TO ALL THE WOMEN WHO BASHED ME EARLIER I MUST SAY THAT YOUR REASONS TO APPROVE OF HATING MEN AND ABORTION IS REALLY RIDICULOUS. IF A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL GETS PREGNANT IT IS HER FAULT BECAUSE SHE SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO HER PARENTS. I HAVE NEVER MET ONE PARENT THAT DIDN'T TALK TO THEIR KIDS ABOUT THAT KINDA STUFF.GEEZ, YOU HAVE TO TALK TO THEM NOW A DAYS. ABORTION IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH THE IDIOTS IN WASHINGTON HAVE IT LEGAL FOR NOW. ALL THAT WILL CHANGE IN TIME. IT IS MURDER TO ABORT A CHILD WHO HAS A RIGHT TO LIVE. WHEN YOU GET PREGNANT IT ISN'T ABOUT YOU ANYMORE, THAT BABY COMES 1ST! SO IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE IT IS A WOMAN'S BODY THEN FINE. BUT AS SOON AS YOU KILL THAT CHILD, A HUMAN BEING, FLESH AND BLOOD, THEN YOU ARE A KILLER. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A SERIAL TYPE OF KILLER, BUT YOU ARE GUILTY AS CHARGED. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WOMEN THINK THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT THEY DO. IF YOU HAVE SEX THEN THAT IS ON YOU. NOT THE BABY. THE BABY NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG.
213360
You state, "SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS THEN JUST STOP READING MY POSTS," may I suggest you take you own advice? If you don't like the abortion laws in this country, why not "STFU" about it and move to a country where abortion is illegal?\n\nYou seem very stressed out. Ranting and raving without any regard for logic, punctuation or grammar can do that to a person. Why not make things easier on yourself? I'm sure you'd find Haiti lovely. Or maybe somewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa is more your style? If not, there are plenty of other 3rd world countries to choose from.\n\nGood luck.
558804
Good point. Here's my two cents:\n\n- Rape happens; many of us can't stop that from happening.\n- Health matters; I'm on the fence with this response.\n\n**But women wanting to kill off their own offsprings because they:\n\n- can't support a child financially\n- got boned by her ex and refuses to keep the baby\n- wanted to have sex, but didn't use birth control, and doesn't want a kid....\n\nthese women should be DENIED TREATMENT.\n\nWhy? Because their idiots for not keeping their legs closed and not using protection.\n\nHonestly, these women shouldn't have kids AT ALL. They don't show any signs of responsibility to raise any child.\n\n**To the women who I want to deny abortions to:\n\nI refuse to apologize, so go f*** yourselves (literally)
40934
Abortion should be against the law. In fact, it already is. It is called MURDER. As soon as the child is concieved, it has full human DNA, and therefore, scientifically considered a human. It should not be a choice, because you cannot choose to kill someone, just because you dont want them. Scot Peterson got charged with double homocide because he killed Laci and her unborn child. How can this be? The child is unborn! So, if abortion is legalized, he should be dropped of that second charge. Now, I'm not condoning the murder of your spouse, or any other person for that matter, but merely using it as an example. The only time abortion should be permitted is if the mother and/or the childs life is in danger.
491659
I am voting NO on it.  This is not a pro-life or pro-choice issue necessarilly...  Over 60% of minors tell one or both parents when they have an abortion, as it is.  If a parent is close with their child, and has an honest, open, loving relationship with them, there is no reason why the child shouldn't and wouldn't come to the parent with their dillema.  For the girls that choose not to tell their parents, they have their reasons, and a lot of them are very good reasons.  If this prop were passed, it would put minors in abusive homes or hostile environments at risk.  If a girl has to notify her parent of the abortion, this parent could go into hysterics and lash out in physical and verbal abuse.  She may be kicked out of her home.  If the unborn child is a product of familial incest, this is certainly not a case where a girl should have to notify her parents of the pregnancy and abortion- she's been through enough, and it could cause a whole new host of problems for her.  Also, some parents may threaten and/or literally drag their daughters out of the abortion clinic when it came time for the procedure.  Even though this prop doesn't say "consent" only notification, it is still implied consent in a way, because if the parent knew, he or she could feasibly forbid their daughter to have the abortion.  \n\nThis prop infringes on a young woman's right to privacy and right to choose.  It is one step in the slippery slope towards getting abortion outlawed, which I personally believe is wrong.  Women should retain autonomy over their own bodies.  I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice.  \n\nThere is no epidemic of increasing numbers of teens getting abortions.  There are no teens dying of legal abortions.  Why do we need the notification?  Regardless of the fact that she's a minor, it is still HER body, and a baby that will be HER responsibility for the next 18 years- not her parents.  \n\nThe most important reason to vote no on this proposition is for the vulnerable young girls in our society who have difficult home lives and dysfunctional parents...it is often girls of this background who get pregnant young, and it is those we need to protect from more devestation in their lives.  \n\nHappy voting~whatever you choose!  :)
590865
This is a very touchy subject. I'm not saying I agree with you though. \n\nIt's the woman's choice, if you choose not to do it, great! But people have no right to tell others what to do with their body. What if it was killing the mother, like an ectopic pregnancy? That doesn't give the mother the right to abort the pregnancy?\n\nJust because someone chooses to abort the pregnancy doesn't mean their children are lower than animals either.\n\nI think people (especially girls) should be educated more about methods to prevent pregnancy, like birth control pills, implants, diaphams, etc. The guy might wear the condom, but it is ultimately the girls responsibility to be more careful about becoming pregnant.
