This first sentence is really what it's all about. Imposing punishment and guilt for having the same sexual freedom as a man.

Suppose I decide to go and tan on the beach and end up with skin cancer. Would you tell me that I cannot access treatment because I knew the risks and tanned anyway? After all, no one forced me to lay out in the sun. I did know where skin cancer came from. I created it and it has a right to grow in my body.



Why should I be forced to? Because some stranger that has no idea or responsibility or even concern for the outcome, thinks a mass of cells is more important than I am?



Maybe with a better combination I would have ended up with longer legs or better hair? Maybe my life would have been better because she would have wait until she was mature enough to be a good mother? Maybe, I would have completely different parents, which, in my case would have been a good thing.

If my mother had decided to get rid of me her life may have turned out better and I would have never known the difference.



Really? Have you ever had an epidural? I have.
What about a C-section? And your idea of what a 'real woman' is should have no baring on my decision to do something as important as having a child.

So bascically you would kill a living human in order to avoid discomfort?

That irque's me. Mainly because it's true, for the most part. Men need to take responsibility along with the woman. There shouldn't be any kind of "sexual freedom" Both parties involved in the act (exceptions apply, of course) should take responsibility should a pregnancy occur.



That isn't an accurate metaphor. I mean, by that logic you are saying that a fetus is the equivelant of cancer.

Oh, and turnea, bear in mind there is a difference between killing and murder. murder is punishable, while killing might not be. you can step on an ant, which would kill it. Is that illegal? nope. I guess what you have to ask yourself whether you are killing a fetus or murdering a human. At this point, through reading various posts and coming to certain realizations, I'm not sure that I can make that distinction anymore, I'll leave that up to you.

How is that different than reducing a woman to the equivelant of an incubator?

Um.. I could answer that on so many levels, but I won't cuz I never claimed women were the equivelent of incubators. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it sounds like you have a problem with a woman's role in the reproductive cycle. I hope I'm wrong.

Having an abortion might be a little "discomforting" too. Also, my point about what if you're mother decided to give you up YOU wouldn't be here to voice your opinion on who has the right to live. And the skin cancer thing, not a good metaphor at all, you are comparing a child to a disease. And Fr0sty is right, both parties should take responsibility, sexual freedom is a whole different debate though.

It is not a different debate at all. When the argument is made that 'a woman shouldn't spread her legs' unless she is willing to have a baby they are most certainly related.

When a pregnancy occurs because a woman was denied birth control access or information it is sexual freedom is part of the issue.

I don't mean to sound heartless or clinical but a woman does not automatically bond with her fetal tissue. On the contrary if the pregnancy is truely unwanted she is more likely to feel it resemblense a disease than a person. Do you think she will love it while it's being forced to grow inside of her or are you just hoping that might happen?

Without my body it will never result in anything at all. I am the one who must decide whether to sustain it, birth it, raise it or give it away based on my individual circumstances. You are free to do the same.



Who does the umbilical cord belong too? Not that this makes a major difference to any of my points but it seems to mean a great deal to you.



Forcing women to utilize unsafe means to control their reproduction has deadly results.



Said by someone who will not have to endure the pain.

And if I die in childbirth or the baby dies during delivery because the umbilical cord is wrapped around it's neck, and I didn't want to give birth in the first place it's all worth it, right?



It is obvious to me that it is not whole...I'm sure you are just as convinced that it is.



Yes, we've covered this. An individual fetus can never be survive on it's own because it is not equiped. An infant is equiped, a child, an adult is equiped or has at some point been equiped. Embryo's and fetus's will never be. It must be kept under specialized conditions for that to ever occur.

Every single pregnancy (wanted or unwanted) is a life altering experience in every aspect for every woman...it effects her in physical, psychological, financial, and all other personal ways. Who are YOU to decide the fetus is worth more than someone elses wife, sister, mother or whatever?


It has never actually lived in any real sense.

1. You have still not addressed the fact that the fetus' dependancy has no bearing on its humanity.

2. Exactly how is an infant equpped to survive on it's own?

3. How does something live in an unreal sense?

4. The umbilcal cord is maternal tissue, I believe (I may have to look it up later) the embryo and mother do not share any blood vesels or tissue.

Human life is the most important thing laws can protect, even more important than freedom in many cases. We are not free to murder nor should we be.

Exactly my point.

