborn children - human beings who deserve a chance and are being denied their own choice to life by those who would abort them primarily for convenience sake. So, in essence, I'm more pro-choice than you are. You are in no way in favor of allowing the children to have their own choice, so therefore, the "pro-choice" label really doesn't apply at all. You deny the child a choice, you deny them the same rights you're crying about me trying to take away from you and then somehow pride yourself on being a great person because you support a woman's right to her own body.

As you've proven you're both incapable of remaining civil

Hey Pot - remember me? Kettle? I've actually remained extremely civil considering we're discussing murdering children.

close-minded on a subject

You treat that like an insult. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear at the outset - I'm extraordinarily close-minded when it comes to abortion. Did I not make that clear enough? Yes. I embrace that distinction with great enthusiasm. There are some things that are just wrong and you don't really have to "consider" all that much. Do you consider taking innocent life wrong? Discussion over. No external situations or circumstances ("Single mom", "Too young", "Can't take care of a child", etc.) ever change the fact that taking innocent life is wrong. That's what you use to justify it, but in no way does any circumstance ever make it right. So, yes, I am completely close-minded on this and no justification you offer will make me think, "You know, in this situation, robbing a child of a chance at life really is the right thing to do here".

you'll never have to deal

Ah, yes. The ridiculous "You're a guy so your opinion doesn't matter" argument. Classic. Well, ok then, should I go get my wife and have her debate you on this since apparently only women are able to understand morality in this regard? I have to warn you though, she is more pro-life than I am, extraordinarily smart and far less civil than I am on this issue. She'll eat you up. I didn't realize that because I'm a guy I was not able to judge the merits of abortion and it's rightness/wrongness. I guess all those people without kids can't be opposed to child abuse since they don't understand the pressures of parenthood. Or non-pet owners can't be anti-dog fighting since they don't know the specific pressures of pet-owning. I mean, if I, as a guy who can't get pregnant, can't have an informed position on the issue of abortion, then none of these people can be opposed to other forms of abuse either, by your logic.

However, while I am not capable of getting pregnant, I can say that I have first hand knowledge of what it's like to be an unborn child and I can tell you first hand, with an informed position from that experience, that I wanted a shot at life. I spoke to others that I've come across who also happened to be former babies and interestingly enough, ALL of them didn't want to be aborted. Someone has to speak for those on the chopping block, sacrificed on the altar of convenience. So, yes. I absolutely can have a position on this. But, if you still disagree, I can go get my wife. Just say the word.

I will not respond to your posts any further

And you had made such a significant contribution up to this point. You're uncivil (by your definition) and then accuse me of incivility, you ignore real arguments and then resort to further insults because you are either unwilling or incapable of debating these issues and then run away. You and your significant contributions will be missed.

Sarah Palin considered abortion twice and chose it once. Neither choice was forced on her. Most people supported her choices in the two different situations. Most people also supported her right to make those choices. The point is that in a free society, in which rigid religious dogma is not forced on people, they have the right to make their own choices.

Anybody ever notice how "being a man and taking responsibility for your actions" means writing a check every month? Let's face it, usually not even that, generally there has to be a court case and garnishment of wages.

Do I sound a little annoyed about this? I should. I work in payroll, you see... which means that, when somebody DOESN'T do it, I open my mail, and have to contact somebody and say, "yes, I KNOW it's just before Christmas, but, by law, I have to start taking $50 out of each check." You'd think their frippin' world ended.

Ever have your life threatened for doing your job? "If you send that B.... my money, I'm going to come down there and put you in the G...... hospital."

JaxDad, there's a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.

I honestly don't believe that any person is Pro-Abortion and keep your politics out of my bedroom and health care.

Power-

You posted this:

The Catholic Church must lose their tax exempt status!

When a religion becomes a political lobbying body, it's no longer a religion.

It's about time the Catholic Church grip on us is loosening.

My post is 100% absolutely on topic. You made a claim and I addressed it. I address content of articles and posts - headlines don't mean a whole lot. And since you posted the article with said headline and made posts affirming your belief of churches staying out of government, one would rightly assume that you agree with the headline. Only a fool would post an article that they disagreed with and then speak in favor of it.

So, the question to you then, if I'm really that off topic (which again, I'm not - you raised the issue of tax exempt status and churches staying out of these decisions): are you suggesting that you don't agree with the article? In your first post you affirm your support of the calls for these policies to not be made or influenced by religious groups - I said, "Not all pro-lifers are religious - some are atheists". I would absolutely love for you to explain to me how responding to your article and your posts is off-topic when I am addressing very specific things you have posted and said.

Either you disagree with the article (which you don't) and I am off topic, or you agree with the headline/content/premise of the article (which you do). Therefore, faulty premise.

Of course, I will immediately retract that statement if you can explain how you don't support the content of the article.

JaxDad, in case you didn't check the fine print, the website you're cutting and pasting all your arguments from is a from a religious organization.

Red-

I never said that Abort73 wasn't affiliated with religion. However, does that make the information any more or less true? Especially since ALL of their statistics comes from either the CDC or the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), which, as Abort73 points out, is the research arm of PLANNED PARENTHOOD. So, if you have an issue with any of the statistics or information included on their site, feel free to take it up with Planned Parenthood. Abort73 isn't making up the content - they're just exposing you to the realities of what PP and its ilk are pushing.

Good point, RED.

Think of all the lives that could be saved if abortions were used more often! In fact, it's actually inhumane that we don't force abortions on these women instead of allowing them to do something so risky and hazardous to their health.

