Excellent article by Joe Sobran on abortion, its supports, the shifting arguments, and how the "Mighty" Supreme Court helped them.

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran234.html[/url]

I have stayed out of these abortion arguments for a reason:

I don't think anything that anyone says will ever sway someone from their position. I think it is a function of who a person is. I think it is a part of their core values, and core values are very hard to change, barring some sort of epiphany.

So let me give you my views.

2+2=4. I know this to be true. I can't tell you the exact point in my life when this became clear to me. I can't tell you what thought processes allowed me to accept the truth of this statement. I would have a very hard time explaining the truth of this to someone with no mathematical understanding whatsoever. Nevertheleless, I know it to be true.

Murder, rape, robbery, theft are wrong. I know this to be true. I can't tell you the exact point in my life when this became clear to me. I can't tell you what thought processes allowed me to accept the truth of this statement. I would have a very hard time explaining the truth of this to someone with no moral understanding whatsoever. Nevertheleless, I know it to be true.

Abortion is wrong. It is murder. I know this to be true. I can't tell you the exact point in my life when this became clear to me. I can't tell you what thought processes allowed me to accept the truth of this statement. I would have a very hard time explaining the truth of this to someone with no moral understanding whatsoever. Nevertheleless, I know it to be true.

There are certain things which I believe are absolute. That abortion is murder is one of those things. I do not care to debate it. You will never change my mind, and I am highly doubtful that anything I could say would change yours.

If you do not accept the truth that abortion is the murder of an unborn child, I can only hope that one day, you will have an epiphany, and you will realize the truth.

And that's all GovtThug has to say about that.

the SCOTUS invented a "right" to abortion just like it invented the "right" to privacy

What kills me is these morons say they abort only "unwanted" or "unplanned" babies. I learned in 5th grade   sex=babies   If these chodes don't want kids, don't have sex. Mabye i'm being too simple? Don't do the crime, if you don't wanna do the time.

But it's perfectly ok to abort all the liberals and anti-gun babies. J/K

In order to add balance to this thread, I am a full on supporter of abortion.  No limits.  The right of choice by a woman about her body is absolute IMHO.

mickeymouse, at what point does the "fetus" have a right to make choices about their body?

Do you support capital punishment or the killing of another in self-defense?  Are these things murder?

[b]MickeyMouse[/b], Do you or any other abortion-supporters ("pro-choice") people remember the old adage:

"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

In exerting your right to do with your body as you choose, you have no right to injure any other body - no matter how physically close they are to you (especially if you INVITE the other body to stand as physically close to you as possible).

[b]Mickeymouse[/b] Is it my right to practice my roundhouse kicks against your head?

Yes. No.

Do you support my right to do with my body as I choose, regardless of whether it physically injures another human?

Just wondered if we're distinguishing between "killing" and "murder".  I agree, they're not the same thing.  We're so often quick to take a life (and to rationalize it even more quickly), but not consistent in our regard for the sanctity of life.



No.  But, what's a human (a "person")?  That's the crux of the issue for me... tough question to answer.  Is it the second egg and sperm unite, or somewhere into gestation?  

Or, as I argued before, somewhere around the time you get a driver's license and establish credit. [:)]

It is not a "fact" that a fetus is a human being like it is a fact that 2+2=4. If I thought aborting a fetus was murder I would be fanatical, maybe violent in my opposition to it. The fact is that people who oppose abortion are making a leap of faith and believe that a potential human being is the same thing as an actual human being.

http://www.abortiontv.com/ForbiddenPicture.htm
would you say this was a human being or just tissue?

More like the moment you purchase your first evil rifle.

Does a 10/22 count?  

My first gun.  Bought it at 18 and still have it.  It'll be my son's first gun.

Ditto... though I'll have to pass it on to my daughter.

What a surprise, MM stands in jackbooted lock step with Hitlery Clinton and Barbra Boxer.  


"..Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.
Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now."
Joseph Sobran
From "How Tyranny Came to America"


"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

Don't brain waves make it a thinking being?

Brain waves occur something like 5 weeks out.

This is why it is both dangerous and stupid to let the government run schools. They don't teach anything.