I would like to spend more time on your last posts but it requires more thought than I can give it while I'm working...so I will follow up tonight.

In the mean time...do you agree with:

Forcing a crack addict to continue her pregnancy. Add the fact that she is black or hispanic making any adoption more difficult than if it were just any old crack baby.

Forcing an HIV positive woman to continue her pregnancy.

Forcing a woman who's birth control failed although she was careful to use it. Let's say she lives in an abusive marriage and has no other family to help her just to complicate things as life is almost always complicated.

Please include how it affects the child and the woman and why those options are ok.

1. Although there is a distinct possibility the child could be a crack baby, that's better than killing the child "to spare it a hard life" a hard life is often more desirable than none. And the child should be allowed to grow up and make that descision for itself.

2. Though there is a possiblity the child could be born HIV positive, i have heard of new medical treatments to prevent such things. However, a life with AIDS can be better than no life at all. People should all be given a chance to live.

3. Again these complications do not justify taking a life.

I acknowledge there are enormous problem in the adoption programs, but these must be fixed. Killing children to prevent a harsh life should not be considered an option. The emotional effect on both woman and child can be devastating but as long as they have life there is hope that they can overcome their circumstances.

So, as long as they get to the point where they can breath you move on to the next person to dispense your morals leaving devastation in your path. Nice.

I hope that you are not one of those people that complain about mothers on welfare, or high insurance costs (all those abandoned hiv, and crack babies stay in the hospital for a very long time and require more treatment than you could afford). I hope that when you say all life you are consistent and do not believe in the death penalty or war regardless of the circumstances. But I know you don't. Life isn't precious to you unless it's a mass of tissues. Once it's a child you turn your back. Once it's an innocent civilian you say it's self defense and unavoidable. I hope that you are doing something about the problems you are creating by adopting as many foster kids as you can, voting for relief funds for the tragic situation in Africa and helping out homeless families.

If you aren't you need to stop worrying about everyone else's morals and work on your own.

I appreciate life at all it's stages and I support welfare. Actually I'm a liberal on most social issues but my heart bleeds for anyone whether or not they can give Democrats money and votes.

I believe that all life is important and that it should be protected whenever reasonable (subjective I know, I'll try to clarify). I am not, however, dead-set against ending a life. If someone is an seriously danger to those around them I advocate that that person be: treated, jailed, or when the first two are impossible, killed. If that danger is on a large enough scale (threats to thousands) then I would accept (though by no means support) the accidental death of civilians. Fetuses and infants, however, are at the most innocent stage is there lives, unless they seriously threaten another life I can see nothing to justify their murder.

I appreciate life at all it's stages and I support welfare. Actually I'm a liberal on most social issues but my heart.

Everyone supports welfare because they have no choice. As long as you don't complain about it that's good.

Actually I'm a liberal on most social issues but my heart bleeds for anyone whether or not they can give Democrats money and votes.

Are you suggesting that in any of the cases I've mentioned I would care or even bother to ask if they were Republicans? Or do you think I'm fishing for money and votes for Dems? Because, honestly, I don't know of any current Dems that I would support. It's a bizarre statement to throw in so maybe I just don't understand what you mean.

. I am not, however, dead-set against ending a life. If someone is an seriously danger to those around them I advocate that that person be: treated, jailed, or when the first two are impossible, killed.

Except in the case of pregnant woman who's pregnancy is a serious danger to her health and to her 3 kids that will be left without a mother if she dies. What makes that tissue more special than any of them or their futures? I don't base my convictions on how sin free they are. Wouldn't that be up to God to decide and no one else anyway? Why do you feel the right or the desire to interfere in that kind of decision?

If that danger is on a large enough scale (threats to thousands) then I would accept (though by no means support) the accidental death of civilians.

You are doing just that. Again proving my point that it is hypocrital for you to say you are for all human life, it's all precouse, at whatever cost, bla bla bla.

Fetuses and infants, however, are at the most innocent stage is there lives, unless they seriously threaten another life I can see nothing to justify their murder.

We are not in disagreement about infants. We are discussing fetuses. And it comes down to you feeling justified in making the judgement call to put a fetus above a woman simply because it has never done anything bad. A little hard with the woman to compete there, don't you think?

1. Actually I was taking a shot at the Democratic party and suggesting there possible motives in spreading the misinformation that fetuses aren't alive or human. I don't translate that to you.

