I siad it before and I will say it again.

Take all the supposed "unwanted" babies that would be aborted and let the military raise them as professional soldiers.  Cost be brought in around $15k per child per year...which is actually cheap.  The USA would then have the worlds largest standing (4.5m) [i]experienced[/i] military force in the world!  And it would be resupplable!

The are so many other positive ramifications of this I don't have time to go into them all.  But cost saving in medical, welfare, and military spending would be huge!

Sgtar15

DF, I dunno where you're going with this, but that quote doesn't make any sense at all.

Funny how Liberals only believe in Darwinism when it "proves" the non-existence of God....

HOw about this?

IF YOU DON"T WANT KIDS>>>>>DON"T HAVE SEX!!!


That easy really...
"free"love is not so free..it does have it's price

I think ive seen that movie, it was either with Dolph Lungren or Rutger Haur.

On DU it never has to make sense if you start out your statement with "Somebody's going to have to tell Republicans that they've got to start giving a damn about human beings....".  

Shok

DF,

I assume your asking a sincere question, so I'll answer as such.

I worked for a couple of years with a group of individuals on both sides of this debate. One issue that was brought up repeatadly was the difficulty in adopting babies in America. This ranged from the cost, to laws, to social stigmas.

As a society, if we want less abortion (an admirable goal, imo) this is something that needs to be addressed.

Kurt Russell---Soldier.

Just because those morons are linking abortion and social darwinisim, doesn't mean that you have to buy off on their logic.  Your question seems to imply you have.  The alternatives they are talking about are socialisim and communisim.  No relation to abortion....

Once again you're proving your genius!

And, if we raise them in small cages, they won't get uppity and demanding like those pesky free-range children  [:D]

I really wish we wouldn't discuss THIS alone of all topics.   We can discuss racism, the Holocaust, the relative merits of Hitler and Stalin as leaders,  KKK rallies, relative evolutionary status of different races,  ANYTHING, and still keep it civil and friendly,  but NOT this issue.   It's the one that really polarizes people and my considered opinion is that it should not be discussed by general consensus.

But some people like to stir up bad feelings among the crowd.


Here's ONE cent's worth from me:

Your moral and ethical code isn't necessarily mine. Don't try to stuff it up my nose unless you want a fight.


CJ

I wonder why pro-choice people are generally anti-death penalty, and pro-life people are generally pro-death penalty.

Thinking about it I find people who take those positions very inconsistent about their views of the value of life.  

This is similar to what Plato suggested in the [i]Republic[i].  I don’t like the idea of growing people strictly for military purposes, it makes great science fiction, but it would bring any type of free country to it’s knees within a generation.

BOT- “on your own” an isolated state where you are responsible for yourself, emotionally and physically.  You must find your own source of food, shelter, and emotional support.

This “on your own” place doesn’t exist unless you have pissed everyone you ever meet off or if you live on an island by yourself.  There are just too many people out there in the world that will help someone else when they need/ ask for help.  This help comes with out government mandate or any attachments.

It’s unfortunate that the people who state that we need social services run by the government haven’t looked at the help that people get through private organizations, such as churches (and yes churches will help people who are not in their congregation/ religion) and local non- profit organizations.


BTW if you want an abortion- do it without my money.

Maybe this will clear things up a bit.

Pro-'choice' = "I want to do whatever the hell I want, and if I have to kill some babies to maintain my standard of living, that's ok"

Pro-'life' = "Killing babies is wrong"

Now, what part of "Killing babies is wrong"/"Killing ax murderers is OK" don't you understand?

I get a new appreciation for the gift that abortion rights are to this country every time I see on the news

Bogata
Mexico City
Sao Palo
Rio De Janero
Pretoria
Johannisburg
Gaza

There have supposedly been 40 million abortions in the 30 years since Roe v. Wade. And when you consider how many kids those abortions themselves could of had over the last 30 years then you realize we would be just like Mexico, China, Brazil and South Africa about now...

Only the most ammoral cold blooded heartless butcher could ever consider ripping children from their mother's womb with legal sanction a "gift". And the fact is that both the Dems and the Repubs are letting a virtual flood of third world immigrants invade this country because we have aborted so many American children (along with having smaller families) that the marxist sh_theads need the third world immigrants to keep social security going a few more years.
And of course not one of the places you mentioned is a capitalist consitutional republic, just a bunch of quasi-marxist sh_tholes run by liberal socialists (redundant I know).