[i]fetus[/i]: Latin for child.



[b]When does the [HUMAN] 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.

That is before "3 months".

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

Also before "3 months".

[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."

Also before "3 months".

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

"8 weeks" is before "3 months".


[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."

Again, bofore "3 months".

[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 and perhaps earlier. 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).



I will add to this the comment posted by hielo:
[b]jeez, my 1 year old wouldn't dodge a hot plate, and for the first month of his life, he couldn't roll off his back.

Nice propoganda, but that is all it is.[/b]


to which I challenged him:
Oh, really? Put your 1 year olds hand on a hot plate and if he does not pull it away I will send you $100.



He still has not responded. And let us not forget that ARlady does not think that anyone has an absolute rigth "to keep and bear arms" because according to her there are no absolute [i.e. inalienable] rights period.

One question. How is Partial Birth and Late Term Abortion a have anything to do with a Woman's Body ? I am talking about the ones when the Fetus is viable and could live even after removed. Instead, the doctor either lets the baby die by not rendering medical help or kills it by sticking a needle in it's head and removing its brain while holding it just so slightly in that it isn't legally murder.

At the minimum, this has nothing to do with the woman's body. Killing the baby isn't a right of the woman. It especially is not anybody's tright to suck out a Baby's brains so it will come out stillborn.

This is the rights issue. A woman has a right to her body. But, when the practice of that right results in injury or death, then such person must be punished. This is like owning a gun. YOu should be able to own a gun if you wish and have any gun you want. But, if you screw up and somebody gets hurt or killed because you were careless (Unsafe Sex), then you should be punished.

By this I mean...If a woman wishes to have sex it is her right. But, if her carelessness results in a pregnancy, then she has no right to cause harm to that baby. The only reason she looses the right is becuase there is human life at stake. Nobody has the right to take a life, except to save another life.

To me, life begins at birth.  Not a human life  until born and able to survive outside of mom.  Even then, if severly deformed I have no problem with never slapping its bottom to cause that first breath.  My opinion and a strongly held one I will not consider changing.

To equate my strong support for choice in the abortion debate to my opinion on the right to bear arms is wrong.  I am as pro 2nd as anyone here.  I am pro constitution, including those parts I may not like.  I respect the opinion of the Supreme Court even though I may disagree with some of it's decisions (Miller comes to mind).

I find the attempt of nut cases to attempt to impose their will on others through force, lawlessness, murder and intimidation unacceptable.  They are entitled to their opinion until they attempt to impose Catholic dogma on the rest of us.  It is my right to disagree with them, oppose any attempt to legislate their version of morality on others.  I find the opposition to abortion about the same as the excesses of moslems against women, the Taliban in particular.

Flame all you like, I have a right to my opinion as you do yours.  My morality is comfortable to me and is between me and God.

I'm curious about your logic and thought process.



So a premie (sp?) baby that needs life support isn't a human?

What is your definition of "able to survive"?  No human babies can survive without the support of others.  They are helpless.

What is so special about leaving the mother that "makes me a human"?  I am not human until I leave the womb?  If I push the baby in and out of the womb, can I play the [i]"human.  not human.  human.  not human........"[/i] game?

What about when technology allows us to remove a viable fetus at 1 week old and finish cooking it in an incubator?  At what point are you willing to call that a "human"?



I used to be pretty strongly pro-choice as well, but times, circumstances, education and critical thinking have changed my view 180 degrees.

I don't hold any pretentions of swaying your opinion, but I would expect you to openly listen to opposing views and apply critical thinking to what you hear.  To do less would be a disservice to yourself.  No one knows it all.

Quoted:
[b]To me, life begins at birth.[/b]
In other words, he, like his liberal gun grabbing cohorts, support the brutal torturous savagery that is partial birth abortion.

[b]Not a human life  until born and able to survive outside of mom.  Even then, if severely deformed I have no problem with never slapping its bottom to cause that first breath.[/b]
In other words, just like the Nazi party, MM believes deformed children are "life unworthy of life."


[b]My opinion and a strongly held one I will not consider changing.[/b]
Yes, the Nazis were gassing Jews right up till the end also.