2. By "support welfare" I meant I don't complain about it.

3. If a pregnancy is a serious danger to the womans life, then abortion should become an option. That's about the only position in which taking the fetuses life makes sense.

4. I said "all life is important" however I also understand that sometimes choices must to made. If thousands of people are endangered unjustly then the danger must be eliminated. You don't have to be a pacifist to believe that fetuses shouldn't be killed.

5. I don't put the fetus above the woman. I put them both on the same level and then weigh the concerns they bring to the descision table. The woman's concerns are almost always outweighed by the concern for the fetus' life. Life and death issues are more important than most.

Turnea,

My ideas on this issue do not come from the democratic mis information you fear. It comes from my own observations of the world. I simply feel that children are too important to be brought into this world without someone who is willing and eager to love them first. I think it's irresponsible to force them into the world and leave them to their fate. And I've stated many times what I feel about the control we all should have over what happens to our bodies.

I think we have both come to understand each others positions. While I don't think this is matter that will be resolved to everyones satisfaction, at least we can be attempt to see each side. Maybe someday medical technology will make this a non-issue anyway, so that people are no longer having to decide which is more important or which has more rights.

I do not want women having abortions. Our energy would be better spent on preventing the unwanted ones and helping those that want them but can't have them. Science is the answer for both sides.

Let us return to basics.

First of all, it is obvious from this thread that everyone has an opinion about what makes a life form a human. Level of development, the ability to think or reason, independence, etcetera. The ideas are myriad, but it is not constructive to use them to argue about abortion.

You see, one may say that one thinks the above attributes are required, but since there is no universally accepted definition of humanity involving those attributes, this point is not confirmable, and is only individual perception. It is best to draw conclusions from objective facts; otherwise, we would be reduced to saying "I think this.." "I think that..." until Kingdom Come.

Speaking of perception, the perception of a fetus as an undifferentiated globule of tissue is also prevalent. This idea may be considered accurate for some early stages of pregnancy, but the form of a fetus is constantly changing, so it would be best not to base decisions on such.

The closest thing we have to a definition of humanity is the biological definition: a human is an organism in the Homo sapien species. As no one has denied that a fetus is an organism or a member of the Homo sapien species, by this definition, they are human.

The question, then, is whether being a member of the human species entitles one to human rights, and if it does not, what does?

First of all, it is obvious from this thread that everyone has an opinion about what makes a life form a human. Level of development, the ability to think or reason, independence, etcetera. The ideas are myriad, but it is not constructive to use them to argue about abortion.
You see, one may say that one thinks the above attributes are required, but since there is no universally accepted definition of humanity involving those attributes, this point is not confirmable, and is only individual perception. It is best to draw conclusions from objective facts; otherwise, we would be reduced to saying "I think this.." "I think that..." until Kingdom Come.

Agreed

The closest thing we have to a definition of humanity is the biological definition: a human is an organism in the Homo sapien species. As no one has denied that a fetus is an organism or a member of the Homo sapien species, by this definition, they are human.

I don't mean to nitpick but an organism is pretty vague. But I can agree they are of the human species in that we know they are not a plant species or reptilian species etc.

The question, then, is whether being a member of the human species entitles one to human rights, and if it does not, what does?

I think we both are looking at the same problem but are seeing a different answer. Where you feel it's best to assume all stages should be valued more than or equally than the woman.

My view is that since the only person involved that is known and agreed by all to be a person in every sense of the word is the woman. She should decide for herself what she is willing to sacrifice to become a mother or to produce a child.

Add to that fact that governing another persons body is a dangerous path especially with emerging science. Today it's forcing pregnancy, tomorrow it's forcing people to live on life support or donating organs upon their death against their will. If the idea is to save human life, forcing one is just as valid as the other. But I think the underlying issue is policing the sexual morality of others. If not, how come every effort to prevent unwanted pregnancy is met with resistance?

Let us all control our own bodies and make our own medical decisions based on our own beliefs. How free is this country if we can't even decide something as basic as that?

When I said "organism," I was referring to an entity which fulfills the above requirements.



I believe that, if they are both human, they are entitled to the same basic rights; neither one has more rights than the other.

Now, back to the issue:



Abortion is "governing another person's body," as the fetus is technically a separate body from the mother. Also, removing abortion as an option to most women will not force them to get pregnant.

