If you are against Abortion, why are there......

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri I've provided you with quotes from Hitler himself as well as his legislation passed to prohibit abortion (as well as outlaw homosexuality). Margaret Sanger has nothing to do with writing books re the Third Reich. The information is there for you to peruse. As I said in my previous quote, Hitler was pretty much the father of your current pro-life movement. AND he was Christian. Would you like me to re-post the Hitler quotes and the data regarding his legislation prohibiting abortion?

I am sorry, what was the title of that legislation? Where is it encoded in german law? Can you give me a link, or a bibliographical reference to where I can read the actual legislation...or better yet, a translated version?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri You're misinformed. The removal of testicles is completely permissible. Transsexuals do it all the time, legally, and in hospitals in the U.S. Once again I repeat. Others should not have control over your testicles or my uterus. Legislation plays no part in that and should never play a part in that.

Transexuals have a medically diagnosable condition. They jump through numerous hoops and unergo extensive psychological testing before the proceedure is allowed. The removal of their testicles is a valid medical proceedure. Again, do you not have any fact to support any position that you hold? Do you just go through life dispensing your opinions, not knowing whether they are valid or not, and with little if any care for information that demonstrates that they are wrong?

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder I am sorry, what was the title of that legislation? Where is it encoded in german law? Can you give me a link, or a bibliographical reference to where I can read the actual legislation...or better yet, a translated version?

I'm glad to re-post it here for you. Here you are:

RE-POST:

Quote:
Quote by: Pale RIder

And as to nazism, hitler was a big pro choice guy. In fact, in hitler's germany it was aboriton on demand paid for by the sate. If you are going to argue this subject, it would behoove you to actually learn something before you start. I can understand how you would avoid it because it is very difficult to do actual research and still hold an indefensible position, but none the less, if you actually know something, at least you can "sound" intelligent.


Ummmm.... NOT.

Hitler was an anti-choicer, just like you. In fact, he was the father of the "right to life" movement:

"On May 26, 1933, two pieces of penal legislation . . . prohibit[ed] the availability of abortion facilities and services, . . . resulting in a 65 percent increase in yearly convictions between 1932 and 1938, when their number reached almost 7,000. From 1935 on, doctors and midwives were obliged to notify the regional State Health Office of every miscarriage. Women's names and addresses were then handed over to the police, who investigated the cases suspected of actually being abortions. In 1936 Heinrich Himmler, head of all police forces and the SS, established the Reich's Central Agency for the Struggle Against Homosexuality and Abortion, and in 1943, after three years of preparation by the Ministries of the Interior and of Justice, the law entitled Protection of Marriage, Family, Motherhood called for the death penalty in 'extreme cases'."

What's more, Hitler's Third Reich sounds remarkably like the right wingers of today:

'As German women saw their legal rights in the public sphere restricted there were also government organizations established to control sexuality and reproduction. The National Socialists attacked the Magnus Hirschfeld's Institute for Sexual Science that advocated "less rigid sexual identities" as this ran contrary to Third Reich belief.' 19
'The link between sexual behaviour and the control of female reproduction is evident with the establishment of the Reich's Central Agency for the Struggle Against Homosexuality and Abortion by the Gestapo Chief, Heinrich Himmler.' 20

(Bridenthal, Biology, 276.
Smith, Lives, 466. )

He was also a Christian.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at
last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for
the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand
years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever
before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood
upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be
cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I
have also a duty to my own people." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12
April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April
1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press,
1942)

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own
altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the
heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its
apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute
presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very
first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always
and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence
which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering
and uncertain." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder Transexuals have a medically diagnosable condition. They jump through numerous hoops and unergo extensive psychological testing before the proceedure is allowed. The removal of their testicles is a valid medical proceedure. Again, do you not have any fact to support any position that you hold? Do you just go through life dispensing your opinions, not knowing whether they are valid or not, and with little if any care for information that demonstrates that they are wrong?

Removal of testicles is permitted in the U.S. You have a choice as to removal of your testicles. Doesn't mean a doctor might agree. Male doctors particularly have a serious problem with removing testicles. Again, the only issue in here is domain over one's own organs. That's the only issue.