[b]I respect the opinion of the Supreme Court.[/b]
In other words when the Supreme Court gave it's stamp of approval on slavery, or when the courts in Nazi Germany OK genocide, MM would "respect" those decisions also. Guess that means if Gore wins in 2004 and puts 2 libs on the high Court and they decide there is no Second Amendment right to private firearms than he will "respect" that too.

[b]I find the attempt of nut cases to attempt to impose their will on others through force, lawlessness, murder and intimidation unacceptable.[/b]
In other words he would have been against the Founding Fathers and their revolution. Also, he would not support the lawless sit-ins of the civil rights era.


[b]They are entitled to their opinion until they attempt to impose Catholic dogma on the rest of us.[/b]
Yes, let us examine what the Catholic Church has had to say on the issue:

"If you allow abortion in the first trimester it is a foregone conclusion you will soon allow it in the second."

Yep that happened.

"If you allow abortion in the second trimester you will soon allow it in the third.'

They got that one right too.

"Once you have done this you will allow it in the  last stages of pregnancy, even in the final hours."

Bull's-eye on that call.

"Once you have excused the murder of unborn children at any time during pregnancy, than you will excuse the murder of helpless new born children that you deem not fit to live."

See MM's comments above.


[b]It is my right to disagree with them, oppose any attempt to legislate their version of morality on others.[/b]
Like murder, or rape, or slavery, right?

[b]I find the opposition to abortion about the same as the excesses of moslems against women, the Taliban in particular.[/b]
But only because, like your ideological liberal cohorts Barbra Boxer and Diane Feinstein, you're an idiot.

[b]My morality is comfortable to me and is between me and God.[/b]
Well that also was the sentiment of the Nazis on trial at Nuremburg, that they had done their duty for God and country. And like you, they were idiots, and they were wrong.

I guess in the end it comes down to three choices.

1. Do you agree with Alan Keyes, Ronald Reagan, William Bennett, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and so on.

or

2. Do you agree with Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Barbra Boxer, Diane Feinstein and Al Gore, and Rosie O'Donnel.

or

3. You believe Hillary and Rosie are right sometimes while Alan Keyes and Antonin Scalia are right other times.

I suppose in our neurotic brain dead society it is possible for morons to delude themselves into thinking that ANY of the ideology of Rosie and Hillary and the Chinese Communist party could in a million years be good for liberty and for the United States.

Pop quiz.
Among the industrialized nations who were the first to do away with the laws that protected the life of the unborn?

Give yourself 10 points if you said the Communists and the Nazis.

Who founded Planned Parenthood?

Give yourself another 5 points if you said Margaret Sanger and another 5 if you knew she was a racist Nazi.

Why don't you ever see the National Organization of Butchers using images of Susan B. Anthony (a true fighter for women's rights) in their literature?

Give yourself 15 points if you said because she was pro-life.

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

Okay, [b]ludwig[/b] here's the FACTS:

1) Who's heartbeat is going 160beats/min in the uterus? The fetus' - not the woman's.
2) Who's blood type is flowing through the fetus? The fetus' - not the woman's.
3) Who's fingerprints are formed on the hands of the fetus? The fetus' - not the woman's
4) Who's brain, liver, muscles and endocrine glands are all functioning in the uterus?The fetus'.
5) Who's feet are kicking the woman in the belly? The fetus.
6) Who's hiccuping in the uterus? The fetus.
7) Who's eyes are now opening to see in the uterus? The fetus'.
8) Who's ears are in the uterus hearing and responding to muffled noises from outside? The fetus'.
9) Who's body is ripped apart and flushed into a pail during an abortion? The fetus'.
11) Who senses the excruciating pain of dismemberment during an abortion? The fetus.
12) Who is killed during an abortion? The fetus.

All this happens before the 21st week of pregnancy - when abortion-on-demand is still legal.  The second & third trimester abortions are even more monsterous.

I teach Anatomy & Physiology at the College/University level. I hope you've become a little bit more knowledgeable about abortion now.

Class dismissed.

Mouse,
OK...

I agree with you about the imposition of will.  I greatly disagree with you in your attempt to liken those who are against abortion to the Taliban.  That has no basis in fact and appears to be an attempt on your part to put any who disagree with you in a very unfavorable position...even before this discussion gets underway.  Not appropriate.