Pregnancy is ultimately a choice. I do not want to come off as trying to force morality on others; people choose whether to have unprotected sex, and if there is some accident, mistake, or crime resulting in an unwanted pregnancy, then the fetus should not be forced to prematurely sacrifice its life.



How free is this country if the only life forms which can, without doubt or exception, be called "innocent" are killed just because they are unwanted?

I will always feel the law has the responsibility to give priority to the mother as the most humane and logical answer to the most personal issue. It's impossible for the law to protect them without bias when complications occur. The mothers life must be given priority because without the mothers life there is no life for either of them.

She can choose suicide to get out of her situation. She can go to quacks, or society can add the abortion pill to the illegal drug trade.
She can drink drano or use a hanger. Even if a law passes, the woman will always be able to override the decision. It's just cruel to make it as difficult as possible in order for the moral majority to have their say in every pregnancy.

I think as far as abortion goes there is only one instance when the mother should have a choice. That instance is if it is 100% sure that if she has the baby she will die. If the mother did not want to have the baby she should not have had sex. Now I must adress the issue of Rape. Rape is a terrible terrible thing and I cannot even begin to imagine what it would be like for a woman to go through that. However, should another life suffer for a wrong done against the woman? I believe that the baby deserves a chance as well. After all you do not have to keep the baby after it is born. You can put it up for adoption. But if you think about it, what good does it really do to kill the child? I believe that abortion is murder except for the one instance that I gave. It should never be practiced outside of that parameter.

This statement is not necessarily true. Some babies (if they are far enough in the pregnancy) can still be born and live a healthy life. This is why I say you have to be 100% sure that the mother will die. That is where I stand on the issue.

First of all, we are discussing first term abortions (or at least I have been) and there is no way the child can live without the woman. Maybe medical science will change improve; at THAT point you may have an argument. Until then you can only control your own body and reproductive decisions.

Secondly, if you believe abortion is murder do not have one. That simple.

Third, It doesn't matter what you believe when it comes to someone elses life. You cannot control the rest of the world. If you really want to help kids than do it by helping the ones you wish to force into the world and are already suffering. Otherwise mind your own business.

Even if the fetus is dependant on it's mother, why does that make the mother more important in every respect even to the extent that the fetus could lose it's life?

Because if she is not willing to share her body with it for the next 9 1/2 months no one else can do it for her.

True, but is that reason enough to kill someone?

No it is not. It is the same as going down the street and killing someone. Once again it was the mothers choice (in most cases) to get pregnant and if she didn't want to she knew what could happen if she had sex. There is no excuse. And I have already addressed my view on the rape issue. Although I would like to add that some say if a rape victim does not have the abortion they will have to live with the experience a whole nine months but I would have to argue that once that happens the victim will never forget the horror anyway so give the child a chance to breathe life.

It is the same as going down the street and killing someone.
Ridiculous.


Once again it was the mothers choice (in most cases) to get pregnant and if she didn't want to she knew what could happen if she had sex.
So, people should just stop having sex except for procreation. That isn't going to happen.

There is no excuse.
Not for you. You aren't the one with the problems. Frankly, men's opinion on this matter is of no importance unless they are the ones that were part of the said pregnancy.

Although I would like to add that some say if a rape victim does not have the abortion they will have to live with the experience a whole nine months but I would have to argue that once that happens the victim will never forget the horror anyway so give the child a chance to breathe life. Oh yes, let's add the guilt and heartbreak of giving up a baby she can worry about forever versus terminating an embryo. Just so some strangers who can't differentiate between an embryo and a child will feel better.

It's been interesting but I really have no more to add to this topic as we've covered it all and are just going around in circles. We are all allowed to have an opinion, regardless of how wrong or judgmental it may be.

Actually, I haven't quite gotten your opinion in clear terms yet. Do you feel it should not be illegal to kill a living human because it is dependent upon another?
(I used the general terms for a reason, our arguments should be carried to their logical conclusions in order to determine whether or not they are resonable.)

The only judgment I pass is this, killing people should be avoided. They should only be killed...
1. If they ask for it.
2. If they are a danger to those around them and the danger can not be dealt with in other ways.

This reason is because some people in congress and the house ( who contols the american government ) believe that women should have the right to choose. If america riots about this subject ( maby another civil war ) i believe that this subject will clear itself

It may take a riot .
Both parties are raking in campaign dollars over the controversy, there is little incentive to confront the issue.

Pro Choicer here...