Here I was, all this time, thinking that killing babies was barbaric, immoral and illegal. I forgot that murder is not illegal in this country and that taking their lives really is the beneficent thing to do. And let's think about it really...with all of the strife, disease and problems in our world, how sick and selfish is it to bring a child into this. If we really cared about these children, we wouldn't allow them to live. Thank you for showing me the error in my thinking.

The issue is NOT keeping women from getting an abortion. I sincerely wish that was the issue. The issue is should I, someone who understands the sick reality of abortion and how evil and barbaric it is, have to foot the bill for something so awful? No one is saying women can't get abortions. This measure is simply to say that those women should have to cover their own expenses as abortions are elective. You can still have all the abortions you want - have an abortion party since they're so helpful and beneficial to the women getting them. But don't me send the bill.

That is ALL this measure is saying. It's not my responsibility to pay for your murder.

Should a Jehoveh's Witness have to pay for your blood transfusion?

If you don't understand the need for someone else's bypass surgery, should your insurance premiums be used to pay for it? You obviously don't know much about the practice of obstetrics, if you think pregnancy and childbirth are safe. Do you feel qualified to help pregnant women make other decisions about their healthcare as well? Or did you just want to insist on forcing your uninformed opinions on others?

The issue is should I, someone who understands the sick reality of abortion and how evil and barbaric it is, have to foot the bill for something so awful?

You are not footing the bill. Private donations are footing the bill, per the article.

By a 54-45 vote, the Senate tabled the Nelson-Hatch amendment, which would have eliminated abortion coverage from insurance plans that receive federal funds, even if the coverage is paid for with private funds.

The question is whether to allocate federal dollars to insurance companies that allow private funding for abortion. I say that as long as my tax dollars are not going directly to that, I have no problem with government funds being given to insurance companies that allow the coverage.

RED-

Hahaha...I love it. Resort to insulting someone's intelligence simply when they disagree with you.

I love the way you frame your poor argument with a completely ridiculous analogy. Are blood transfusions elective now? Are you suggesting that someone, somewhere wakes up one day and says, "You know what would make me feel better? A blood transfusion". Or, "A blood transfusion sure would make things less complicated, let's go to the clinic and get one". I'm surprised at you, Red, since you clearly made the distinction earlier between necessary procedures and electives ones.

You're right, though - I'm not an expert on obstetrics. Unlike you, I didn't go to med school to study up on this (oh wait...). My limited knowledge is based on the children that I've fathered and having walked with my wife through hemorrhaging, a retained placenta and other issues which I'm not gonna start detailing here. However, I would like to applaud you on your attempt at deflection - NEVER did I once say that pregnancy and childbirth are safe. Please cut and paste my quote you are referencing here - I'll wait.

But since you went in the direction of accusing me of being uninformed, allow me to inform you.

You argue that abortions are valid options for the health of the mother. Please see the article here that indicates that between 1967-1990, only 151 abortions were used to actually save the mother's life - that's .004% of all abortions during that time period.

http://www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/mothers

I particularly enjoyed this quote:

In 1992, a group of Ireland's top gynaecologists wrote: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." (John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, 'Statement by Obstetricians', The Irish Times 1 April 1992)

Oops.

The WHO also identified 5 of the leading causes of maternal death:

http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/index.html

We can cut out one of those factors (abortion) because had abortions not been performed in these instances, the mothers would've lived. So, of the remaining 4 big contributors to maternal deaths, basic problems associated with childbirth were the causes- causes that are manageable, common and well-documented. So, by your estimation, because of these things, women choose to not go through childbirth because of these risks to their health. Wrong again:

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics

I'll go on record right now and say this site, Abort73.com, is the best abortion resource education site I've ever come across. Here's some snippets from their research:

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).

All reasons of convenience - none of health concerns.

• At least 80% of all abortions are performed on unmarried women (CDC).
• The abortion ratio for unmarried women is 510 abortions for every 1,000 live births. For married women it is 61 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC).

Again, reasons of convenience. Or are you suggesting we believe that unmarried women are at a greater health risk than married women and therefore, they're more cautious to move forward with such a risky procedure?

Your "health" argument doesn't hold up. At all. I mean, unless you wanted to make the effort to find some support for your assertion and share it with the uninformed in the group.

So, again, I say that the health issues here are a sneaky little diversion to try and make us think that we want women to be subjected to the horrible risks of childbirth because we're cold and heartless. Nice try. Abortions end the life of a human being whom you do not extend the freedom to choose life or death for themselves. And they are done primarily for selfish reasons - for convenience and ease of life. Yeah, I know diaper changes and midnight feedings are tough. We should probably just go ahead and kill the kids so we're not put out.

I'm curious, why do you not support the child abuse of kids who just get to be too much to handle? Since these kids are living at conception, which would make them no different than a 5 year old, a 1 year old or a 14 year old, why don't you support killing them at different stages in their development? I mean, I'm assuming you don't support that.

But before you respond, you should take some time and look over Abort73.com. It's a great place to get "informed"

Has it not occurred to you that it's none of your damn business if someone else chooses to have an abortion? Who died and made you God? If you don't like abortions, then I would suggest that your wife not have one. Other than that, it's not up to you to approve or disapprove of what someone else does.

Belinda-

Has it not occurred to you that it's none of your damn business if someone else chooses to have an abortion?

That thought has not once ever entered my mind. There's this little thing called "absolute truth" and it is not dependent upon circumstances. So, when you understand that abortion takes away a life there are NO circumstances in which that becomes ok. Not one circumstance. And we have people that are willing to toss away a life simply to make their life easier. Sorry - not gonna stand for that.

