Exactly. Not only that, you'd be surprised how many people who are "pro-life" have no problem with an abortion for someone who was raped or incest...yet if it is murder, it is murder in that case as well.

That shows the degree emotion is involved in this topic. As I've said, I cannot supporting forcing women to have a child by legislation but I'm still very uneasy with the number of abortions in this country...I didn't take the time to do the math but easily over 40 million since "Roe"...that's a staggering total!

Precisely. To say someone who is in favor of abortion being legal doesn't mean they are not pro-life. I'm anti-abortion, but completely pro-choice. I absolutely will defend a woman's right to not have my opinion interfere in her life, and her choice of legal health care.

It reminds me of when Bush stuck his stupid, arrogant, government nose into Terry Schiavo's life. I am sick of this generally Republican attitude of thinking that the purpose of government is to control the lives, ethics and morals of others! Government has no business in such interference.

That is a tiny number (compared to what I expected)

Well stated. That is also known as "Big Government Takeover Of Individual Healthcare" ;)

It would be nice if some in our government wouldn't take away programs teaching sex education & birth control classes, and organizations that prevent pregnancy like Planned Parenthood.

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only should abortion be legal, it should be practiced more often.

According to Republican rants, Planned Parenthood is nothing but abortion clinics, this is obviously not the case but folks accept that nonsense as fact. I admit that it disturbs me that the most vocal critics of a woman's right to make her own decision are opposed to education in birth control and likewise offer few if any alternatives.

Since abortion = murder, would you then postulate:

"If you don't believe in murder, don't commit one?"

It doesn't quite sound the same, does it? :rolleyes:

Uh, how about self-control and preparation? They sell condoms at every pharmacy and convenience store these days. You can be good to go with a three minute delay and about $1 in cost.

Here's an answer until we get a full reversal of the lunacy of the "Roe v. Wade" decision: make the price of abortion high, around a half-million dollars for instance, with no taxpayer involvement. If you screw up, you can get a loan and eventually pay it off like a mortgage or a college education - both of which you'll probably never see. But it's amazing what responsibility emerges in an individual when there is a strong financial reason for it. "Unlimited abortions for free" under Obamacare is the exact opposite of the theoretical plan proposed above.

Just the pro-abortion crowd.

That's the same thing. Here's why:

1 sperm + 1 egg becomes 1 fertilized zygote (a singular human cell that has a distinctly different genetic code than the mother and the father).

That zygote will immediately begin the process of replicating and growing. Without interference it will eventually become a human infant in 9 months, which is why people invented the procedure of abortion in the first place.

This also leads to the inescapable scientific conclusion that life begins at conception based on:

the unique DNA, the immediate and sustained growth in volume and complexity, and the fact that prior to conception, no one organism can exist in two pieces.

Progression is:
Zygote -> Blastocyst -> Embryo -> Fetus -> Infant

As anyone knows who has seen CSI or the O.J. Simpson Trial, among other examples, a unique DNA series corresponds to a unique individual. If you find a DNA sample at a crime scene that does not match your current list of suspects, the correct conclusion is that you need to keep looking for a yet unknown individual.

So, unfortunately for the pro-abortion crowd, the fetus, by definition, is someone else's "body". Stating it again, in any human, all non-reproductive cells have 46 chromosomes (the bundles that DNA is arranged in), and, of those non-reproductive cells, all of them match the code of DNA in each other.

The two exceptions are
1) a pregnant female since the child in her womb has his/her own DNA series and
2) God forbid, a cancerous mutation in an adult of either sex.

The unique DNA, the "blueprint" for our construction, signals a unique individual. Legalisms will not obscure or circumvent that truth. Every abortion that has ever taken place was the taking of a life. Sometimes that might have been necessary to save a mother's life. But to whatever extent it was not necessary and was "chosen", it was a pre-meditated murder committed by the would-be mother with the doctor as an accessory.

You are wrong however it is a great cut and paste job.

Cut and paste from where? I assure the post is original.

Thanks for enumerating the points where my argument is misguided.

I think those girls are as sick as serial killers.

I'm pro nothing. I dont think abortion is a good thing but I cant tell anyone what to do with their own body. Rape, under 18, medical problems, go for it and it should be paid by healthcare.

If you are using abortion as a means of birth control it should break your bank account (cost tens of thousands) and you should have your tubes tied mandatory.