I've not read through the entire nine pages, I'm running short on time. Just wanted to add my two cents on this topic.

I don't condone abortion, especially in instances where it is postfact birth control. Hideous. So I'm not pro abortion.

I don't condone the government telling a person what to do with their bodies, even when these bodies are housing other bodies. Reason being is the parasite issue, of course. So long as a woman is playing host and is fufilling a job that no other can do for her I believe she should have the option to give up the job of host. If you can take it out alive, so be it. Otherwise, just take it out. So obviously I'm not pro life.

This, to me, is different than say: a late term abortion, killing a child, killing another human being. My reasoning is if a woman doesn't want a born child or to be with another human she can remove herself or the offending creature (adoption, divorce, moving, whatever). This she cannot do with a first term pregnancy.

I do not condone abortions past the first term. By then a woman has had enough time to make a decision and act on it.

More pennies:

1. If we actually taught reproductive health in school and how to take responsibility for your reproductive abilities... I believe that would knock out a percentage of unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion.

2. If we counseled adult women who are on assistance of some sort on the types of things she may have missed at home, in school or in overrun clinics... you know, like what her reproductive system is, how it works and how to use it, there goes another percentage of unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion.

3. If we made birth control easier to come by perhaps more people would use it. This is having it available in schools. NOT pushing it, just having it there. This is having it available at hand-out offices. This is having it not locked behind a counter at the store where you have to ask someone to get you such and such box of trojans.

4. If we educated about all the different types of birth control, not just the pill and condoms, people could use better combinations to avoid the unwanted.

5. If we weren't so uptight as a nation and as individuals about sexuality and the details thereof, all of the above would be more possible and help a lot of women before the fact, not afterwards.

6. Lastly, we need to school parents... this all starts AT HOME and polled parents respond that sex is the hardest subject to discuss with their children, all though these same parents say it should be their job (obviously). We need to help parents be more comfortable with the topic so they can effectively school their children on reproduction and sexuality.

Even then there will be unwanted pregnancies. Awful thing that it is, it is, it always has been and always will be. For these times we need to offer women the broadest range of choices available. The morning after pill, RU486 and early abortions and anything else that comes along. We don't have to like it, we don't have to support it, but we do need to support the women that have to make these hard choices. Then, of course, thouroughly educating her after one of these choices have been made.

*stepping off my soapbox, donation buckets are being passed around, don't be stingy*

I agree with Danya. This thread has been beaten to death and you won't get a right or wrong answer depending how you feel about it. I think noone should judge anyone about this issue. Either you would or would not get an abortion. Case closed!

Well, well, well. Who died and made you admin, mom?

You know, we might get new members from time to time who would like to share their opinions...

(You know I love you mommy! )

Case open!

I am not trying to be an administrator at all. I just think that after 9 pages of this it just goes to show you, you are either against an abortion or not. What else is to be said. Case closed!!!!!

And I am Mom so you better listen to me!!!!!

If only, Mom, it were as easy as "Either you would or would not get an abortion". The problem is with those who would decide for everyone else whether you can or cannot get an abortion - especially those who are willing to murder in order to defend the "right to life". When feelings run that high, I suspect that the case will remain open regardless of who the administrator is.

I am really on the fence regarding this issue, but there is one thing I don't understand: There have been several cases of a pregnant woman being murdered and the D.A. charging the perp with 2 counts of murder, one for the fetus as well. Now if this case holds, does this not shoot a hole in the pro-choice side? If it is murder to kill a fetus, how can it be O.K. for a doctor to do it? What if the woman was on her way to the abortion clinic and someone killed her and the fetus died as well, is it different because someone else ended the life of the baby? It seems like a double standard to me, and confuses the issue where people say that abortion is not murder. Does anyone else see the double standard in that or is it just me?

1. What we have in the early part of this statement is an incomplete characterization. You have already admitted the fetus is another body. Science tells us (I'll recap if you feel it can't be gleaned from previous posts or for any other reason) this body is both alive and human. Therefore an abortion is performed on two lives, the mother and the fetus. In a "successful" abortion one of these living humans (the fetus) is killed. My assertion is that the government is obligated to protect human life.

2. Regarding the parasite issue. The fetus is a parasite of the mother. This has no bearing on the fact that it is a living human. The life-and death concerns of the fetus outweigh the non-life-threatning concerns of the mother.

3. It seem to me Max, your argument rests on the assertion that because the fetus is dependant on the mother it is all right to kill it.