But, Belinda, by your logic...if I were to go punch my child in the face - if I were to routinely beat my child, break their arms, leave bruises, are you saying you wouldn't call the police? You're saying you wouldn't turn me in? Of course you would - unless you're a sick excuse for a human - but, according to you, that would be none of your damn business what I do to myself or my children. However, that would not stop you from turning me in. And I'm not even crushing my kid's heads with forceps or vacuuming their limbs off. Kind of a sick double standard.

I love the argument that you are not able to fight injustice if you are not the direct victim. If that's the case, screw Darfur, the Holocaust and anywhere else injustice takes place that you are not directly affected. But, you probably don't subscribe to that idea. Convenient.

Who died and made you God?

Lame argument. Almost not even worth a response. Clearly you are not able to divorce your emotions from logical reasoning or else you would've left this one at the door. So now advocating protection against the murder of babies makes me God? Subscribing to morality makes me God? There are a whole lot of Gods walking around then considering most people, on some level, believe and live by a right and wrong mindset.

If you don't like abortions, then I would suggest that your wife not have one.

The problem with these emotional, not well-thought out arguments is that you can swap out anything wrong for "abortions". "If you don't like________, then I would suggest you don't do it". Let's play that game for a second. How about...murder? If you don't agree with murder, then just don't do it" - implying that if you have no problem with murder, carry on. Or how about this: If you don't like holocausts, don't take part in one. Gee, I wonder why Hitler just didn't use that excuse. Of course, I realize drawing comparisons between abortion and the Holocaust is not totally effective. Only 11 million were killed in the Holocaust. 40 million abortions have taken place, in America alone, between 1973-1999. It's kind of not even in the same ball park.

Other than that, it's not up to you to approve or disapprove of what someone else does.

Then why have laws, Belinda? To live in a civil society, there needs to be a set of guiding principles that are uniform across the board. We have speeding laws - you can't go over a certain speed or you'll get punished. Have you ever said to a policeman, "It's not up to you to approve or disapprove what I do"? Let me know how that goes next time. The fact is, abortion is unjust and educated people need to be screaming about how awful this act is until these injustices are righted.

People opposed slavery and were told to stand down. People opposed segregation and were told to shut up. People opposed the Holocaust and were told to forget it. Every generation faces a huge injustice that must be addressed and corrected - this is ours.

We have laws to protect us. Just in case you didn't notice - ABORTION IS LEGAL! Yes, I'm emotional about it as are you. I'm sick and tired of people sitting around in judgement of other people who have done nothing to them. No, I don't advocate people running out for abortions at the drop of the hat, but anyone with half a brain has to realize the necessity of it being legal. There are more ramifications than the woman who doesn't take her birth control. Furthermore, I notice, without fail, you people never seem to have an answer to the millions of children that have already been born who are unwanted and uncared for. They are my concern, not a blob of tissue. When people start getting real about what to do with the ones we already have, then I will be ready to hear their complaints about abortion.

We have laws to protect us. Just in case you didn't notice - ABORTION IS LEGAL!

So was segregation and slavery. By your logic, you would've had no problem with that when it was in place. Right now I'm asking and I would appreciate an answer - would you have been fine with slavery and segregation when it was legal?

I'm sick and tired of people sitting around in judgement of other people who have done nothing to them

Did you condemn Michael Vick for his dogfighting? I'm assuming so and you rightly should. But why - he didn't do anything to you, yet you judge him. Tiger Woods, Mark Sanford, Bill Clinton - was your attitude "I don't judge them - they didn't hurt me"? Doubt it. Also, you would not have been a direct victim of the Holocaust. That doesn't stop you from being opposed to it. I'm simply trying to point out that you are selective in fighting injustice - you are not consistent.

No, I don't advocate people running out for abortions at the drop of the hat

Why not? If it's not wrong and completely legal, why not get an abortion at the drop of a hat? Why not throw abortion parties and take abortion retreats - you might even get group rates. If there's nothing wrong with abortion, there is no need for it to be "rare". Why does your side support abortion being "rare" if there's nothing wrong with it?

but anyone with half a brain has to realize the necessity of it being legal.

But anyone with a full brain realizes that people with half a brain are wrong on this issue. Murder is not a necessity for convenience sake.

Furthermore, I notice, without fail, you people never seem to have an answer to the millions of children that have already been born who are unwanted and uncared for. They are my concern,

Gonna go ahead and call "BS" on this. Your "answer" is to end their life? That's how you express your concern? "Hey little one, no one wants you so we're gonna go ahead and kill you now because we care". And why does your side never promote adoption when there are so many families who want to get pregnant and can not? But further, your premise is still ridiculous. What you're suggesting is that if the pro-lifers could figure out what to do with all of the "unwanted", then you would not support abortion. Do you realize how insane that is? It doesn't make abortion less wrong or more right if you have a family willing to adopt. Whether or not my side ever presents a single alternative to abortion, that does not change the fact that abortion is wrong.

not a blob of tissue.

Ah. Ok, I understand now. You're uninformed. Go to this page, read it and watch this little 3-minute video - I dare you.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony

Life begins at conception - it's merely one part of the stage in our development. When a baby is born, it doesn't chest hair - however, you don't say it's less of a person than a 50 year-old grown man because it doesn't maintain the same characteristics. And since you probably didn't check out that site, Planned Parenthood, doctors and the Senate all acknowledged life beginning at conception - and they are all more "informed" than we are on these issues. So, abortion ends a life.

