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

[DoloresIbarruri]

Pale Rider, this is all very romantic and beautiful. It reminds me of the story of the baby Jesus when his alleged parents, "Mary" and "Joseph" couldn't find room "at the inn", so they stayed in a stable, where "Mary" gave birth to "Jesus", and the star shone above ... and blah blah blah blah blah.
Lovely.
No proof.
No basis in fact.
No scientific method.
I won't go bother again to go into the fact that those who call themselves pro-lifers have attributed to undeveloped human tissues all manner of souls and precious life importance. I will, however, say that those who call themselves pro-lifers are never this romantic-sounding, nor do they give a damn about how precious life is, when it comes to the death penalty, nor to denying welfare money to the families of hungry and homeless living children on the street.

Those who call themselves pro-lifers are pick-and-choose religious people, going through life assigning importance to that which they like and doesn't require any effort on their part.

Quote by: Pale RIder The thing is tripimolee, that how you choose to see a thing is completely irrelavent to what that thing actually is. You may see a zebra as a wierd horse with stripes, but how you choose to see it in no way changes the fact that it is a zebra. My "view" as you like to phrase it is scientific fact. I did not wake up one day and say that unborn children must be human with nothing to back me up and then go out and try and convince the world that my "view" was the right one. My view is nothing more than irrefutable scientific fact. It is the truth and frankly, I would have to be somewhat "off" in order to argue against it. It would be the same as trying to argue that the world is flat, or that the moon is made of cheese. Science, the real sort, as opposed to agenda driven science doesn't care one way or another whether unborns are human or hippos. Science is only interested in learning the truth. And the truth in this matter is that unborns are human from the moment of conception, and they are alive from the moment of their conception. That I accept the scientific fact does not make it my "view". It simply means that I accept the scientific fact. It is you, and most pro choicers, who ignore the facts in favor of a guilt alieviating story. Your "view" is not rooted in anything real. It is a fairy tale in which no one gets killed and everyone lives happily ever after. The fact that you can't "see" an early stage human for what it is is a failing on your part. Can you see a bent, trembling, white haired elder when you look into a crib at a sleeping child? The fact that you quite possibly can't has no relavence upon the fact that given time that child will indeed be elderly. When you see your grandparents, can you see the child that they once were? Has the thought ever occured to you to look, or consider the fact that they once were infants? The fact is tripimolee that you are you and you is all that you have ever been, and you is all that you will ever be. You can trace your life back to a singular moment in time. Go back one moment further and you would not exist. Your life began exactly then and it has stretched out in a line to this moment. And if you are lucky, it will stretch out to a distant future. But it stretches from its beginning to its end in a single line. You have undergone tremendous changes since your life began, and if you live long enough you will undergo even more. But you are human now, you have always been human, and you will always be human. That is simply the indisputable fact. If you gain some comfort in a lie that you have fabricated for yourself, then you must be shallow indeed.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri Pale Rider, this is all very romantic and beautiful. It reminds me of the story of the baby Jesus when his alleged parents, "Mary" and "Joseph" couldn't find room "at the inn", so they stayed in a stable, where "Mary" gave birth to "Jesus", and the star shone above ... and blah blah blah blah blah.

You find biological fact romantic and beautiful? Yeah, me to. NOT. You tell the story nicely, but I have not injected religion into this discussion in any way. I never do. It is always pro choicers who bring in religion. You guys do this when it is clear that you are not going to win the debate on the facts.

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri No proof. No basis in fact. No scientific method.

Perhaps you didn't actually read the content of my posts? Perhaps you couldn't bear to read the content of my posts. Here. I will repeat myself just for you.

Hunter Baker, Storming the Gates of Massive Cultural Investment: Reconsidering Roe in Light of Its Flawed Foundation and Undesirable Consequences, 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 35, 44–46 (2002) (noting that “[i]n reality, the question has long been answered” and “[a]ll metaphysical higgledy-piggledy simply creates a comforting sense of plausible deniability about when life begins”).

STEDMAN’S CONCISE MEDICAL DICTIONARY FOR THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS 143, 963
(John H. Dirckx, M.D., ed., 3rd ed. 1997) (defining “zygote” as “[t]he diploid cell resulting from union of a sperm and an ovum” and defining “cell” as “[t]he smallest unit of living structure capable of independent existence”) (emphasis added).

