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?