What groups were the first among the industialized nations to toss out the laws that protected unborn children from being killed?
1. The Communists in Russia
2. The Nazis in Germany
3. The Communists in China
4. The Democrats in America

Which groups in nations were first to confiscate firearms from their own citizens?
1. The Communists in Russia
2. The Nazis in Germany
3. The Communists in China
4. The Democrats in America

If there is no "right to life" from the moment we are all "created equal" than there is no "right to keep and bear arms".


"We are a people that believe in basic rights. We believe in self government by consent. That didn't just happen. It happened on the basis of certain principles. And those principles state very clearly that the basis of human rights is not human will or choice but God's will, the Creator's will.
That means that if we reject that principle we are destroying the essence of our whole way of life. And that is what is involved in abortion when we assert that a human choice, the choice of the mother, determines the childs right to life. That cannot be true in light of our American principles."
Alan Keyes

"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation."
C.S. Lewis

"If abortion is not wrong, than nothing is wrong."
Mother Teresa

Who marched in the MMM?
1. Homosexuals
2. Feminazis
3. Pro-Abortionists

Who goes to the pro-abortion marches?
1. Feminazis
2. Gun-grabbers
3. Homosexuals

Who goes to the pro-homosexual sodomy marches?
1. Gun-grabbers
2. Feminazis
3. Pro-abortionists.

[b]When does the heart begin to beat?[/b]
At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother.


[b]When is the brain functioning?[/b]
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG).


[b]When does the developing baby first move?[/b]
"In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a ‘total pattern response’ because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part."
At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby’s nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus."

[b]When are all his body systems present?[/b]
By eight weeks.


[b]How about nine weeks?[/b]
At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist.
By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand."

[b]When does he start to breathe?[/b]
"By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid within his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration."

[b]Can he cry?[/b]
Although the watery environment in which he lives presents small opportunity for crying, which does require air, the unborn knows how to cry, and given a chance to do so, he will. A doctor

". . . injected an air bubble into the baby’s amniotic sac and then took x-rays. It so happened that the air bubble covered the baby’s face. The whole procedure had no doubt given the little fellow quite a bit of jostling about, and the moment that he had air to inhale and exhale they heard the clear sound of a protesting wail emitting from the uterus. Late that same night, the mother awakened her doctor with a telephone call, to report that when she lay down to sleep the air bubble got over the baby’s head again, and he was crying so loudly he was keeping both her and her husband awake. The doctor advised her to prop herself upright with pillows so that the air could not reach the baby’s head, which was by now in the lower part of the uterus."

[b]Does the unborn baby dream?[/b]
Using ultrasound techniques, it was first shown that REM (rapid eye movements) which are characteristic of active dream states have been demonstrated at 23 weeks.
REM have since been recorded 17 weeks after conception.

[b]Does he/she think?[/b]
We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps earlier) leads an active emotional life.
The fetus can, on a primitive level, even learn in utero.

[b]Can he/she feel pain?[/b]
Yes, by the 8th week. By this age the neuroanatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present by 8 weeks. Without doubt a abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant.


[b]What of The Silent Scream?[/b]
A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title (available from American Portrait Films, P.O. Box 19266, Cleveland, OH 44119, 216-531-8600).

There are (according to Kreeft) only 4 possibilities here:
1. the fetus (latin for child) is a human person and we know that.
2. the fetus is a human person and we do not know that.
3. The fetus is not a human person and we do not know that.
4. The fetus is not a human person and we know that.

In case no. 1 abortion is murder.
In case no. 2 abortion is manslaughter.
In case no. 3 the person is just as responsible as in the previous case. You shot into a house not knowing if there was a person inside or not. You may have been lucky that there was no one there but you did not know that and you did not care. At the very least this is criminal negligence.
Only in case no. 4 can the pro-abortionists attempt to find any footing. But none of the pro-aborts here, (or anywhere else actually) has ever been able to provide any evidence that 1. we are not talking about a human person at their earliest stage of life, and 2. we can know that for certain.