Interesting reading - Murphy S. Klasing, The Death of an Unborn Child: Jurisprudential Inconsistencies in Wrongful Death, Criminal Homicide, and Abortion Cases, 22 PEPP. L. REV. 933, 974 (1995) (quoting Clarke D. Forsythe, Homicide of the Unborn Child: The Born Alive Rule and Other Legal Anachronisms, 21 VAL. U. L. REV. 563, 608–09 (1987));

See also Nealis v. Baird, 996 P.2d 438, 453 (Okla. 1999) (“Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992); MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984); DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990);

LOUIS HELLMAN ET AL., WILLIAMS OBSTETRICS 199 (14th ed. 1971)); Baker, supra note 37, at 46 (noting that the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” (citing T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990));

Kelly J. Hollowell, Defining a Person Under the Fourteenth Amendment: A Constitutionally and Scientifically Based Analysis, 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 67, 86–92 (2001–2002) (examining the biological nature of unborn children and concluding that “human life begins at conception”);

Aaron Wagner, Comment, Texas Two-Step: Serving Up Fetal Rights by Side-Stepping Roe v. Wade Has Set the Table for Another Showdown on Fetal Personhood in Texas and Beyond, 32 TEX. TECH L. REV. 1085, 1141 (2001) (“[T]he scientific community is in agreement that a fetus is a human from the moment of conception.”).

Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”Klasing, supra note 39, at 974 (quoting E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977)).


French geneticist Dr. Jerome L. LeJeune testified before a United States Senate subcommittee in 1981: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”

Id. at 10 (statement of Dr. Jerome L. LeJeune, University Rene Descartes). Dr. LeJeune
further testified:

“But when does a person begin? I will try to give the most precise answer to that question actually available to science. Modern biology teaches us that ancestors are united to their progeny by a continuous material link, for it is from the fertilization of the female cell—the ovum—by the male cell—the spermatozoa—that a new member emerges.”

“Life has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning—the moment of its conception.”

“Even more impressive, during the maturation of the reproductive cells, the genetic information is reshuffled in so many ways that each conceptus receives an entirely original combination which has never occurred before and will never again. Each conceptus is unique and thus irreplaceable.”

“In his life capsule, the amniotic bag, the early being is just as viable as an astronaut on the Moon in his space suit. Refueling with vital fluids is required from the mother ship. ”

“At two months of age, the human being is less than one thumb’s length from the head to the rump. He would fit at ease in a nutshell, but everything is there—hands, feet, head, organs, brain—all are in place. His heart has been beating for a month already. Looking closely, you would see the palm creases, and a fortune teller would read the good adventure of that tiny person. With a good magnifier, the finger prints could be detected. Every document is available for a national identity card.”

That the “offspring of human parents cannot reasonably be considered to be [something] other than a human being” was also recognized by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324, 1325 (Mass. 1984).

“This] is the first time I have found myself having to argue the unarguable. I have never encountered in my reading of the scientific literature—long before I became concerned with abortion, euthanasia, and so on—anyone who has argued that life did not begin at the moment of conception or that it was not a human conception if it resulted from the fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm. As far as I know, there has been no argument about these matters.” The Human Life Bill, supra note 42, at 21 (statement of Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic).

Maybe you should look at some of the referenced titles. In several cases, the books are the standard text books for human development that all medical schools assign. Go to your local medical school and check out a few of them. You will find them chock full of facts, and scientific method, and you will also see that they state undeniably that a human is a human, and alive, from conception.

Now you can go and get some books that were written by doctors for the purpose of furthering the pro choice agenda, which will never be assigned as medical texts, as there is no "scientific method" to be found within them, and you will find them full of statements that defer scientific fact to philosophers and such, as if a philosopher would have a clue if he were looking in a microscope. Isn't it interesting that scientists with a pro choice agenda bow to gypsies and mystics for answers on life? The very answers that they already knew because they were in the textbooks they read while in school.

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri won't go bother again to go into the fact that those who call themselves pro-lifers have attributed to undeveloped human tissues all manner of souls and precious life importance. I will, however, say that those who call themselves pro-lifers are never this romantic-sounding, nor do they give a damn about how precious life is, when it comes to the death penalty, nor to denying welfare money to the families of hungry and homeless living children on the street.