[syracusa]

I wonder whether the so-called pro-lifers can accept the REALITY (yes, 100% scientific fact!!!) that abortions will continue to happen. If you can't accept this reality, you are officially and unequivocally sick in the mind. And I mean at a really bad level.

THEY WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN:

- with or without a law.
- with or without Roe.
- with or without Wade.
- with or without twisted minds who consider unaware cells more important than the suffering of a walking, talking and thinking human being.
-with or without the cell resulted from egg and sperm being scientifically recongized as "HUMAN". (This is not even the point...it's not like people who choose to have an abortion think that they are getting rid of "dog cells"; yes, they are HUMAN cells - and yet they are just cells. They are not a person. PROBLEMS???).
-with or without Rehnquist.
-with or without red states gone schizophrenic.

ABORTIONS WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN!

All of you pro-lifers out there, remember this and repeat it in your minds until your brain starts to thaw. Humans will alawys find a way to maximize happiness in their lives while minimizing pain and hardship. Always! This is how they were designed by whoever created them.

I understand that some species of humans (such as the fundamentalist protestants) are masochistic sickos who believe life is supposed to be about enduring and hardship; and while they're at it, they love to force everyone else to go through life by enduring and suffering.

However, science (yes, that GD sciene that you love to exploit and twist in a spot that does not even require science to back it up, only human WILL and DECISION! ).... has proven over and over again that it is natural for most humans to simply seek the maximization of happiness and the minimization of pain and hardship.
FACT! FACT! FACT! SCIENTIFIC FACT!!!!!!
(Don't you love it when someone screams "SCIENTIFIC FACT" at you like this?)

Therefore abortions will continue to happen, because sometimes a "ooops" pregnancy mean pain and hardship in the life of the mother or the couple. They will avoi it because they were created to have access to their own bodies, before anyone else has access to it!

In the privacy of people's home, in bathrooms, during a trip to a non-schizophrenic country - ABORTIONS WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. Whether Rhenquist drops dead or not - they will continue to happen.

Are these pro-lifers capabale of grasping this reality (yes, SCIENTIFIC FACT, 100%!!)??

What are they really going to achieve by attaching a "crime" label to this act?
By enslaving women, by brainwashing them into thinking that they are "criminals" if they decide to get rid of cells growing inside their own bodies? (Yes - HUMAN cells!!!! We established that. So what if they are HUMAN???; Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant! Before being "human", they are unthinking, unware, non-self-sustaining cells... about to fuck up a walking and talking person's life on Earth!!!! ).

Actually there is an answer for this, backed up by history from all places where such enormity like illegal abortion has been in place:

Many of the vulnerable with low IQ-s or indoctrinated brains will allow the cells to grow every time and finish their development. Either because they will not afford the trip outside the country or the private doctor at home, or simply because they will be easily brainwashed into believing that if they do have the abortion, they would be committing a horrible sin. Others will die (both the mother and the fetus) trying to regain control over their body and their life.

Everyone else with two brain cells to rub together and anchored in reality will do what they have to do.They will have the abortion anyway and will NOT be caught becasue there is no way to police women day and night, in the privacy of their homes. One of the nastiest dictators tried this and he still did not manage to catch most women who were having a pregnancy terminated in the privacy of their homes To get there you would have to bring this nation to a whole new level of Talibanism.

FACT, FACT, FACT!

20 years into the glorious time of return to illegal abortions - what will have the schizoprenics accomplished?

- Higher rate of death for women because of illegal abortions.

- A desperate pool of unemployed workers with little skill - granted that most of these unaborted fetuses (now young workers) will be coming from families of modest background; the "non-modest" ones will have made sure to control their family size even when a "ooops" pregnanacy happened.

- A higher crime rate. It is a FACT that most criminals come from poor backgrounds. Make abortion unavailable to the poor, on the contrary, teach them that it is OK to have as many children as "God gives them". The future generation of non-aborted fetuses will rise and strike. It's just a fact of life that the poor and the desperate strike. PERIOD.
It'll be nice. Make sure to build as many prisons as you can possibly cope with.