:tro:

I cant possibly believe that this statement is true.

Well, I don't know any better than you do what form ObamaCare will ultimately take if not repealed. But there are articles stating that it could happen.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....ding-has-begun

Even if there are no abortion-specific restrictions, I concede that there might be a lifetime cap on medical expenditure per patient in general, and that the abortions would be limited alongside other medical procedures in that way.

abortion should only be considered a health care problem if the woman was raped, under 18 or could die from complications from pregnancy.

If a woman gets pregnant and CHOOSES abortion, it should not be considered a health care problem, and she should pay big bucks out of her own pocket.

Also I dont really understand why we call it ObamaCare. I dont think Obama had any real input. Neither did the Senate since they just slipped it through in a shady way. It's really PelosiCare... which is much worse.

I'll sum it up quickly.

1. Abortion is legal. Your arguments are irrelevant because of this. The race is over and the claim of foul was disallowed by the stewards. Continued debate is a gross waste of taxpayer money.

So when Roe v Wade is overturned by a future Supreme Court, you're fine with that as well? Good.

Because it will be overturned, as it must be, since it is obvious that life begins at conception and the current sad state of affairs must be discontinued. The current liberal worshiping at the feet of the Warren Burger court notwithstanding, science is proving the legalism view obsolete.

This is akin to the Catholic Church sticking to their "Earth is at the center of the universe, and by extension the solar system" argument in the face of Galileo disproving that, and being excommunicated. It's laughable. Power and the force of law aside, if the law seems nonsensical, it calls the entire government role into question.

Abortion will again be illegal, as it should be, and this embarrassing and tragic episode, fatal to 40,000,000+ persons, will be over.

It won't be overturned. Remember before ROE Wade it was legal in some states. It will revert to a state's rights issue which quite frankly I don't have a problem with. Yes, I'm Pro-Choice, but I'm a big proponent of state's rights...and I myself would never have an abortion to the point where we didn't even have the test on our fetus at the time for Down's Syndrome. We both said if that's what we have, that's the way it is...but I don't represent everyone nor should I.

That's true regarding state's rights, and I also support state's rights and think that many issues currently under the federal umbrella do not need to be so.

But, I must point out, if life does begin at conception, abortion becomes synonomous with murder. Murder is outlawed everywhere in the United States at the local level, in addition to the state level in many cases.

When did laws prohibiting murder become anything less than absolute? We can't call the case for abortion a self-defense situation UNLESS the life of the mother is legitimately in jeopardy.

The main detrement to the Burger court decision is that it did not prove that life begins anywhere BUT conception. It argued viability, and an implied right to privacy that does not exist in the Constitution. Privacy and secrecy in covering up a crime of murder is no great virtue - in fact, we authorize wiretaps all the time to root out the terrorists and the mafia. The inescapable fact remains that life beginning at conception precludes morally any use of abortion - legal or not.

When you consider the Democratic Party's "Pro-Choice" stance, it was laughable that during the Bill Clinton 1992 and 1996 campaigns, the party asserted themselves as "the party for the children". Not the ones systematically destroyed through abortion.

You logic (nicely copied, well done) also leads to the "inescapable" conclusion that when you masturbate, you're committing murder (as life doesn't begin from non-life without a big bang)

Yes - and when are abortions done, Joey? At what point in the the above process?

If you value 40,000,000 lives so strongly, I strongly suggest you stop railing against any programs that help those in poverty, without jobs, public health, trying to defund Planned Parenthood, etc. You can't continue to pick and choose when you respect life as a "person", and when you do not. It appears that for many, respect and concern for "life" ends at birth.

Complete nonsense. Try reading it. It's already law. It's been law for a year. It's not speculation. There is no silly guessing "what form it could take" - the form is already law and is currently in effect.

There is no need to lie and "speculate" about the PPACA. It is concrete and done. You could read the actual law on the internet today, and note that it is specific within the law, in addition to the provisions of the Hyde Amendment, that no federal funds have been, or will be, used for abortion, either within the PPACA or without (Planned Parenthood for example).

Geeshus cripes, the facts drive some crazy. The far right wing fear machine is still attacking some imaginary, made-up enemy. They look beyond absurd.

You want "death panels"? Look at Arizona, where Gov. Jan Brewer removed state funding for transplants for those on state medical care, and two people have already died.

And that comment is the extent of your legally permitted involvement in other people's health and sex lives.