You but you bothered anyway, didn't you? And as I have never done the things that you claim all pro lifers do, it must not be fact. Again, you aren't sticking to the scientific method.

I call myself a pro lifer and have never attributed a soul to anyone. I stick to the facts. Are you making a religious argument that an unborn doesn't have a soul? I would be ok with abortion if every woman sat before a jury and testified as to how the child that she carries deserves to be put to death. Murderers are put to death after decades of appeals before juries of their peers. Unborns are put to death on the word of one person with an emotional stake in the outcome. Hardly the "scientific method".

And following your logic, those hungry and homeless would be best put to death. They obviously aren't wanted, or loved, or convenient. So are you suggesting that they deserve the same fate as unwanted children?

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri Those who call themselves pro-lifers are pick-and-choose religious people, going through life assigning importance to that which they like and doesn't require any effort on their part.

It requires an effort on my part to be prepared to care for any child that I may have a hand in creating. It is you who want to go through life and pick and choose. I have noted already that those on the left use science to prove everything possible...global warming...creationism...that there is no God...that it is not the fault of criminals that they are criminals. All science all the time, till we get to this argument. Then you abandon science in favor of mysticism. And you say that we pick and choose. You are laughable, and shallow. Ever think of a career in stand up comedy?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: tripimollee oh, and also- i do view it as killing. It is killing a mass of cells in my body that I would rather not have there. And I am a good person, and I feel no guilt. Chew on that bone.

One other thing tripimollee, I just wanted to give you just a bit of fact regarding that "bundle of cells" that you would rather not have there. First off, you said that you had sex right after your period was over, and then there is the time required to pass before you begin to suspect that you are pregnant, then you said a couple of more weeks before you would have the abortion if you are pregnant so here is an accurate description of that "bundle of cells" that you can kill without guilt and remain a good person when you walk into family planning for your proceedure.

Its hands and feet are formed and have fingernails. Its fingerprints and footprints are present (a valid form of identification). All of its organs are complete and operating - heart, liver, digestive tract, brain, nervous system etc. Its sex can be determined visually. Its baby teeth have begun to form and it can turn its head and make facial expressions. At this point, it is highly responsive to stimuli. If its palms are touched, it will close its fingers. It has detectable brain waves. It can swallow, squint and stick out its tongue. In fact, its whole body, except its tongue, are sensitive to touch. Cartilage has already begun to calcify into bone. Its bone marrow is now producing blood cells,

This, tripimollee is not a "bundle of cells". This is a human being. And you can tell yourself that "good" people can kill this with no guilt because it is not a human till the cows come home but it will not make it true.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder It requires an effort on my part to be prepared to care for any child that I may have a hand in creating. It is you who want to go through life and pick and choose. I have noted already that those on the left use science to prove everything possible...global warming...creationism...that there is no God...that it is not the fault of criminals that they are criminals. All science all the time, till we get to this argument. Then you abandon science in favor of mysticism. And you say that we pick and choose. You are laughable, and shallow. Ever think of a career in stand up comedy?

Sorry. I didn't realize that you were not a religious person, but merely someone who, because he forces his woman to carry to term human tissue till it becomes a viable human, demands that every woman on the planet does as well. Most are indeed religious. Some, like you, are not religious (or claim not to be), but merely insist that others live their life according to their own personal philosophy, and when they do not, they are majorly peeved and call it a crime.

Your points have been made before by pro-lifers who are religious, and some who are not. There's absolutely nothing new in what you're stating. What is new is that you're trying to present it as if it were new. It's the same old thing: someone trying to force his own personal ideas upon the gender that has a uterus.

Your experts are interesting as any experts. In law, both sides are able to avail themselves of experts. Experts are many. If we choose to, we can take any side on anything by pulling experts out of our a**, there are so many and so varied. Michael Jackson has experts. Jeffrey Dahmer had experts. Experts are like butts.. everyone has one, or can. However, one thing does not change: that pro-lifers are attempting to force their own ideas upon the gender that has a uterus.

It would be lovely if pro-lifers would heed their penis AND stop trying to control my uterus. It'd be even nicer if pro-lfiers would employ some of that incredible energy they use to help still-dead human tissue, to instead help living children and adults who are hungry and suffering. Pro-lifers do not. Pro-lifers get a je ne sais quoi thrill out of fighting to pass laws to control women and what they may or may not do with their internal organs.