Secondly, I am in no way trying to change your opinion...but don't assume you can figure mine out...'cause it might surprise you.

No flaming intended here...rather a Socratic Q&A session...if you are of a mind.  The sarcasm level is a minimum here.

Are you a parent?  If so, have you been present at the birth of your child[ren]?

When, during the birthing process do you believe that the adults surrounding and assisting the soon-to-be-mother lose the [legal?] ability to "terminate" the life of the baby...if ever?  That is not a trick question.  I am really interested.  Is is when the head emerges...or possibly when the feet are out.  (Babies often begin yelling and respirating on their own before they are fully out of their mother.)

Are you aware of the sentient nature of the baby and how soon after conception that baby does begin sensing things around it?  These are discussed in great detail earlier...just wondered if you buy into that?

Are you aware of the actual details of the different types of abortions?  Would you be willing to be witness to one?

Do you believe that persons born with certain types of physical & mental disabilities...say Down's syndrom for example, should be terminated at birth?  If not...where would you draw the line?  In other words, by what criteria would you order the death of a newborn?

Let's for a minute consider the "rights" involved here.  We discuss with great zeal the rights of a woman to decide to have an abortion or not.  Who is responsible, if anyone, to decide about the "rights" of the unborn baby to live or die?  Do babies have rights?  If so, by what code or social dogma are they conferred upon the infant?  If so, whom is to watch out for the infant?

Finally...a bit of my own babble:  I think Nietzsche would love the way American (And Socialist European) society is dealing with the (Dare I say "ultimate") solution of abortion.  We do seem to have attained a certain comfort with social Darwinism and nihilism as described by Nietzsche.  "God is dead...replaced by the ubermenschen, that is...the Superman.  If it sounds a bit old...but somewhat familiar...it was a pillar of the Hitlerian philosophy and the Nazi Party.  This helped them to easily do what they felt was "right" for their society.  (Sidebar:  Was Nietzsche pissed off at the Church because he was a homosexual?)

Infanticide has been around since before man quite living in caves.  The critical question for any modern, moralistic, "progressive" society that wishes to perpetuate its existance, is how should it deal with this issue.

So...how should we deal with unwanted babies?
Remember...flame turned off.

[>:/]

YOU'RE KIDDING...RIGHT?

(Now way...I can't believe that...even for that f**ked up place.  Somebody please tell me it ain't true.)

[shock]

Belloc, while I disagree with you and have no respect for you, I tried to remain civil.  You, on the other hand, seem unable to do so.  




[b]Yes, I do!![/b]  

What connection does that have to my opinion on RKBA?  I disagree strongly with you on abortion but have not questioned you on RKBA.  

As you spout the Catholic BS on the subject of birth control and abortion can I assume you are a cohort of the priests who shit pack little boys?




[b]Yes again![/b]
Hitler WAS wrong on many things but not ALL things!


So?  I see no connection.  In other threads here you will find me a strong supporter of the Jews.  Check for yourself.

I wrote:  "I respect the opinion of the Supreme Court."


In your case, Belloc, slavery should have continued as you are unable to form a rational thought!!  IMHO the court WAS right with that decision at that time.  They later reversed that opinion.  All great nations have practiced slavery.  

The actions of Nazi courts were not part of OUR constitution and carried no legal weight here.  Therefore of no interest in this discussion.

As for the court finding against the 2nd, that is a different case.  The 2nd is written into the BOR and is pretty clear.  For the Supreme Court to try and ignore or change it is in direct violation to the constitution, making it null and void.  I will join the revolution that is likely to result and defend the CONSTITUTION as written.  Once again, a feeble attempt to tie RKBA to an unrelated topic.

I wrote:  "I find the attempt of nut cases to attempt to impose their will on others through force, lawlessness, murder and intimidation unacceptable."



The founding fathers were not NUT CASES.  You, Belloc, ARE!  Yes, some of the tactics of lawless negroes were and are unacceptable.  The "civil rights era" went too far and has caused great damage.  I suspect had we shot a few more of them, YOU would never been born!