"Shady way"?- no. Sorry, that's completely false. I know someone mentioned "reconciliation" to you, and that's what you are referring to, but that was only done for some small portions of the bill afterwards that needed technical corrections.

The entire final bill was clearly posted in public in full for days prior to the vote, it was debated, and voted upon. There was nothing remotely shady about it.

It's really also RomneyCare, and Republicare - it has multiple provisions within it that the GOP have asked for and pushed for, past and present, and have historically strongly supported.

The GOP would be lauding themselves for their great historical achievement with this bill, if it wasn't completed during a democratically-controlled Congress under a Dem president.

Don't forget this bill has plenty of perks for private insurance companies. It's more "Republican" in provinance than "Democratic", when looking at what the parties have supported historically in the past.

Abortions performed at any point in the above process constitutes murder.

How about instead of abortion, people who can't afford to have children simply do not get pregnant in the first place? Why is that so unthinkable?

It is up to those individuals to exercise discipline and good planning in order to avoid the situation where an "unwanted pregnancy" occurs.

Not realistic.

In other words, you say you don't know, and also that you don't even care to learn, the technicalities of what you are discussing, even while you profess to offer "scientific" evidence, while simultaneously saying your personal opinion should determine the lives of others.

Sorry - making your mind up before hearing all available evidence is not scientific. Forming an opinion while denying factual evidence is not scientific. Forming an opinion, rather than letting the evidence direct you to a logical conclusion, is not scientific.

Abortion is legal. Get out of strangers uteruses and their private doctor-patient relationships. You and your proposed government have no business interfering in the most personal aspects of people's lives, and forcing people to have children. Women's uteruses and the years of their lives, and the lives of their family, are not yours to do with as you please. This isn't communist China.

So I should read it but the geniuses who passed it without reading it didn't have to? Brilliant.

You know full well that there will be continued legal wrangling to support abortion under the ObamaCare umbrella. The president's symbolic executive order is meaningless, and the ObamaCare advocates have stated that they don't think the Hyde amendment applies. Henry Waxman is on record as wanting to get abortion covered under this health care monstrosity.

It would not surprise me one bit that in this 2000+ page law that there is some poison pill that will somehow mandate that abortion be covered.

So spare me your condescension and B.S.

Fine. Then have the baby. Murder is not an option.

Yes, exactly. So why are you butting in and trying to make government control that?

If one is rabidly anti-abortion, I would would think it logical and helpful to promote, support and contribute to programs that teach exactly those things you outline, above. Planning, responsibility, etc. Why don't you?

Sorry for you, the logic is sound. Once the DNA sequence is formed at conception, growth begins. That individual, as fragile as he or she may be, may not be destroyed without a murder being committed.

The legal status is irrelevant to that position I have just stated. If Warren Burger and his court got it wrong in 1973, I am under no obligation to overlook what I know to be true in order to support that decision. Others may do so - I don't have to.

Far from interfering, I propose to reverse the 1973 decision and actually get the government out of personal reproductive issues, except for the fact that abortion will be correctly classified as a murderous act -- to be prevented, charged or sentenced in the same way as other murders are.

"Forcing people to have children" only happens where unprotected relations are involved. People always have the choice to determine what preventative measures they do (or don't) take. The consequences of their actions are to be borne (no pun intended) by them.

Who said I wasn't? Truly preventative measures (pre-conception) are something many people, including me, support. It's probably 90 something percent.

Who, exactly, out of all the Senators and Congressmen, are you referring to? Care to name specific names, please?

It was pretty hilarious recently when Michelle Bachmann started screaming about "secret funding" (that wasn't secret, nor a slush fund) Strangely, she was not embarrassed.

No, there won't. Because there's nothing in the PPACA that remotely provides for abortion.

What president's executive order are you talking about? :zz:

:zz: Who? Which advocates? Name names, and name their statements.

What crazy fact-bereft blog are you reading?

Yet it is not covered. That would take a change to the law, wouldn't it?

You'd think the rabid anti-abortion crowd would have found that during the past year, wouldn't they? They have not, because it does not exist.

No. You want to argue the healthcare law and abortion, YOU are responsible for knowing the facts and truth of the matter.

You want to come in blazing with false statements, don't get pissed when you are called out on it.

You are against defunding Planned Parenthood? You are against defunding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? You are against defunding sex education in schools?