Me, I have access to health care, including abortion thank God, regardless of what truly messed up thing you pro-lifers might do, because I have the money to avail myself of it whereever there is freedom. The only females that will suffer will be those who are poor and unable to access true health care because it's not available to the poor. That is, women of color, white women with little education because they had to work from early on, women who are homeless, women who have a mental or physical disability or illness, etc. They will be forced to allow that tissue to go 9 months till it becomes a human infant.

I'm grateful for my freedom. In fact, I feel like kissing my bank books right now. In this country, only my bank books provide me with freedom.

[tripimollee]

Quote by: Pale RIder One other thing tripimollee, I just wanted to give you just a bit of fact regarding that "bundle of cells" that you would rather not have there. First off, you said that you had sex right after your period was over, and then there is the time required to pass before you begin to suspect that you are pregnant, then you said a couple of more weeks before you would have the abortion if you are pregnant so here is an accurate description of that "bundle of cells" that you can kill without guilt and remain a good person when you walk into family planning for your proceedure. Its hands and feet are formed and have fingernails. Its fingerprints and footprints are present (a valid form of identification). All of its organs are complete and operating - heart, liver, digestive tract, brain, nervous system etc. Its sex can be determined visually. Its baby teeth have begun to form and it can turn its head and make facial expressions. At this point, it is highly responsive to stimuli. If its palms are touched, it will close its fingers. It has detectable brain waves. It can swallow, squint and stick out its tongue. In fact, its whole body, except its tongue, are sensitive to touch. Cartilage has already begun to calcify into bone. Its bone marrow is now producing blood cells, This, tripimollee is not a "bundle of cells". This is a human being. And you can tell yourself that "good" people can kill this with no guilt because it is not a human till the cows come home but it will not make it true.

Do not ever tell me that I am not a good person because of what I choose to do with MY own body. DO NOT EVEN GO THERE. Secondly, I would only have been pregnant for less than 3 weeks- I had not missed a period but I began to spot. Therefore, the cells had not formed themselves into a child. Thirdly, if you want to call it killing, I'll play along with your little game and we will call it killing. We'll call it murder. That's the name of the game for this post, not abortion, murder. Ok. So if I decide, hey, I've got a baby growing inside of me, and I really can't afford to have it and this is an emergency, and its early enough in the pregnancy, and thus that I will get an abortion, I am going to get an abortion as long as I am able. I really do not care what you or anyone else thinks. Call me a bad person again, or a sociopath (again), you are not going to gain any control over my body or that of my unborn child. And neither will anyone else, ever. You can rant, and rave, and throw me your so called only right truth scientific facts, but the fact of the matter is that I am my own person. You are free to live your life, let me be free to live mine. And if living my life the way I want it includes aborting a growing life inside of me, so be it. I am a strong young woman and I find it just despicable that someone would want to take the rights to my body away from me. This should not even be an issue with men, as Dolores has said before. Why are YOU so goddamned concerned about MY body? Spend your time a bit more wisely. Join the peace corps. Go to Africa and see all the starving, dying children that could have been prevented. Go to your nearest city and buy a meal for a homeless person. Go help the tsunami victims if you're so concerned about humanity. It's like when you're a kid and you're at your grandmas, and they tell you to eat what you have first before you get more- work on the humans we have before you "help" the humans we don't.

[Pale RIder]

DoloresIbarruri - No actual rebuttal huh? Don't worry, I am neither surprised, nor dissappointed. Self righteous plattitudes do not an argument make.

By the way, I also don't think that your neighbor should be allowed to kill you for whatever reason that he should invent. Do you suppose that I am imposing my will on him as well? I am flattered that you believe that I have such power that I can personally impose my will on whoever I choose, but, alas, I can not. I can, however, support laws that I agree with, and oppose those that I do not. Roe survived by one questionable vote last time it was challenged. Next time it will fall. Then it will be up to state legislatures to deal with it and I doubt that abortion on demand would even pass in California. All polls show that a strong majority are opposed to abortion for any, or no reason.

I look forward to hearing your laments when it does fall.

By the way, I am religious, I just don't need to inject religion to win this argument.

[Pale RIder]

tripimollee - I could care less what you do with your body. It is the innocent child's body that I am concerned with. And the fact that it has had a week or two more or less to develop in no way negates its humanity, or its life. But you go right on believing that lie.