There is a reason why those in government who are the biggest supporters of abortion are also rabid gun-grabbers, and those who believe in the right to life for the unborn are also the strongest supporters of the right to keep and bear arms.

If anyone really wants to know why there exists such untenable nonsense as "pre-ban" this or "post-ban" that, he need look no further than abortion. The pro-aborts have planted their standard with theliberal gun grabbers and "no kingdom divided against itself can long endure."
Abortion is the only "sacrement" of the feminazis. Ben Franklin wrote that ONLY a moral people could maintain freedom and 42 million abortions in the last 30 years in a sign of an immoral people. He also warned that the more corrupt a people become the more masters (more laws, bigger government, etc) they would require.


"A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom."
Patrick Henry

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

As I have said on many occasions, how any supporter of the Second Amendment can delude themself into thinking that Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Chuck Schumer, and Gloria Steinem are right about any f_cking thing when it comes to what is good for America defies rational explanation.

You wouldn't want me to answer that question. You probably wouldn't like the answer.   In fact, it'd probably scare the hell out of you.

So, no, I won't answer it, even though I could just  as easily argue that it's not so much a question as a rambling rant.

Better to leave it alone.  That way, we won't have crossed swords.


CJ

What part of this is inconsistent.

Life is sacred, killing another person is wrong.

If that statement makes sense, how can someone be pro-life and pro-death pnealty? Think about it for a second.

Also ask yourself, if conservatives believe that abortion is wrong, why is it funded under medicaid, but birth control pills aren't?

If your answer is something like "they should have not had sex". Why is Viagra a prescription med. that is covered under most private insurance, and medicaid/medicare?  

Quoted:
[b]What part of this is inconsistent.[/b]
None of it.

[b]Life is sacred, killing another person is wrong.

If that statement makes sense, how can someone be pro-life and pro-death pnealty? Think about it for a second. [/b]
Easy. We believe that the death penalty saves lives. We believe it does in fact discourage at least some from commiting murder. The liberal pro-abortionists say "there is no proof" of this. But there is also no proof that when a burgler comes across a house and sees an NRA sticker on the car or truck outside he moves on, even though that this almost certainly happens.

[b]Also ask yourself, if conservatives believe that abortion is wrong, why is it funded under medicaid, but birth control pills aren't?[/b]
Two reasons. First, up until recently the liberal pro-abortion gun grabbers (who put it in medicaid) controlled government. And second, because so many Repubs have been too chicken sh_t to stop it in the same way they are too chicken sh_t to tell the gun grabbers to go f_ck themselves. Ron Paul and Alan Keyes notwithstanding.

[b]If your answer is something like "they should have not had sex". Why is Viagra a prescription med. that is covered under most private insurance, and medicaid/medicare?  [/b]
Because almost everyone in government is a no-good corrutpt, tax and spend "how can I buy more votes" jackass.
Any more softballs?
But are you saying that "they should have had sex"?

Ahh, Belloc, allways can count on you for a good dose of FICTION. Which is what all that crap was.

A baby is not a baby untill it reaches the point it can survive seperated from its mother. Untll then it is part of the womans reproductive system.

Coincidentally, that point is roughly about the same time that the English Common Law called the "quickening"-which is the point that the movement of the featus could be felt by the laying on of hands. About 28 weeks. After that time it was legally considered a child.

Since you have taken the time to paraphrase the question so that I don't have to root through a page full of comments and know exactly what it is that you are asking,  I will answer.


Alternatives to abortion:   A list of possibilities as I see it.

1: Adoption, by any person or agency

2: Abstention from behavior that is likely to result in an unwanted pregnancy

3: Use of contraceptives, which is a subset of the second answer.

4: Retroactive abortion.

5: Raise your own child.

I really can't see any other options.  Alternatives to abortion are, quite simply, to find a home of some sort for the child to come, or don't get pregnant in the first place.   Those are the two general categories you have to pick from, as I doubt that anyone would be picking option number 4.  (Not for a child, anyway...but I can think of some adults that could suffer that fate and I would not shed one tear for.)

Option 1 is being done.  Perhaps the process should be streamlined, say some, but then again, you want to be careful to pick people who are likely to be good parents.

Option 2 (and 3) is a good answer, but it's obviously not being used to greatest effect. People persist in being stupid in their sexual behavior.

Option 4 isn't worth considering.