- But yes...there is one final thing that will be beautifully accomplished for the rulers and the higher-ups. As voyager pointed out, there will be the new generation of desperate young people (the former non-aborted fetuses)...desperate enough to enroll in the Army in large numbers ...so that the rulers have enough live human meat to go to wars with.
No more recruiting problems, no more shortage of soldiers for Iraq. Or Syria. Or France!!! Myabe even China...if we make sure people F*** often enough and are brainwashed enough to NEVER consider an abortion...we COULD EVEN CONQUER CHINA!!!!
Yeeeey! Long live the RED STATES!!!!!!

The irony of it all is that such people believe they are going to Heaven. They fail to see the attrocities they stand for - and yet, in their sick minds, they are going to Heaven. Somehow, someway.

My husband always says that he would pay absolutely ANYTHING to be there at the gates of Heaven when these sickos show up and get ready to enter ...in their eternal "righteousness". To see God redirecting them to that place where they truly belong: DOWN AND UNDER - and to see the expression of horror on their faces.
That would be Nirvana and then some.

"Oooops - we were just a little twisted in our sicko minds and we accidentally confused goodness of heart with following some dark, rigid and scientific rules. We were a little too busy playing with the etimology of the word 'human' and its "scientific" implications".

Have fun in that dark place when times comes. As a spiritual person this is all I can say.
As for atheists, feel free to continue to feed these people's insanity with irrelevant points about what's "scientific" and what's not, talking in dry language and dry logics - ...and see how many millenia will take you to "scientifically" agree on whether the cells are "human" or not.

This debate cannot be solved with "science". In fact it has never been a real issue simply becasue the "issue" was always solved in the first place. The "issue" is only in people's minds. In action, things are like they've always been and they will stay the same.

Peope have done what they had to do and will always do what they have to do.
It is their God-given right to have access to their own bodies. Nothing "scientifically debatable" here. Even if you locked all women in prison, impregnated them there and then forced them to give birth to those children - they could still make those cells stop from developing. You can only control SO MANY people's minds. When this fails to work 100%, you'd have to resort to physical force.

And even THEN youl could not claim 100% victory. If there's anything to discuss here...it is the spiritual dimension of the whole thing, not whether those cells have been "scientifically" proven to be "human" or not.

POINT MISSED by most "debaters" here, over and over and over again.

THIS IS NOT A DEBATABLE ISSUE!

[Rave7pt0]

Well, you've assumed incorrectly what I'd be upset about someone "controlling" my testicles.

If I could do something with my testicles that was (or POTENTIALLY was) the direct cause of an innocent human being's death, I would expect that it would be legislated, even under my libertarian "do what you want to do until it affects me" belief system.

The point I keep reiterating, and the point you keep ignoring (which is very frustrating) is that the fetus MIGHT be a living human, so we DON'T KNOW if abortion is murder or not. If I could become pregnant, abortion would not be an option for me. It's not because I think it's murder. It's because I don't know if it is or not.

Since I don't know, there are two possibilities: It is murder, or it is not murder.

If it is murder, then your whole "internal organs" tirade has no bearing on anything. It's murder -- of a separate, discrete, human person-- and that's illegal, and immoral.

If it is not murder, then there's no problem. Abort away...

We just don't know. Some people claim to know: Pro Life most often cites religion, Pro Choice is mostly those who have been involved in abortions or think they may, and who need to justify their actions. People defending their agenda never get to the bottom of debates.

But let me share this with you... my wife had an abortion almost 2 decades ago. She thought the same thing you think right now. It's a lump of cells, and it was her body and her choice. A few years later it ate her alive... how could she have been to selfish? How could she have been so blind? She asked herself, how she could have murdered her own child? I've watched a young, self-righteous, pro-choice woman, regret her "choice," and acknowledge to herself what exactly she did that day. I just don't want to see that happen to anyone else.

edit to s:

You failed to even mention whether maximizing happiness (also known as Hedonism, a popular ethic among the under educated, but almost indefensible in real philosophical debates) is the right thing to do, or whether maximizing that hapiness by killing another human being is right or not.

You just said that people are going to do it because they are self interested. I think that's a fair paraphrase of what you said.