Two questions:

1. Is this a fair characterization of your argument?

2. If so, why is the taking of human life allowable in this case?

stotty203: You are not alone
It seems to me such cases show a slow awakening towards rational abortion policy. Admitting a fetus is a living human is the first step...

My point was that I had explained my position to the best of my ability. Everyone else is welcome to continue and I'll still watch from the sidelines.

1. Yes, it is. Let me clarify before someone runs with it though. This would NOT apply to already born children or other dependant persons because other people can assume the responsibility assocated with them. Pregnancy is the only case where another person cannot assume responsibility.

2. Allowable because it is the only way, at this point in time, for a woman to give up pregnancy. If the child could be transfered to another being, steeped in a petri dish or something a la' matrix, I'd be prolife probably. Hopefully science will solve this issue so a woman can give up a pregnancy without ending the life or potential of life.

My point though, is that no matter what side of the fence you're on, it is still only ONE person's decision what to do with an unwanted pregnancy. If Roe vs. Wade were reversed, abortions would still happen... they would just be unsafe as heck for the woman.

I would think, prolife and all, it'd be better to save one life than lose two which is why the prolife side of me is still prochoice. Unless someone could give me a good argument that a woman seeking an abortion should die as well... because that's exactly what would happen in a LOT of cases if RvW were to be reversed.

The one thing I believe all women considering abortions should be told is that there are conflicting studies on the relationship between abortion and breast cancer. The studies verifying a link seem to indicate a particular danger to women under 18 or over 30, with a family history of breast cancer, who abort their first pregnancy.

I agree.

All risks, facts and theory, need to be discussed. Not only physical risks, but emotional ones as well. I also like the idea of a waiting period. No longer than 48hrs, but long enough for the discussion with the physician to sink in.

The ability to end a pregnancy is valuable as an option. Is this option as valuable as a human life? I think not. The fact that life is more important than choice in some cases is a crucial consideration. The choice to end a human life should be subject to stringent controls.



Ahh, this argument... I believe controls on abortion can sharply reduced the number of deaths caused by abortion by directly lowering the number of abortions to a trace amount due to immediate danger to the mother's life. Otherwise, I would hope our education system (you mentioned that ) could produce young women wise enough to refrain from attempting an abortion on themselves. Leave those who illegally help them to law enforcement.

k...um..i stopped by because i was wondering what i should do for my speech topic, and i had abortion on my mind before, and i think that if a women chooses to have sexual intercourses, she should bare the consequences...if you dont have the standards, for a good up bringing then why are you putting yourself in a position that will make have to chose of having an abortion, now if you were raped thats totally different, except for the fact that if you were provocative on purpose, if you dress in a provactive manner, then the man will take advantage, of course the man should have full control for where he wants to put his dick n' when.....if you choose to have sex, and u're pregnant a while later, that is your own fault, no matter if u used protection or watever, regardless you should not be able to abort the child....buh if it was because of rape, then i think thats a whoe new debate....don't ya think???

Ummm...no. What I think is already written in the pages above. But at least you're trying to understand it by writing a paper.

Abortion is an issue which is impossible to agree about. Either you think life begins at conception or you don't. I just don't think people should impose moral beliefs on others like this. Its their baby. I respect people if they are against abortion but its a personal decsion.

Not true. The statement that life begins at conception is scientific fact and something that has been agreed upon by both sides in this debate. If you wish for a further explanation it can easily be provided.

Ah, the abortion topic. Here is another angle for you. You just said it..it's their BABY. Baby therefore meaning life...human life to be more precise. By reading some of the arguments thus far I believe if you carry some of these statements to their logical conclusion we will be gassing many of our severely retarded children and adults. They can't reason, and they are a burden. I find it interesting people care more about a stupid cat or tree than a human life. Have we degenerated so far as to come to this? The amount of abortions in this country today make all the wars ever fought look like chump change. Something needs to be done and said about this. I'm glad Bush is pushing for no-partial birth abortions. That procedure is ridiculous and no doctor will tell you otherwise unless he's some sadistic fool. The problem, as I see it is after the first term that is a little human baby there. As, a point of law it has rights endowed by his creator, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see ANYWHERE where a mother is allowed to be judge, jury and executioner. No where in our society but abortions do we allow this decision to be made by a single person with NO chance for the baby to have a voice.

Darcaine