Option 5 may be the ideal answer. But not all people are ideal parents and not all of them are wiling to raise every baby they conceive.


I can't easily see any other realistic options.


CJ

OK,  I re-read it.

First, the DUmmy that posted the quoted text has a problem with fashioning a clear, concise statement. I had to read it several times to see what he's getting at.    Or maybe I'm having comprehension problems tonight.    He seems to be mixing unrelated topics in the same paragraph, and that's always bad composition.

I can't imagine what he might have been thinking with "you're on your own" re: alternatives.
Being a DUmmy, I don't think he did, either.

It seems to me that he's one of many people who are anti-abortion and yet are also unwilling to step up to the plate and adopt a child.   I see this is as an extreme form of hypocrisy.  Not at all unusual for a DUmmy.



As for that "Social Darwinist free market worship isn't going to fly anymore" comment by the DUmmy, all I can say is....wow.  What a colossal idiot. Or perhaps he's a colossal red commie socialist, or both.   He's apparently ignorant of the fact that only free market economies have been prospering of late.   All the socialist economies are having a hard time keeping food on the table. China is making money, but the truth is, when it comes to their economy, they're barely socialist these days and understand the concept of PROFIT very well indeed.  Smart little fortune cookies!

CJ

Who goes to the pro-homosexual sodomy marches?
1. Gun-grabbers
2. Feminazis
3. Pro-abortionists.

Answer assgrabbingbabykillers.....with hair legs?

Thanx, do you have an independent thought?

If life is sacred, and every life has value, killing anyone is wrong. No matter what the reasoning. An inmate that ACTUALLY serves a life sentence behind bars is no more threat to the general public than a dead inmate. If all life is valuable then devalueing any life by killing, is wrong. Do you understand?

People who say life is sacred are inconsitent when they turn around and make value judgements about the worthiness of another persons life by saying it is ok to kill that person.

Stop with the buzz words. Conservatives, and many Liberals have fought to keep birth control from being available as a covered medication on govt. medical assistance programs. But, at the same time many demand that abortion be readily available, while others demand that tax money not be spent on abortion. Wouldn't it destroy both sides arguement if 95% of the abortions didn't happen, because of birth control?

The answer is yes. The libs want ot to continue so they can say they support a woman's right to choice. Repubs want it like it is, so they can yell baby killer at the libs, while saying that they don't want the govt. paying for costly birth control.

Meanwhile the dems, want more money for aid to poor children, and the repubs are saying that benefits shouldn't increase if people on welfare have more kids while on the dole. What would birth control as a prescrition med do to that little political football?

Yes the conservatives want the govt out of people' lives, no OSHA, minimum wage, etc. etc, but when it comes to sexual matters they ARE right in there. Libs want anything in private to stay that way, even be supported by the govt. They also demand that the public in general support indigent families and children that result.

Neither postion is consistent. If the govt shouldnt intrude into peoples personal lives, than what 2 consenting adults do in private should be first on the list for what is no one else's busines. On the other hand they should be prepared to deal with the decisions that they make in their personal lives, and not expect the govt. to be there with an open check book, to support the consequences of those choices.  

Pro-choice people never make any sense. It's all emotion to them.

CRC

"...but at least you have a brain about it."

Thanks.

I'm a little bit atypical as Republicans go.  That's because I'm closer to a Libertarian.

I believe in liberty, even if that liberty allows you to make some choices that would not necessarily sit well with others.

But, I do have my limits.

I'm not even sure that I call myself pro-choice. I'm more inclined to consider myself formally neutral on the issue simply because I am not going to get pregnant, being male, and I am not married or involved with any woman who is a candidate for carrying my children.   For me, it's really a non-issue. (Abortion, that is.)
And I can't justify telling a woman she can't have an abortion, at least if I'm not involved with her or the pregnancy in any way.  "I will stop telling other people how to run their lives" is a core belief for me.  

I'd be perfectly happy to never have to confront the issue head-on.

For now, I would be happiest to leave the issue to the women to decide and think the men should sit this one out.  Men can only be spectators to a pregnancy, after all.

My other views:  

Drug use:  Opposed as a matter of principle and choice, but I think drugs should be legalized as the war on drugs is unwinnable.  So quit wasting the money on the war, and let the free market destroy the high profit potential that drives pushers to become dangerous criminals.   An open drug market means it's not a large profit market for the small operator, and with huge profits out of the picture, your local pusher will have to get a job because it pays better.   Crime drops, too.