And what I do, or don't do for anyone has no bearing on the fact that killing unborn children is wrong and good people don't do it.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: tripimollee Do not ever tell me that I am not a good person because of what I choose to do with MY own body. DO NOT EVEN GO THERE. Secondly, I would only have been pregnant for less than 3 weeks- I had not missed a period but I began to spot. Therefore, the cells had not formed themselves into a child. Thirdly, if you want to call it killing, I'll play along with your little game and we will call it killing. We'll call it murder. That's the name of the game for this post, not abortion, murder. Ok. So if I decide, hey, I've got a baby growing inside of me, and I really can't afford to have it and this is an emergency, and its early enough in the pregnancy, and thus that I will get an abortion, I am going to get an abortion as long as I am able. I really do not care what you or anyone else thinks. Call me a bad person again, or a sociopath (again), you are not going to gain any control over my body or that of my unborn child. And neither will anyone else, ever. You can rant, and rave, and throw me your so called only right truth scientific facts, but the fact of the matter is that I am my own person. You are free to live your life, let me be free to live mine. And if living my life the way I want it includes aborting a growing life inside of me, so be it. I am a strong young woman and I find it just despicable that someone would want to take the rights to my body away from me. This should not even be an issue with men, as Dolores has said before. Why are YOU so goddamned concerned about MY body? Spend your time a bit more wisely. Join the peace corps. Go to Africa and see all the starving, dying children that could have been prevented. Go to your nearest city and buy a meal for a homeless person. Go help the tsunami victims if you're so concerned about humanity. It's like when you're a kid and you're at your grandmas, and they tell you to eat what you have first before you get more- work on the humans we have before you "help" the humans we don't.

Hear hear! I second that!

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder tripimollee - I could care less what you do with your body.

Incorrect. You are only interested in controlling her uterus, mine, and the uteri of all women. Period. End of story.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri Hear hear! I second that!

second what? empty, shallow, self righteous rants that don't even attempt to defend a point of view.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri Incorrect. You are only interested in controlling her uterus, mine, and the uteri of all women. Period. End of story.

Wrong. If I were interested in controlling you, then I might suggest that you be forced to come to a clinic and be impregnated. You have control of your own body use it how you will, but don't expect me to support you when you suggest that another human being should forfiet his or her life because of the irresponsibility of the parents.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder . By the way, I am religious, I just don't need to inject religion to win this argument.

I thought so. Religious are practically the only ones that are making an argument that the uterus must be controlled by law and that human tissue is a living human being. Sick, sick idea.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder Wrong. If I were interested in controlling you, then I might suggest that you be forced to come to a clinic and be impregnated. You have control of your own body use it how you will, but don't expect me to support you when you suggest that another human being should forfiet his or her life because of the irresponsibility of the parents.

You religious pro-lifers are doing exactly that. You're trying to legislate control of my internal organs. Sick idea.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder DoloresIbarruri - No actual rebuttal huh? Don't worry, I am neither surprised, nor dissappointed. Self righteous plattitudes do not an argument make. By the way, I also don't think that your neighbor should be allowed to kill you for whatever reason that he should invent. Do you suppose that I am imposing my will on him as well? I am flattered that you believe that I have such power that I can personally impose my will on whoever I choose, but, alas, I can not. I can, however, support laws that I agree with, and oppose those that I do not. Roe survived by one questionable vote last time it was challenged. Next time it will fall. Then it will be up to state legislatures to deal with it and I doubt that abortion on demand would even pass in California. All polls show that a strong majority are opposed to abortion for any, or no reason. I look forward to hearing your laments when it does fall. By the way, I am religious, I just don't need to inject religion to win this argument.

Wow. I see that you've now resorted to comparing me to a wad of human tissue. Nice.

As for the billion$ and tremendous energy exerted by you religious to try and promote your religious belief and turn them into legislation, as I said, they'll only affect poor women. They'll never affect women who can afford to travel to countries where there is freedom.

[Rave7pt0]

The issue that gets men involved, Tripimollee, the whether this unborn child is a human. It's not a matter of "It's definitely your body, but we are going to butt in," it's a matter of "It may not be your body, it may be another human being, so we need to protect that human if it is."