I wrote:  "They are entitled to their opinion until they attempt to impose Catholic dogma on the rest of us."

The Catholic church has always thought itself above all other churches, even other devout Christians.  I do not.  Their opinions on birth control and abortion are out of touch with reality.  While they may teach these things to their members they have no right to try and IMPOSE them on me!  Just as their priests have no right to impose their homosexuality on the choir boys!  Just as the Taliban and ALL OTHER THEOCRACIES been totalitarian so would be the Catholic church if we allowed it.  In the past, they have been exactly that.

I wrote:  "It is my right to disagree with them, oppose any attempt to legislate their version of morality on others."



Nowhere did the Bible mention abortion, but it DID mention murder and rape.  Slavery was not condemed yet you, Belloc, do so.  Do you think yourself superior to the writers of the Bible?  I don't!!  All great nations have, at one time, practiced slavery.  

I wrote:  "I find the opposition to abortion about the same as the excesses of moslems against women, the Taliban in particular."



Theocracy is in my opinion EVIL.  No matter the religion that practices it.

I do not fully support either far left or far right ideology.  As for who is an idiot, I will consider the source of that comment and just ignore it.  I note you did not mention Sharpton, Farrakan And Jesse Jackass who are also rather liberal BLACK RACIST SCUM.  Your reason?

I wrote:  "My morality is comfortable to me and is between me and God."



I see no relation to the events in Germany.  Those men DID have the strength of their convictions and some gave their life for them.  Something I hope you get the opportunity to do.  Were they right in their actions during the war?  Not in my opinion, no.  Therefore we agree, they were wrong.  But I do respect their standing for what they believed and not using double speak like modern politicians to dodge the issue and save their skins.  Idiots they were not, nor am I.  You are, however, a jackass.

Belloc, I would have a battle of wits with you but would feel guilty for attacking an unarmed man.

Lwilde, fair enough.

Mouse,
OK...

I agree with you about the imposition of will. I greatly disagree with you in your attempt to liken those who are against abortion to the Taliban. That has no basis in fact and appears to be an attempt on your part to put any who disagree with you in a very unfavorable position...even before this discussion gets underway. Not appropriate.

[b]I think it IS the same thing.  Not an attempt to be inflamatory or stiffle dissent.  Rather, I consider the abortion debate to be a religious one and the anti-choice position as originating with the Catholic church.  They have controlled a theocracy in the past and still try to do so.  I consider theocracy EVIL no matter the religion that controls it, even my own.[/b]

Secondly, I am in no way trying to change your opinion...but don't assume you can figure mine out...'cause it might surprise you.

No flaming intended here...rather a Socratic Q&A session...if you are of a mind. The sarcasm level is a minimum here.

Are you a parent? If so, have you been present at the birth of your child[ren]?

[b]Yes and yes.[/b]

When, during the birthing process do you believe that the adults surrounding and assisting the soon-to-be-mother lose the [legal?] ability to "terminate" the life of the baby...if ever? That is not a trick question. I am really interested. Is is when the head emerges...or possibly when the feet are out. (Babies often begin yelling and respirating on their own before they are fully out of their mother.)
[b]When they breath on their own and the cord is cut.[/b]

Are you aware of the sentient nature of the baby and how soon after conception that baby does begin sensing things around it? These are discussed in great detail earlier...just wondered if you buy into that?
[b]It is of no import to me in this discussion.[/b]

Are you aware of the actual details of the different types of abortions? Would you be willing to be witness to one?
[b]I would not particularly be interested in witnessing ANY operation.  Your point is to inject emotion into the argument and the aversion to blood many people have.  YOUR attempt to do what you accused me of on the Taliban comment.[/b]

Do you believe that persons born with certain types of physical & mental disabilities...say Down's syndrom for example, should be terminated at birth?  
[b] YES![/b]  

(continued)
If not...where would you draw the line? In other words, by what criteria would you order the death of a newborn?
[b]A most difficult criteria I must admit.  Mental retardation, severe premature delivery, serious physical deformity.  Whole other thread I suspect.[/b]