Yes, you're right. Certain people are going to have abortions whether it's legal or not, because they are self interested, and seek to maximize their personal happiness.

Now reread your post, and tell me what the difference is (edited for applicability):

I wonder whether the so-called anti-rapers can accept the REALITY (yes, 100% scientific fact!!!) that rapes will continue to happen. If you can't accept this reality, you are officially and unequivocally sick in the mind. And I mean at a really bad level. RAPES WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN: - with or without a law. - with or without twisted minds who consider consent more important than the sexual suffering of a walking, talking and thinking rapist. -with or without Rehnquist. -with or without red states gone schizophrenic. RAPES WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN! All of you anti-rapers out there, remember this and repeat it in your minds until your brain starts to thaw. Humans will alawys find a way to maximize happiness in their lives while minimizing pain and hardship. Always! This is how they were designed by whoever created them. I understand that some species of humans (such as the fundamentalist protestants) are masochistic sickos who believe life is supposed to be about enduring and hardship; and while they're at it, they love to force everyone else to go through life by enduring and suffering. However, science (yes, that GD sciene that you love to exploit and twist in a spot that does not even require science to back it up, only human WILL and DECISION! ).... has proven over and over again that it is natural for most humans to simply seek the maximization of happiness and the minimization of pain and hardship. FACT! FACT! FACT! SCIENTIFIC FACT!!!!!! (Don't you love it when someone screams "SCIENTIFIC FACT" at you like this?) Therefore rapes will continue to happen, because sometimes abstaining from sex with parties who haven't consented puts pain and hardship in the life of the rapist. In the privacy of people's home, in bathrooms, during a trip to a non-schizophrenic country - RAPES WILL CONTINUE HAPPEN. Whether Rhenquist drops dead or not - they will continue to happen. Are these anti-rapers capabale of grasping this reality (yes, SCIENTIFIC FACT, 100%!!)?? What are they really going to achieve by attaching a "crime" label to this act? By enslaving rapists, by brainwashing them into thinking that they are "criminals" if they decide to get a little sexual frustration out? ...

I don't think I need to continue that... my point is that we are concerned about it, because abortion is potentially murder, and we don't allow murder whether "people are going to do anyway" or not. We don't allow murder, rape, theft, or any of the things that some people do to maximize happiness. That's the issue here, not whether you have control of your own body. Clearly you do. The question is whether you have control over your child's body as well.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: syracusa I wonder whether the so-called pro-lifers can accept the REALITY (yes, 100% scientific fact!!!) that abortions will continue to happen...... THEY WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN: - with or without a law. - with or without Roe. - with or without Wade. - with or without twisted minds who consider unaware cells more important than the suffering of a walking, talking and thinking human being. -with or without the cell resulted from egg and sperm being scientifically recongized as "HUMAN". (This is not even the point...it's not like people who choose to have an abortion think that they are getting rid of "dog cells"; yes, they are HUMAN cells - and yet they are just cells. They are not a person. PROBLEMS???). -with or without Rehnquist. -with or without red states gone schizophrenic. ABORTIONS WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN! ......... THIS IS NOT A DEBATABLE ISSUE!

^^^^^^ What she said.

My uterus and the uterus of other women is not a debatable issue. My organs are not for sale. My organs are not up for adoption. I've not given up my right to my organs. My internal organs are mine, and I will do with them whatever I want, just as Rave and all the other anti-choice males do whatever the hell they want with their internal organs.

[syracusa]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 If I could become pregnant, abortion would not be an option for me. It's not because I think it's murder. It's because I don't know if it is or not.

Good point Rave! Can you repeat this again for me? And I mean over and over again?

"Abortion would not be an option for me. It's not because I think it's murder. It's because I don't know if it is or not."

For me. It is "me" who doesn't know.
For me. It is "me" who doesn't know! ....
It is "me" who is in doubt. It is "me" who" should be free to NOT have an abortion.

Say that again until it sinks in for everyone.

I applaud your libertarian view and I applaud your decision to NOT have an abortion.
You should have the liberty to follow this decision, based on your judegement, your feelings, your beliefs, your view of science, your view of spirituality. WHATEVER.