If it is another human person, you do not, under the law, have the right to kill that person, whether it's your child or not.

If it is a person, then you cannot kill that person on the basis that they will be a hardship later, which is responding to the arguments that we should deal with the starving children already out there. We should indeed deal with them, but we cannot kill innocent people in order to solve the problem. Yes, in some ways forcing births that the mother wants to abort lends itself to homeless children, but that is an issue that needs to be dealt with separately.



Now, listen Trip... I understand that you have a profound need to justify your past (to yourself), so that you can get on with your life. I won't judge you for the choices you made given the circumstances in which you made them. I do feel that your bias as a result of your needs is clouding your ability to be intellectually honest in this debate. If there is one advantage men have in this debate it’s the ability to consider the issue with the kind of cold logic that someone in your circumstance would find impossible.

I think you would be wise to not get so upset about people questioning you, when clearly this is a hot issue. I’m not asking you to be a punching bag, but try to take it easy, yeah?

[tripimollee]

Quote by: Pale RIder tripimollee - I could care less what you do with your body. It is the innocent child's body that I am concerned with. And the fact that it has had a week or two more or less to develop in no way negates its humanity, or its life. But you go right on believing that lie. And what I do, or don't do for anyone has no bearing on the fact that killing unborn children is wrong and good people don't do it.

you know what? I think I will go on with this little game, it is amusing me. Ok. So I "murder" my unborn children, and "lie" to myself...but can you tell me one GOOD reason why I should not have that control over my body? If I want to rid myself of something- a "child"- growing inside of me, the fact is that there is something growing inside of me and I want to get rid of it. If there was a tumor growing inside my head, I would want to get rid of it. Now, I am not comparing a child to a tumor in any negative way, merely observing that they both grow inside of you and partake of your personal resources. But the question is, even if I "lie" to myself and want to get rid of this growth inside of me, why should I not have that right to my own body?

[DoloresIbarruri]

Here's another little tidbit. The day males get to own the interior of women's bodies, I'm going to make damned sure I own the interior to theirs.

[tripimollee]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 The issue that gets men involved, Tripimollee, the whether this unborn child is a human. It's not a matter of "It's definitely your body, but we are going to butt in," it's a matter of "It may not be your body, it may be another human being, so we need to protect that human if it is." If it is another human person, you do not, under the law, have the right to kill that person, whether it's your child or not. If it is a person, then you cannot kill that person on the basis that they will be a hardship later, which is responding to the arguments that we should deal with the starving children already out there. We should indeed deal with them, but we cannot kill innocent people in order to solve the problem. Yes, in some ways forcing births that the mother wants to abort lends itself to homeless children, but that is an issue that needs to be dealt with separately. Now, listen Trip... I understand that you have a profound need to justify your past (to yourself), so that you can get on with your life. I won't judge you for the choices you made given the circumstances in which you made them. I do feel that your bias as a result of your needs is clouding your ability to be intellectually honest in this debate. If there is one advantage men have in this debate it’s the ability to consider the issue with the kind of cold logic that someone in your circumstance would find impossible. I think you would be wise to not get so upset about people questioning you, when clearly this is a hot issue. I’m not asking you to be a punching bag, but try to take it easy, yeah?

My Dear Rave,

This man is fighting to take away MY rights and I am supposed to take it easy? Women all OVER the world are punching bags already, literally AND figuratively. Cold logic and science are not always the best things to resort to when you are dealing with something as inevitably emotional as abortion. Some women could not live with themselves if they HAD an abortion; I am cool with that. I don't force my opinions on anyone else. I, however, could not live with myself if I DIDN'T have the abortion and then gave the child up for adoption. I would go insane, especially if it was because I had been forced. I don't think men would like it if women forced them to give up the rights to their reproductive systems, and said something like "No, vasectomies are outlawed." Something tells me that wouldn't fly. Leave the business of my body and anything or anyone growing in it to ME.

[tripimollee]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri Here's another little tidbit. The day males get to own the interior of women's bodies, I'm going to make damned sure I own the interior to theirs.

The day they take away abortion, they better ALL get vasectomies!

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: tripimollee The day they take away abortion, they better ALL get vasectomies!

I couldn't agree more. What the F is this controlling of women's bodies, when men are completely free to do as they wish with theirs? Is this some futuristic women-as-slave world they're trying to design? F*cked up!