Now, in your emotional responses, you allow yourself to pretend that's not true. But let's not pretend that I am not handling this issue intelligently when I'm willing to look at and accept facts and you are not. You want to feel the right answer instead of look at the truth. Might I suggest you check out the homepage for www.abort73.com and take a look at that first video they have available. It only takes 2 minutes if you opt for the shorter vid.

I'd love to hear your thoughts once you look at facts instead of relying solely on feelings.

I know what the facts are. Frankly, I find you to be somewhat delusional and so will end this conversation now. Neither of us is going to change their mind, so there is not much point in continuing on.

I know what the facts are

Nope. You know what you feel. You have yet to actually bring one single fact to the discussion.

Frankly, I find you to be somewhat delusional

Really? Care to back this up? What have I said that is delusional? Keep in mind, I am only interested in the facts of abortion - what it is, what it does. I have offered plenty of facts to back up my opinion. You have offered none. Instead, you insult and run away instead of dealing with the issues on any kind of substantive issue. Please point out where I'm delusional and show how what I have said does not gel with real facts. Keep in mind, you would actually have to interact with facts in order to show this.

Why is it that when confronted with the facts, you pro-abortioners run away? Why not take a golden opportunity to back up your position with facts and prove me wrong? Every single one of you have backed away from this discussion when confronted with real facts. And naturally, you probably didn't check into that site, did you? Why, why, why, when facts are presented about such a contentious issue, do all of you turn an intentional blind eye to the evidence? You don't see anything wrong with that? What about the truth scares you so much? Is it that you're afraid that it will disagree with what you feel to be right?

If you don't want to debate the issue and just "feel" a certain way, that's your right. However, I am choosing to not be ignorant of the issues and the facts that go with them and based on that study, do not want a single tax dollar to fund something so barbaric.

Would you please answer one question - why are you all so afraid to look into what abortion really is and does when even PLANNED PARENTHOOD says life begins at conception?

I spent some time on your emotional propaganda site. I'll give it and you a little credit for not arguing from a purely religious point of view and totally fabricating the biological facts. You and they at least get the microscopic similarities between possible potential future people and real existing ones reasonably accurate. Embryos still inside chicken eggs resemble chickens a lot, too, but I still count my eggs and chickens separately.

You're free to think of embryos as people, if you like. Most people usually do, myself included. Just the same, nobody has the right to the use of another person's body against their will. Most of us aren't willing to make exceptions for that out of concern for any shortage of potential future people or our fondness for babies. Politically, I'm not willing to start down the slippery slope of making exceptions to that principle based on the needs of supposedly more deserving people either. Our bodies and internal organs are not public property to be allocated by the government for the needs of others. Women's uteruses are not open for homesteading by any sperm cell that makes it past a condom. They have to remain privately owned and operated. Reproduction must remain voluntary.

JaxDad, you're right about one thing. One of us did NOT go to med school to learn about the dangers pregnancies pose to women's health or spend years dealing with those dangers. You're also correct in pointing out that the maternal death rate is low in developed countries where abotion is readily available.

You are not correct in assuming that because a condition is rarely fatal it doesn't present many serious threats to a person's health. Survey's passed out at clinics provide women with only a few boxes to check off for their reasons for seeking abotions. Not wanting to be pregnant is one of them that includes not wanting to take the risks to their health, whether that's specified or not. Those risks should only be taken on voluntarily. Options of avoiding them or dealing with them have to remain available and limited to the people taking those risks in any free society. They cannot be dictated by governments or churches.

Red-

I spent some time on your emotional propaganda site

Look, you're not going to divorce emotion from this issue - but can you at all argue with the facts they present? I ask that, as I have been repeatedly, because insofar NONE of you have. Your best rebuttal is, "Well, I don't think eggs and chickens are the same thing". However, you then say that you consider embryos to be people. Please decide which side of your mouth you're going to talk out of and then let me know.

Just the same, nobody has the right to the use of another person's body against their will.

Did the babies, in any way, play a role in their own development, doctor? Did they put the necessary elements in motion to bring about their conception? They were conceived by others and have no choice but to be dependent upon the mother. I still cannot fathom how you can justify saying that the baby has no rights to the mother's body, yet the mother has every right to the child's. It's the worst kind of hypocrisy - you support a person's right to their own body unless said person's mother has decided to end their life (since we agree that these children are actual humans). So, you aren't in favor of the child having a choice - just the mother - and the child never asked to be put in the situation they're in. Nice.

I'm not sure I understand your second point - but if I'm interpreting it correctly, being anti-abortion doesn't mean that we're heading down a slippery slope of government taking control of your body and subjecting you to reproductive procedures to further their goals. All we're saying is, those children living inside you are humans who deserve the same protections under our laws - meaning, you can't end their life. More clearly, you can't murder them. To say, "Well, I think an embryo is a person but I'm not prepared to allow the government to have total control and harvest my organs and body for governmental reproductive purposes" is a completely cheap cop-out. Again, talking out of both sides of your mouth to appease your conscience. You say, "I think they're people" (which means, they are deserving of life, regardless of the circumstances that brought about their conception) but then say, "But who am I to have the government impose that moral view" - yet, you don't have a problem with the government telling you you can't steal from people or speed in your car or murder your neighbor. You're setting up a scenario, one that is not plausible or the issue, as justification for your support of abortion as an option - again, meaning you have found a way to justify ending the life of someone you have already acknowledged is a human.