Let's for a minute consider the "rights" involved here. We discuss with great zeal the rights of a woman to decide to have an abortion or not. Who is responsible, if anyone, to decide about the "rights" of the unborn baby to live or die? Do babies have rights? If so, by what code or social dogma are they conferred upon the infant? If so, whom is to watch out for the infant?
[b]No rights before birth.  Otherwise the woman is the  slave to the fetus, a non-person IMHO.  We have determined slavery to be unaceptable.  Another idea that deserves its own discussion independent of this one.[/b]


Infanticide has been around since before man quite living in caves. The critical question for any modern, moralistic, "progressive" society that wishes to perpetuate its existance, is how should it deal with this issue.
[b]Survival of the species is of the highest priority.  That survival is partialy dependent on continued evolution rather that the opposite.  To continue to encourage reproduction in excess numbers and of those individuals that will only produce defective offspring will in time destroy mankind.[/b]

So...how should we deal with unwanted babies?
[b]Better birth control is certainly in order.  More access to abortion free of the nutcases like Belloc maybe via over the counter drugs is a good idea.  The new laws of "three days to abandon them" to a hospital or other entity is long overdue.[/b]

Remember...flame turned off.
[b]No flame intended.[/b]

While this position holds merit, it does so only with men. Do you really think such accordance would have worked with Dr. Joseph Mengele. And if you think I am wrong when comparing MM with Mengele I give you this:

Posted by Belloc
[b]In other words, he, like his liberal gun grabbing cohorts, support the brutal torturous savagery that is partial birth abortion.[/b]

Posted by MM
[b]yes[/b]

posted by Belloc
[b]In other words, just like the Nazi party, MM believes deformed children are "life unworthy of life."[/b]

reply by MM
[b]Yes, in killing deformed children Hitler was right[/b]

Posted by Belloc
[b]So MM you believe the Supreme Court decided correctly in saying it was right to own other human beings[/b]

reply by MM
[b]IMHO the court WAS right with that decision[/b]

Then we have this little gem.
posted by MM
[b]Yes, some of the tactics of lawless negroes were and are unacceptable.. I suspect had we shot a few more of them, YOU would never been born![/b]


If you think someone like this would make a good "friend" than you have my condolences.

MM, you are sick.

My brother was born handicapped and not breathing. According to you, he should have been killed, right ? Well, the doctors got him breathing and he spent several months in the hospital running up exepensive medical bills. He could not have survived w/o constant medical attention. But, several months later, he came home. Granted, he is blind and only has partial use of the right side of his body...but, he feels was as scentient the day he was born as he is today. Would you then say that it would be OK to kill him since he is deformed. If you answer yes, then you need some professional help.

How do you defend Partial Birth Abortion ? A fetus in a partial birth abortion is fully capable of surviving outside the mother as long as he is fed, etc...just like any other baby. That is why, they suck the fetus's brain out so that it is stillborn. This is a sickening practice that has been banned by several states. Florida tried it a few years ago and some wacko federal judge in another state struck it down.

How do you defend late term abortion ? A fetus after a certain amount of time is "viable" meaning it could survive outside the mother if it had appropriate medical attention. Louisiana has a good law on this. Any doctor who fails to give medical attention to a baby who comes out alive, resulting in the baby's death can be imprisoned at hard labor. We need this law across America.

The most reasonable action would be to:

1) Ban doctors from sucking out a fetus's brain or otherwise killing it before it comes out. This would mean that partial-birth abortions would become regular (albeit unnatural) births of a living, breathing baby.

2) Require any doctor who delivers a baby to gove proper medical attention to keep it alive. This would mean if a child is aborted, but comes out alive that such child would have to be given medical attention to save its life.

3) Ban abortion advertising in public as Louisiana has done. Public Advertising makes women feel that abortion is appropriate. Women could still easily find a doctor if necessary.

4) Require Abortionists to properly and fully inform a woman of all her options including adoption, etc...

5) Get rid of this crap allowing teens to have an abortion w/o their parent's knowledge. This would blow the reason for abortion for teens. Many teens have abortions so that their parents don't know they had unsafe sex and got pregnant. In fact, teens shouldn't be able to get an abortion except in cases of life and death. We do not consider teens old enough to vote, drink, own guns, drive (under 16), or have sex in the first place...so, why should we allow them to make a decision as important as abortion...especially w/o their parent's knowledge.