Now get your libertarian hands off of my ovaries, my uterus and everything else in that zone. Thank you.

[Rave7pt0]

Please read my reply in my previous post (it is an edit).

I was trying to be tactful, sy, by saying "I don't know." It was meant to illustrate that you don't know either. No one does.

And whether I believe it is murder or I do not believe it is murder has no bearing on whether it actually IS murder or not. My point is that no one knows whether it is, therefore it MIGHT BE, therefore we SHOULDN'T DO IT until we have more information.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 Well, you've assumed incorrectly what I'd be upset about someone "controlling" my testicles. If I could do something with my testicles that was (or POTENTIALLY was) the direct cause of an innocent human being's death, I would expect that it would be legislated, even under my libertarian "do what you want to do until it affects me" belief system. The point I keep reiterating, and the point you keep ignoring (which is very frustrating) is that the fetus MIGHT be a living human,

I'm sorry. I just realized I hadn't explained things fully to you. Let me see if I can make it clearer.

Let's say someone were about to choke me to death. If I were able to slit his throat, I will do so. I feel the same sort of thinking applies to anti-choice religious beliefs and actions against my body. Let me explain. The anti-choice attempt to gain control of my uterus is a physical threat to me, and any attempt to carry out that control of my uterus will only result in me trying to kill whoever is trying to gain control my uterus. It's a physical threat. It's an attempt to hurt me physically. My uterus is inside me, it's mine, and I will kill to protect it from other people, as it is mine and my property, and part of me, and totally completely mine and for no one else. Was that clear? Gee, I hope so.

That being said, let me say something that will make things gel in your mind about this entire issue once and for all. If you were inside my uterus, or 10 people were inside my uterus, or an entire nation were inside my uterus, it would matter to me not one iota to remove all of you, causing your deaths. I would easily kill you, the 10, and the nation to save my uterus, because it is my uterus, totally mine and for me and part of me. So you see, my uterus is mine. Given that it's mine, I will do whatsoever I want to do with it, regardless of what you think.

The really good thing about this is that you will not end up inside my uterus, nor will 10 people, nor will a nation. What might end up inside my uterus, will be limited to a deadish clump of cells that survives only because of my blood supply and no other reason. That's nothing that can be called "killed" if I remove it.

Now believe me when I tell you that if I would kill you should you be inside my uterus, to protect my uterus, I would remove a clump of mere cells in the blink of an eye.

Gee, I hope that was clear. Was it? Or would you like me to explain it one more time?

Let me say it one more time: my uterus is mine.

[tripimollee]

Quote by: Pale RIder Which explains why you got knocked up by a guy whom you are not in a comitted relationship with and are preparing to kill an innocent human being. Yep. wonderful job. What do you do for an encore? Pull the wings off of some butterflies? Poison some kittens? Get knocked up again so you can kill another one?

As I have said, I do not wish to debate with someone who has nothing better than ad hominems to throw at me. I agree with chris- this discussion between us is finished.

[syracusa]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 It was meant to illustrate that you don't know either.

Would you be so kind as to abstain from making statements about what I KNOW and what I DON'T?

I know what is best for me and those cells, a possible future child of mine. I know it is better for a future child of mine not to be born at all than be born under dire, unfavorable circumstances where I would be able to do nothing to offer him/her the prospect for an accepable, dignified life.
I know it is better for a future child of mine not to be born at all then be born and take away resources, time, parental availability and so many other crucial aspects from the other children I may already have - to a point where all of them would be set on a disadvantaged life trajectory and none would have anything to win - all would lose.

And I would definitely want my future child not to born at all than be forced to become live human meat in some ruler's egomaniac war, for lack of other perspective in life.

I, of course, don't know all these things about yours. This would be your decision to make. If you think your child would gain from a life under ANY circumstances, this is your philosophy, your worldview and then sure...you are perfectly free to allow such a life to happen and give birth to that child - based on your philosophy.

But I will make my decision, with or without you thinking to know what "I know".

See...things are in fact extremely simple. No matter how many philosophical debates and laws people were to come up with, individual mothers (and fathers) will make their own individual decisions, case by case. Again, law or no law.