Homosexuality:  I consider it to be a disorder if not actually a disease.   I strongly disapprove of it, but I won't get in someone's face and am quit willing to let others live their private lives as they wish even if the thought of what they do in private is totally revolting.  I can and do "make nice" with some homosexuals.
I hope homosexuality is eventually found to be curable.

Environmentalism:  Strike a balance.  Humans need room and so do animals.  It would be a non-issue if humans practiced restraint in breeding.  Two children per woman (two who survive to breed) is ideal.  It would be ideal to achieve zero population growth without any need for any drastic measures.    At current growth rates, our children may see a world that is overpopulated to the point where our consumption of all renewable resources outstrips our world's ability to regenerate them, and that would be almost the ultimate bad news.    I'd be happy to see the world's population decline in an orderly and non-violent fashion to about two billion, and stabilize there.


Welfare:   Every person should be able to get a helping hand when he's down, but it should be contingent upon him making a genuine effort to get up on his own.   Welfare and other related programs should be simultaneously compassionate and demanding.  One demand would be that those on it would be forbidden to breed while on welfare, to be enforced by use of a long term implanted contraceptive, as needed.   It'd be voluntary, but accepting it would be a non-negotiable requirement for obtaining relief.
Eventually, a welfare recipient would be given an ultimatum:  Accept a government job (probably manual labor, rebuilding roads or something) or get kicked off all relief, sink or swim.  In such a situation, your children would be taken from you and fostered until you demonstrated an ability to make an adequate living that can support those children.

Economics:  Start by nationalizing the Federal Reserve.  Our money is controlled mostly by foreign banking interests, which charge us interest to use our own money.   That's wrong.

Return to the gold standard, and after a suitable currency exchange period in which an old dollar equals a new dollar,  divorce the two currencies from each other, which would cause the old dollar to become virtually worthless.   With any luck, it's all been exchanged for new dollars anyway.

International affairs:  Start anew with everybody.   Conduct all affairs as pure business transactions, at least at first.  Always conduct these affairs with the utmost honesty and integrity,  and no more secrecy than is absolutely necessary for national security.  This should be good for our reputation, even with our enemies, who might reconsider their position when  confronted with absolutely fair treatment.
Allow no relationship with one country to affect our relationship with any other country, even if it is an enemy of the first one. Business first, alliances second, after careful evaluation of the relative benefits and disadvantages of such an alliance.

No preferential treatment to any other country.

No foreign aid to any other country when we have homeless people to deal with here first.  

Military:  Build the world's ultimate military, with ultimate equipment, constantly in training, always honed to a fine razor's edge.   The mere THREAT of sending in our troops should stop any other country dead in its tracks.


Those are some of my thoughts, attitudes, and opinons on various subjects, from personal to global in scale.

CJ

Quoted:
[b]Ahh, Belloc, allways can count on you for a good dose of FICTION. Which is what all that crap was.[/b]
In other words according to you an unborn child is not a human being. Well, at least you don't make pretensions to being decent, or even moral.

[b]A baby is not a baby untill it reaches the point it can survive seperated from its mother. Untll then it is part of the womans reproductive system.[/b]
No matter how you pro-aborts try to twist things you know that in the end the only recourse you have is to lie, as you have just done, again. Well, perhaps you are just that ignorant. Clearly anyone so morally and intellectually compromised they can actually write something as stupid as "a baby is not a baby" perhaps should be pitied. So what you are saying is that a century ago a baby was not a human being at 7-8 months because as often as not prebies did not survive "separated from it's mother". (and how very Naziesque your assertion that an "it's" can have a mother). But now that in rare cases prebies at early at 22 weeks have survived, for a period of time, separated from his/her mother, are you going to concede that this child is a human being? No, I thought not. And what happens when medical technology advances to the point where 9 week old unborn child can survive "separated from it's mother"? You can lie to yourself all you want but your life began when you were conceived. And since even a child that can survive "seperated" from his/her mother "it is [still] part of the womans reproductive system" (nice of you to call him or her an "it" again. You must really be charming in person, you know, with your whole "a baby is not a baby" thing and all) how can the child be any more or less deserving of the right to life?