You are not correct in assuming that because a condition is rarely fatal it doesn't present many serious threats to a person's health

Ok. Name a non-fatal threat to a woman's health that justifies abortion. Since you went to med school, it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a number of these serious, non-fatal issues that fit.

As I've already pointed out, the statistics overwhelmingly support the "convenience/ease of life" reasoning behind abortion. Unless you have anything to present factually to counter that, it stands - or unless you can offer a defense of why abortion rates for single women are exponentially higher than married women and connect that to the health debate - good luck.

Despite your persistant rudeness and insulting attitude, I granted you that their medical facts are reasonably accurate. Of course, they've cherry picked them to support their religious beliefs. They present only the similarities of embryos to people and ignore the differences, such as lack of mylenization in the brain, which means they lack the ability have desires or make the choices you want to give them the right to make.

By the way, if you really want people to show you the courtesy of admitting when you are partially right about something, don't accuse them of talking out of both sides of their mouths when they don't continue to agree with everything you say, okay?

"Did the babies [put themselves there]?" No, embros, unlike people, lack the capacity to do anything deliberately. Of course we don't expect people to submit to attacks by wild animals or the mentally retarded just because they lack the capacity to know better either. That doesn't give them the right to use people's bodies without their consent. Yes, I give thinking, feeling humen beings more rights than non-thinking, non-feeling potential ones. There's nothing hypocritical about that.

Despite the long list of serious but non-fatal threats pregnancies pose to women's health, if you make no distinctions between unfeeling potential future people and the suffering of real existing ones, you wouldn't think anything less than a threat of emminent death justified abortion, as long as the mother survived and the embryo didn't.

Therein lies the essential difference between us. I have more respect and compassion for real women than unthinking, unfeeling possible potential future people. You don't.

Would you please answer one question - why are you all so afraid to look into what abortion really is and does when even PLANNED PARENTHOOD says life begins at conception?

I know what it is, you dimwit. You are fanatical in your beliefs. No one can have a different opinion. Only your opinion is the right one. You can quote statistics until the cows come home and I'm still going to disagree with you. I'm not running away, I just refuse to continue to converse with someone so indoctrinated that they can't respect someone else having another opinion. You haven't changed my mind any. In fact, you have made me stronger in my beliefs, because you are an extremist and I would never want to be like you.

Furthermore, JaxDad, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Raise a severely bipolar child and then come tell me your opinion. Pull large safety pins out of their leg, watch them turn their flesh into hamburger meat, lock your bedroom door at night because you are afraid they will kill you, sit through days in the hospital every time they try to commit suicide, spend endless hours visiting them at mental institutions. Then come and tell me your stupid ass opinion.

I know you are right, PIK. I just finally lost my cool with this guy. They always claim everyone else doesn't really understand the process. They are so wrapped up in their own little perfect world that they can't see the real world around them.

Red-

Despite your persistant rudeness and insulting attitude

I've not called anyone names. I have not personally attacked any of you. However, I have been called names and personally attacked and you yourself have attributed statements to me that I have never said. Yet, none of you display outrage at this. Instead, you want to accuse me of being insulting simply because I disagree and SUPPORT my disagreements with facts - which, once again, NONE of you have done.

such as lack of mylenization in the brain, which means they lack the ability have desires or make the choices you want to give them the right to make.

I appreciate you bringing something to the table that we can discuss based on fact. The process of myelinization, however, is not completed at birth and continues on into infancy. So, this argument simply means that the fetus is no different from a newborn or an infant. Now, I understand what you're saying in terms of their ability to "make the choice", and certainly I'm not suggesting that we find a way to present babies with a survey/questionnaire in the womb to see if they would like to be aborted. It's merely the principle of preserving life in all situations, even if the "victim" cannot communicate or is even aware of a desire to live. By that argument, someone in a coma or with alzheimers or mentally retarded cannot be aware of or communicate their desires. Toddlers with Canavan disease suffer from myelin destruction and lose this ability as well - but this doesn't make them any less human or a person as me or you. The fetus is simply one stage in the process of personhood, just like infancy, adolescence and adulthood.

don't accuse them of talking out of both sides of their mouths when they don't continue to agree with everything you say, okay?

I'm sorry if you don't like that distinction, but in one sentence you make a comparison and say you don't acknowledge that the egg is the same as a chicken and in the following sentence say that you consider the embryo to be a human. Those two ideas are in total opposition to each other. Is the embryo a human or isn't it? In two sentences you suggest both "yes" and "no". This is what I mean by "talking out of both sides". There needs to be a definitive "yes" or "no" before discussion can go any further. Either we need to establish the personhood of the fetus (based on a "no" answer) or we need to move to the moral aspects of the issue (based on a "yes" answer).

"Did the babies [put themselves there]?" No, embros, unlike people, lack the capacity to do anything deliberately. Of course we don't expect people to submit to attacks by wild animals or the mentally retarded just because they lack the capacity to know better either. That doesn't give them the right to use people's bodies without their consent

Ok, I understand this analogy, but the comparison is not accurate. Let's take a "wild animal attack" example. You're out camping, minding your own business and a bear comes and attacks you. Did you bring the bear into your camp? Did you go and camp in the middle of a bear cave? No and no. The bear came after you. Conception is not at all this way. The baby wasn't looking to glom onto you and you just happened to be minding your own business. You are the responsible party for the conception and have created this life. To then say, "How dare you attach yourself to me" when the child had no hand in their development or conception is wrong.

Yes, I give thinking, feeling humen beings more rights than non-thinking, non-feeling potential ones. There's nothing hypocritical about that.