On a side note: The common notion that abortion was illegal before Roe v. Wade is false. Prior to Roe v. Wade, states had the choice whether to allow abortion on demand or not. And, in all 50 states a woman could get an abortion if her life was at risk from the pregnancy. The only people who got back-street abortions were teens and women who had unsafe sex and didn't want their parents/husband/boyfriend to know..because then they would have to face the consequences of their actions.

I saw a good sign several years ago in Clyde (Haywood County), North Carolina that read something along the lines of "Only half the people who enter an abortion clinic leave alive." Garandshooter (if you see this), is the sign still there (near the Wal-Mart in Clyde/Waynesboro) ?

posted by LWilde
[b]Do you believe that persons born with certain types of physical & mental disabilities...say Down's syndrom for example, should be terminated at birth?[/b]

reply by MM
[b]Yes[/b]


In other words those poor children who to not measure up to MM's standard should be murdered.

I work in the with the Maryland Chapter of the Special Olympics and MM thinks that all those children that I coach and who run and play and laugh should have been slaughterd. Please, don't tell me not to equate this worthless piece of thrash with the Nazis.

Posted by LWilde
[b]Are you aware of the sentient nature of the baby and how soon after conception that baby does begin sensing things around it? These are discussed in great detail earlier...just wondered if you buy into that?[/b]

reply by MM
[b]It is of no import to me in this discussion.[/b]

In other words and by his own admission, it is not "import" to MM that the unborn child feels pain and suffering when being aborted. But what the heck, all you have to do is torture to death a few unborn children here, murder some handicapped children there and while you're at it shoot a few uppity "negroes" to boot and you have MM.

We'd deal with it like any other blackmarket involving serious bodily harm to innocent children, like...
* blackmarkets where junkies sell their kids for drug money, or...
* blackmarkets where babies are kidnapped for sale over the border, or...
* the blackmarket in using children for pedophilia, or...
* the blackmarket in child prostitution.

Why do you have a such a fear of standing up for the rights of children - especially the unborn?

Abortion for convienence is just as vile as any other self-centered vicious killing of innocent life.  It's just less "public" as setting a bomb in a day-care center.
*************************************************************

As an aside, I've heard many "pro-choice" defenses and they all fall under just a few classes:

[b]1) "It's not a [u]human[/u]."[/b] (i.e. "I don't know human biology.")
[b]2) "It's the mother's choice."[/b] (i.e. "I still don't know human biology.")
[b]3) "It's been upheld by the SCOTUS so it's the law of the land."[/b] (i.e. "SCOTUS is like the Pope; I can't think for myself; and I've never heard of Dred Scott either.")
[b]4) "What will we do with the new blackmarket-abortions if legalized-abortion is banned?"[/b] (i.e. "I admit it - I'm simply afraid to enforce laws against murder.")

If there's ANY other defense on the "pro-choice" side that has any REAL merit - I'd be glad to hear it.

Belloc, do you know how damn stupid you look when you alter items quoted to modify what you or I have said after the fact?  Go ahead - it only helps prove my point!!!!!



cc48510



At birth, yes.



Untrue.  The skull is collaped to easy delivery of the fetus and prevent injury or death to the mother.  More unrealistic exageration and lies by the anti-choice crowd,  Same as the anti-gun crowd.



Easily.  Life begins at BIRTH.


Loisiana is out of touch with the ruling of the Supreme Court and is likely to be overturned.  The sooner the better.




To borrow your above line but add MY thinking:

ENCOURAGE abortion advertising. Public advertising makes women feel that abortion is appropriate as they should.

Require churches to properly and fully inform a woman of all her options including abortion.

The yin and the yang.  
For every fine meal, there's the rotten shits.
For every Joan of Arc, there's a Jeffery Dahmer.
For every Jonas Salk, there's a Joseph Mengle.
For every Mother Teresa there's a [b]MickeyMouse[/b].

As evil as you're sounding [b]MickeyMouse[/b], you're living proof there must be heaven because you're making life here a hell on earth.