[b]Coincidentally, that point is roughly about the same time that the English Common Law called the "quickening"-which is the point that the movement of the featus could be felt by the laying on of hands. About 28 weeks. After that time it was legally considered a child.[/b]
Oh, so what you are saying is that even you admit that after 28 weeks we are talking about a human child? Of course as medical knowledge increased as to how and when a pregnancy occurs those laws matched that scientific knowledge in protecting the unborn. You do know this right? As you must also know that Planned Parenthood was in fact co-founded by a Nazi. And that the Nazis and Communists were the first who removed the legal protections for the unborn.

"a baby is not a baby"?! Clearly "newspeak" is alive and well in the minds of today's ammoral, brain-dead, self centered, feminazi generation.

Quoted:
[b]Thanx, do you have an independent thought?[/b]
Well, yes, but I'm still waiting for a question not reflective of a grade school mentality.

[b]If life is sacred, and every life has value, killing anyone is wrong.[/b]
Not so. It has always been the Christian theological teaching that it can be just to take a life in self defense.

[b]No matter what the reasoning. An inmate that ACTUALLY serves a life sentence behind bars is no more threat to the general public than a dead inmate.[/b]
Again wrong. MANY a murder has been commited by those serving life in prison, even by those on death row.

[b]If all life is valuable then devalueing any life by killing, is wrong. Do you understand?[/b]
So it was wrong for the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto to resist with lethal force the very Nazis who were trying to put them on the trains to Auschwitz? Uh, right.

[b]People who say life is sacred are inconsitent when they turn around and make value judgements about the worthiness of another persons life by saying it is ok to kill that person.[/b]
You do realize that what you wrote here is only so much prattle.

[b]Stop with the buzz words.[/b]
After you stop with the inane drivel.


[b]Conservatives, and many Liberals have fought to keep birth control from being available as a covered medication on govt. medical assistance programs.[/b]
I would be very surprised to learn of any liberals who did as you claim. But if so more power to them. I'm rather certain the Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to hand out birth control.


[b]But, at the same time many demand that abortion be readily available, while others demand that tax money not be spent on abortion. Wouldn't it destroy both sides arguement if 95% of the abortions didn't happen, because of birth control?[/b]
Having a thing change in it's degree does nothing to add or detract from the merit of the issue.

[b]The answer is yes. The libs want ot to continue so they can say they support a woman's right to choice. Repubs want it like it is, so they can yell baby killer at the libs, while saying that they don't want the govt. paying for costly birth control.[/b]
Do you think before you type this crap? No, really. Do you think for a nanosecond, that maybe, just maybe, the Repubs don't think the government should spend ANYONE'S money on things that are CLEARLY unconstitutional?

[b]Meanwhile the dems, want more money for aid to poor children, and the repubs are saying that benefits shouldn't increase if people on welfare have more kids while on the dole. What would birth control as a prescrition med do to that little political football?[/b]
Gee, I don't know, go for two?
Oy.

[b]Yes the conservatives want the govt out of people' lives, no OSHA, minimum wage, etc. etc, but when it comes to sexual matters they ARE right in there.[/b]
How do you figure that bit of nonsense? What, because they think that 42 million dead and counting is not representative of "the better angles of our nature"? That they at least are willing to say that there has been enough bloodshed? That no more innocent unborn children should be tortured and killed?

As a pro-death penalty person, I think I can answer that one.  The people who are facing the death penalty were convicted by a jury. They have committed crimes.  The aborted fetuses have comitted no crimes beyond being conceived by someone who does not want them.

A better question is "why are all the Pro-aborttion soccer moms also anti self-defense.

DF,

Did you expect anything else? I've personally argued this whole topic probably around 50 times, and frankly, that is why I hesitate to do it again. Too much emotion, too little logic.

Anyway, thanks for the question.

Sooooo......pro-life types should guarantee cradle-to-grave social welfare for countless generations of state dependents in favor of abortion?  Sorry, but that would encourage and enable MORE unwanted pregnancies because it would remove the distasteful consequences of irresponsible sex.

See, pro-life types have these crazy notions of responsibility, accountability, and self-restraint.  Why should the tax payer pick up the costs of an irresponsible couple's pregnancy?