That's not completely accurate either. While the fetus lacks the ability to process rational thought, they do have the ability to "feel" as evidenced by the "screaming" that has been recorded during abortions. But then, you still have to apply the same principles to those in comas or in vegetative states - are they less of a person because of a lack of reasoning and thought?

Despite the long list of serious but non-fatal threats pregnancies pose to women's health, if you make no distinctions between unfeeling potential future people and the suffering of real existing ones, you wouldn't think anything less than a threat of emminent death justified abortion, as long as the mother survived and the embryo didn't.

Not sure I'm following this here. Are you saying that, because I make no distinctions between humans in the womb and out of a womb, that abortion is never justified unless it directly threatens the life of a mother? If that's your point, I say "absolutely yes". To take a life when both could survive is wrong. The argument I think you're making is that you suggest killing a baby is justified even if the mother would survive childbirth, but she might have health issues afterward - to which, I disagree.

Therein lies the essential difference between us. I have more respect and compassion for real women than unthinking, unfeeling possible potential future people. You don't.

I love it. Once again, emotions get thrown into the mix and you accuse me of being uncompassionate and uncaring towards women. The REAL difference is that I understand that the child being carried is as much a human as the woman carrying her and my heart goes out to those who you all have decided are not human for convenience sake.

Belinda,

know what it is, you dimwit

Personal attacks and name-calling are against the Code of Honor. Power, let's see if you are a fair moderator and adhere to the Code by deleting this comment. If not, I will be reporting you for unfair moderation, which is also against the Code.

You can quote statistics until the cows come home and I'm still going to disagree with you.

Exactly. I can come to this discussion with facts, stats, proof, QUOTES FROM YOUR BLESSED PLANNED PARENTHOOD and you STILL won't accept the truth. You won't even take half a second to look them over because you know you are not able to argue with them - at least Red did and had to acknowledge that it wasn't in error. Thank you for your honesty in revealing that you don't care about the truth or have any desire to pursue it - you just want to hold onto your emotional, baseless opinion and then call ME the dimwit for actually looking into this issue and making an informed decision and opinion. And am I passionate about this issue? Absolutely. Because I HAVE looked at the evidence and understand the horror of abortion - and my passion is birthed from the reality that there are those out there like you who are completely fine with killing a person and perpetuating more of this injustice.

Furthermore, JaxDad, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Raise a severely bipolar child and then come tell me your opinion. Pull large safety pins out of their leg, watch them turn their flesh into hamburger meat, lock your bedroom door at night because you are afraid they will kill you, sit through days in the hospital every time they try to commit suicide, spend endless hours visiting them at mental institutions. Then come and tell me your stupid ass opinion.

Just to point out again, Power, this post is firmly against the Code of Honor and as a moderator, it is your responsibility to keep this out of your seed - if not, this will be reported as well and you can lose your seeding/moderating privileges.

Look, Belinda, I have no problem with you being emotional about this issue - but personal attacks have no business here. And this post is another example of the emotion of your position versus the reality of abortion. If that's what your life is like, I'm sorry. But please do not assume that because I am in favor of babies not being killed that my life is perfect. However, your post makes me really, really sad. Not because this is your life (if it is) - though I have sympathy for you. What makes me sad is that you seem to be saying you wish your child was not alive - that, though you have problems, you feel that not having this child in your life would be far better than dealing with this. That's horrible. While I have problems with my children, there is no circumstance in which I would ever wish they weren't alive.

But, let's try to move away from the emotion of this argument and get to the heart of the problem - while situations like yours are bad situations, and let's pretend for a second such a situation warranted taking life as you seem to wish, there's no way to know what your child will be like in the womb. Your argument would suggest then that abortion should be justified simply because a difficult child might be possible, though not guaranteed. You cannot look at the child in the womb and say, "This is what he/she will be like", so therefore you cannot suggest that abortion is justifiable simply because your situation with a difficult child is possible. It's also possible that the child could be a loving genius who finds the cure for cancer and becomes President. You can't use your difficult situation to advocate taking a life simply because the possibility of that life being difficult.

Power and Belinda-

Power, I guess I should just go ahead and report your moderation since you've joined in the personal attacks. Why do you all insist that I am stuck in my own little world and not able to see outside it when I am the only consistently bringing real, hard facts to this discussion and you bring nothing? Do you not see the hypocrisy in calling me a dimwit, insulting my intelligence or my level of informed-ness when you all willfully make the decision to turn a blind eye to any fact that is presented against what you believe? At least Red was willing to check it out. If you want to debate the evidence, then let's absolute do it. But please stop attacking me in this discussion when you are the ones not willing to consider the presented information.

I adore my daughter more than anything on this earth and have been there for her every minute of every day. She is doing much better now. If I had wished she wasn't born, I could easily have turned her over to the state as uncontrollable and moved on with my life. I didn't. That should tell you something. However, would I have another one and risk the same illness? No way. BTW - It's extremely unmanly to whine about somebody being mean to you.

Belinda -

And that's fine. You understand and have experienced this and have made your decision not to get pregnant again. However, as I said before, you cannot justify taking a life when you don't know the outcome of that life. So, while I can appreciate your situation, it does not apply in the abortion debate.