THIS - no one can change. And EVERYBODY KNOWS it is so.

[syracusa]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri My uterus is inside me, it's mine, and I will kill to protect it from other people, as it is mine and my property, and part of me, and totally completely mine and for no one else. Was that clear? Gee, I hope so.

That was funny. The "Gee, I hope so part". You made me LOL.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: syracusa That was funny. The "Gee, I hope so part". You made me LOL.

ROFLMAO!

I'm a very hopeful sort of woman, even when it comes to tactile learners.

[syracusa]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri ROFLMAO!

OK...what does this stand for? Use PM if you have to, you made me curious.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: tripimollee As I have said, I do not wish to debate with someone who has nothing better than ad hominems to throw at me. I agree with chris- this discussion between us is finished.

Be gentle with Rave. He has a very small shoe size. :)

[syracusa]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri I'm sorry. I just realized I hadn't explained things fully to you. Let me see if I can make it clearer. Let's say someone were about to choke me to death. If I were able to slit his throat, I will do so. I feel the same sort of thinking applies to anti-choice religious beliefs and actions against my body. Let me explain. The anti-choice attempt to gain control of my uterus is a physical threat to me, and any attempt to carry out that control of my uterus will only result in me trying to kill whoever is trying to gain control my uterus. It's a physical threat. It's an attempt to hurt me physically. My uterus is inside me, it's mine, and I will kill to protect it from other people, as it is mine and my property, and part of me, and totally completely mine and for no one else. Was that clear? Gee, I hope so. That being said, let me say something that will make things gel in your mind about this entire issue once and for all. If you were inside my uterus, or 10 people were inside my uterus, or an entire nation were inside my uterus, it would matter to me not one iota to remove all of you, causing your deaths. I would easily kill you, the 10, and the nation to save my uterus, because it is my uterus, totally mine and for me and part of me. So you see, my uterus is mine. Given that it's mine, I will do whatsoever I want to do with it, regardless of what you think. The really good thing about this is that you will not end up inside my uterus, nor will 10 people, nor will a nation. What might end up inside my uterus, will be limited to a deadish clump of cells that survives only because of my blood supply and no other reason. That's nothing that can be called "killed" if I remove it. Now believe me when I tell you that if I would kill you should you be inside my uterus, to protect my uterus, I would remove a clump of mere cells in the blink of an eye. Gee, I hope that was clear. Was it? Or would you like me to explain it one more time? Let me say it one more time: my uterus is mine.

Yeap. You're patient.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: syracusa OK...what does this stand for? Use PM if you have to, you made me curious.

ROFLMAO means "Rolling on the floor laughing my arse off"

[syracusa]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri ROFLMAO means "Rolling on the floor laughing my arse off"

Like this, right?

[syracusa]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 Well, you've assumed incorrectly what I'd be upset about someone "controlling" my testicles. If I could do something with my testicles that was (or POTENTIALLY was) the direct cause of an innocent human being's death, I would expect that it would be legislated, even under my libertarian "do what you want to do until it affects me" belief system. The point I keep reiterating, and the point you keep ignoring (which is very frustrating) is that the fetus MIGHT be a living human, so we DON'T KNOW if abortion is murder or not. If I could become pregnant, abortion would not be an option for me. It's not because I think it's murder. It's because I don't know if it is or not. Since I don't know, there are two possibilities: It is murder, or it is not murder. If it is murder, then your whole "internal organs" tirade has no bearing on anything. It's murder -- of a separate, discrete, human person-- and that's illegal, and immoral. If it is not murder, then there's no problem. Abort away... We just don't know. Some people claim to know: Pro Life most often cites religion, Pro Choice is mostly those who have been involved in abortions or think they may, and who need to justify their actions. People defending their agenda never get to the bottom of debates. But let me share this with you... my wife had an abortion almost 2 decades ago. She thought the same thing you think right now. It's a lump of cells, and it was her body and her choice. A few years later it ate her alive... how could she have been to selfish? How could she have been so blind? She asked herself, how she could have murdered her own child? I've watched a young, self-righteous, pro-choice