Belinda, this has nothing to do with you being mean to me. I am here for reasonable, informed, civil debate. When you sign up for Newsvine, you subscribe to the Code of Honor which is in place to ensure that reasonable - even emotional - debate can take place without the inclusion of personal attacks. With that, it is the job of the moderator to make sure that this happens. If you and Power cannot, go somewhere else and spew your anger and name-calling all you want. But this is not the place for it. We can disagree on an emotional issue - and I have extended that understanding here - but it must be on civil terms. I have no desire to debate this issue with unreasonable, uncivil people who cannot communicate without resorting to personal attacks and name-calling. Those attacks have no place here and I would advocate this regardless of which side is name-calling and attacking personally.

Please note that in all of my postings (which there are numerous in number and length), while the debate has been emotional, I have never come after you personally. I have extended at least the basic respect for you and assume it will be returned. If it is not, then the problem is not with me, the problem is with you - and with Power, who isn't doing a proper job of moderating.

What I'm saying is that while I don't regret having my daughter, if I were to find myself pregnant again I would abort as these things tend to be genetic and I would be unwilling to risk it. You have to live something like this to be able to fully understand what it is like. I wasn't trying to be crude in my description, but to give you a small idea of what some people go through with their children. I do everything in my power to prevent getting pregnant again and have been successful for 21 years. But, birth control fails sometimes. I also think abortion could be greatly reduced if birth control were made more available. Some women simply do not have the resources to get birth control. Therefore, unintended pregnancy.

I apologize for being unkind and will try very hard to be more civil in the future. Also, to be perfectly honest with you, as a man cannot have an abortion or a baby, I find their opinions on this subject to be irrelevant. That isn't meant to be mean. I just don't believe it is a man's place to get involved in something that doesn't affect his body in any way.

Belinda,

As I have pointed out repeatedly on this seed, the "You're a guy, so your opinion doesn't matter" is not a valid argument. It's merely an attempt to invalidate my position. If you're suggesting that, since I am not directly affected by abortion I cannot have a position on it, then you must carry out that principle across the board in all areas of life. Therefore:

-A non-parent cannot be against child abuse since they don't face the temptations to abuse their child

-A non-pet owner cannot be anti-dog fighting since they don't understand the pressures facing pet owners

-Women cannot be opposed to rape because they don't know the temptations men face that lead them to sexual assault

-Only Anti-Semites can be opposed to the Holocaust since only they know the pressures to carry out a Holocaust on the Jews

Should I keep going?

But the thing is, while we may not understand all of the pressures and circumstances other people face, the reality is that there are victims of these decisions/acts and that doesn't stop us from taking positions and opposing this injustice even if we cannot sympathize with the perpetrators. However, while I may not be able to get pregnant, I do have experience as a former child and I can say with 100% certainty, I would have been entirely opposed to being aborted - and everyone I've spoken to who has had the same experience of being a former child also objected to the idea of them being aborted. I can only assume you share in that sentiment - you're glad someone didn't take away your life. You would be opposed to it now, so it's safe to assume you would've been opposed to it then.

Out of curiosity, how would you respond to a woman who presented the exact same information that I did? If me being a man is a hurdle you can't get over and abortion may only be discussed between women, I will be happy to go get my wife and let her debate this with you. However, I must tell you that she is also a former fetus, has had 2 difficult pregnancies and deliveries and is staunchly pro-life.

So, if she presents the same information that I do, it doesn't affect the truthfulness of the facts at all. How would you invalidate her position if you can't shut her down for being male?

Honestly, I would lend more credence to her opinion as she has been pregnant and understands the ramifications. I would still disagree with her. Don't get me wrong, I am not thrilled with the number of abortions going on, but I think it must remain legal. However, if birth control were made available to all women, it could severely cut down the number of abortions that are occurring. Many women do not have access to doctors or birth control, hence unwanted pregnancy. I think anti-abortion advocates need to realize that it is very doubtful that abortion will ever be made illegal again and work toward reducing them as much as possible. Your efforts would be much more likely to have an impact. Forcing women to have unwanted children is just not the answer to the problem.

Oooh, goodie, an opportunity to post one of the best articles I've read online this week.

http://www.divasblueoasis.com/diary/949/guest-post-mythical-americaby-hrafnkell-haraldsson

We've heard it all said a hundred times - that America is a Christian nation, that it was founded as a Christian nation, that the Founding Fathers were Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian men, that there is no Wall of Separation between Church and State.

The only problem is, none of it is true.

And the 18th century's own Evangelicals signed off on the system of government those very secular-minded Founding Fathers established.

Back in the 18th century, you see, people were a lot closer to the events that shaped the new nation. They had close personal experience with the dangers of Church and State meddling in each other's business. They knew what it was to be persecuted, not by a secular government but by a government under the control of another denomination.

They wanted protection. From each other.

And our new system of government, promised by the Declaration of Independence and come to fruition in the Constitution, gave them what they asked for.

Beautiful piece of work, very educational.

Since when was killing babies the topic, Tex? This is about funding for legal medical procedures to keep the creation of babies voluntary and protect women from the medical risks of complications of pregnancy and childbirth, which kill 500,000 of them annually.

Abortions were legal in 1776, Spirit. Don't forget that.

REDaly

Abortions were legal in 176,spirt. Don't forget that

I never said that Abortions should be illegal. Just tax payers dollars should not be used for abortions.

I know that there will be people that say they don't want their tax dollars going to the military but........... The government is required to protect it people.

I am pro-choice but I must agree with this. Although I can see a benefit to them being covered, I respect the desire of many not to pay for them. What does need to be covered and made more available is birth control. That is the only thing that is going to bring down the rate of abortions. It won't stop them, as different things can cause the decision to abort, but it would significantly lower it.

Should blood transfusions not be covered because Jehovah's Witnesses don't like them?

Those of you who are opposed to tax dollars being used for healthcare at all should just say so.

Some tax dollars might be used to pay for unnecessary circumsicions, but nobody's even debating that.

Redaly

The moral judgement of Abortion to blood transfusions are like apples to oranges.

They are both procedures to which some people have very strong religious objections. Both groups are able to argue their objections very passionately and feel them very deeply. Both groups insist God himself is on their side and assure them they are right. Why should we take one group seriously and not the other? Because one church has more members? Did God call for a vote on His laws?

So, "my church is right and the other one is wrong." Guess what? The other one says the same thing.

Red-

I understand your point and can appreciate it - however, the problem isn't with the issue of personhood, but in the way the laws have been carried out. The ways that the laws are carried out in no way challenges the reality of the personhood of the child. We should not say, "The way in which 'personhood' laws are carried out are not always perfect, therefore we should strip the acknowledgment of personhood from the child". We must address the issues of the law and how to apply those laws in ways that uphold the personhood rights of both the mother and the child as best as possible. Your first link claims that giving babies personhood rights strips the mother of hers. That's not true at all and it's an emotional claim used to scare.

I believe, as does the first example you provided, that the issue of abortion comes down to life vs. life - not life vs. convenience. If a mother's life is critically threatened - as it was in the first example - then that's an issue of life vs. life and I believe, based on the information provided, the wrong action was taken here. Does that mean the child wasn't a person? Nope. But it means that the law was wrongly applied in that it did not respect the wishes of the mother when her life was directly at risk.

The woman in S.C. who DID attempt suicide (it was not the media that falsely reported it this as if she just accidentally fell out the window- she jumped out due to issues with the "baby daddy"), WAS rightfully accused of homicide. The child was at least 32 weeks old - entirely viable based on S.C's Supreme Court law which acknowledges viability at 25 weeks. The charge was homicide by child abuse and it absolutely pertains here. The child died because the mother, who is responsible for the child's safety, took willful action to harm. Now, if the story had been the mother legitimately fell out of the window purely on accident, then the charges would be wrong. But in this case, the mother willfully took action that killed her legally viable child. There is no way this example supports your position of personhood resulting in a bad decision.

In the Utah example, I'd like to know more about what all transpired and if that would be an instance of child neglect (particularly if the doctors who, let's be honest, are probably more informed than the patient, called for a C-section). And I'd also like to know what happened with those charges. Neither link gives any more information beyond what you posted.

The Florida woman example regarding the home birth - yeah, that's terrible and a totally wrong overreach based on how I understand the law.

I don't deny at all that there are legitimate misuses of the law - there are also times when the law is appropriately applied to preserve the life of the child. However, any of the problems are rooted in how the law is APPLIED. The problem is not that the babies are considered persons. The problem is strictly in the application of that law. To say, "Our law is perfect, therefore the best solution is to say babies aren't persons", is absolutely wrong and does address the real problem.

I completely disagree with the idea that personhood laws result in women being uninformed. If there's any side that doesn't want women to be informed on their decisions regarding abortion, it's the pro-abortion side. The rise of technology that has provided sonogram technology has resulted in this generation being the most pro-life generation since Roe v. Wade. As women are discovering what is really going on inside them, they have made the distinction that abortion is destruction of a life.

One of the best stories to come out this year:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html

This Planned Parenthood director resigned and became pro-life after seeing what abortion does on an ultrasound. And she revealed how PP emphasized performing more abortions because that's where the money is - not in education or family planning. As a pro-lifer, I am 1000% in support of educating people on what abortion is. When people are educated about it, they come to the decision that abortion kills a child. It's not the pro-life said that is opposed to informed decisions - that's the pro-abortion side all the way.

I'm still waiting from an answer from any of you on why, if the possibility of ending a life is at stake, why you are so opposed to looking at the facts and seriously considering them. If I told you that there was a bear standing outside your door - that I had seen him and watched him devour someone - and told you not to go outside, would you just walk outside anyway because you didn't believe me? Wouldn't you at least look out the window to see if something was there? I guess this is unfair to throw this question at you since you do seem willing to consider this stuff and debate it - but so far, you've been the only one in any of these discussions who has considered the pro-life facts presented.

Please bear in mind that the horror stories I posted took place in the absence of any personhood laws. In the Utah case, I believe charges were eventually dropped. Angela Carder's family sued the hospital and won, because there were no personhood laws in place. Other problems with personhood laws would be the requirement to investigate all miscarriages as possible homicides. If they were written with enough restrictions to prevent their misuse, you might get a situation where they only placed the limitations on all abortions that we currently have on third trimester abortions. There's another problem with that, however. Now you've created a class of citizens with significantly less rights than all others. That's the start of another slippery slope nobody wants to start down. If some citizens could be executed for being deformed or presenting dangers to others without even having trials, why couldn't others? I prefer keeping the limitations we currently have on late term abortions for humanitarian reasons without opening the legal can of worms that personhood laws would unleash. Forgive me if I don't share your faith that additional power given to governments and prosecutors will always be used wisely and compassionately.

I'm in favor of people looking at the facts, and if those facts cause fewer women to choose to abort their pregnancies for convenience alone, that's fine with me too.

By the way, Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that has reported excess revenue for several years now. They usually do abortions at their cost, while generating significant revenue from providing contraception. I pay them enough for my granddaughter's birth control pills and physical exams every year to cover two abortions, so claims that they need to encourage abortions to bring in more money are pretty hard to believe.