301251
Perhaps you did not know this, but this is a problem going on in China as we speak. If a woman has already has 1 child, she is not allowed another. The police literally tie her down to the abortion table for the doctor to perform the abortion.Since she does not really have a say in the matter, there is no sin. The problem is not with the woman it is in the Chineese government.
95743
Pro-abortionists will say that the unborn baby is a product of conception.  This allows them to not have to deal with the baby issue.  They want to say that pro-lifers are anti-choice....that they are against a woman having the right to choose what happens to their body.  I think the pro-murder or anti-life (I will call them that as they like to use the anti-choice moniker) advocates don't understand that pro-lifers are trying to speak up for the choice of one who cannot be heard...the baby!  The argument that I like to use, from a Biblical sense is that God says He knew us before we were born and that He knit us together in our mother's womb.  This indicates that He began life before our actual birth.  The argument that the baby is just a product of conception...it is true.  A baby is a product of conception, the only one...you conceive a baby!  It is not the baby's fault that you made a mistake, that you were irresponsible or that some sick bas...d went and did something to a woman that he should be strung up by his ba..s for!  That baby is innocent!  The woman who aborts a baby is also, often, wracked with guilt in their later years over what they did.  Why inflict an additional pain on some poor girl/woman who has been raped, etc.?  It is illegal to break an eagle's egg because it is living and the bald eagle is endangered, but it is legal to kill a human infant in the same state...what kind of sick logic is that?
670001
Unlike what the previous person said, the logics are not opposite - in the case of pregancy (except in cases of rape), the woman made the choice to have sex (ie her body is her own).  I don't know who wasn't paying attention in health class, but pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex.\n\nAs such, women who are not old enough, responsible enough, or financially able to support a child should not be having sex.\n\nThis holds true for men as well, by the way...\n\nFurthermore, suppose a man and woman have sex and the woman becomes pregnant.  She can choose to have an abortion, even if the man wants to be a father, or she can choose to have the child, in which case the man is financially responsible for her child, even if he wanted her to have an abortion.  He has no say whatsoever in the fate of his child under our current system, and that's wrong.
242625
Yes you can. I'm living proof. I have been to Iraq, I can say from personal experience that the vast majority of the Iraqis killed over there are insurgents. I would be lying if I said that innocent Iraqis aren't dying, but American soldiers aren't the ones targeting them, the terrorists are. I believe the death penalty should be an option for the most heinous crimes, since one who obviously has no respect for the lives of others should lose their life to pay for their crimes. It's really the only fair thing. I am also MOSTLY pro-life. I believe abortion should only be an option when the pregnancy puts the mother's life in jeopardy. How self-righteous do you have to be to believe that your point of view is the only valid one, and that everyone who doesn't think like you is an idiot? All you are doing is preaching your own intolerance and bigotry.
621630
I totally agree with you. Thats why the pro-choice point of view is seriously flawed. They try to put all the emphasis on the woman but nobody thinks about the baby involved. What about the baby's right to choose to live?\n\nBut anyway - i guess prostitution has been illegal for the fact that its "dirty" and something people don't want to be around thier clean neighborhoods and stuff. But hey - who knows in 10 - 15 years what this country will legalize!
108466
It should always be an option whether a women takes chooses to take adavntage of it is her choice. For example alcohol is legal and some choose to drink some don't put no one takes away that right. True abortion is more complex because it involves another "life", or some say, but its all about individual choices and rights. Excuse the whole "life" thing its just that a certain stages it can be considered a life to certain people and in others it won't. I don't think society as a whole can ever agree on whether abortion should be legal or not and I don't believe it is anyone's duty to impose their idea on another individual. The decision to have an abortion is based on what a women may be going throug based on her, life, religion, and emotional and personal health. Its all about point of views. I do believe that everyone should have a choice. Say 2 women got raped and because of it ones wants to get abortion because of emotional damage and say possibly finances, on the other hand the other women doesnt want one because of her own personal views and possibly religion. I'm not one to look down on anyone's decisions or judge an individual based off their actions. When it comes to abortion I can agree to disagree.\n\n@dragonflytimes3- You are somewhat very right. There are so many forms of birth control out there and to be irresponsible and use abortion as birth control is wrong.(Wrong by I mean having an attitude- "I won't use protection and if I get pregnant I'll just have an abortion") And its true that the safest sex is to not have it at all But what happens when a female thinks they are ready to have sex and the rubber breaks or that .1% of the pill not working kicks into effect? Sure you can say that if you don't think you can handle the responsibilty of having a child then don't have sex but in society's changing times how logical can that be? My thing is birth control does not always work, so what is a women to do when when she takes steps to be careful and they are not 100% effective?
109743
this is all philisophical, so there really isn't a "right" answer.  I don't agree with abortion in any case, but if I was to excuse any reasons it would be only two.  One would be rape, child or adult, because the woman couldn't prevent that.  Two, is in the circumstance of placeing the mother in mortal danger of carrying the child.
494123
Ewww! That's just wrong!\nPersonally, I fully agree with a woman's right to choose what she wants to do. If you don't agree with abortions, then don't get one done, but don't tread on my right to choose!
624970
Three separate points in time, so three separate issues.\n\nFirst, sex and conception. Both parties have the right to make decisions on whether they are being involved. Non-consensual sex is called rape, whether it's male or female. \n\nThird (yes, I'm skipping second for now), there is after birth. Again, both parents are equally involved and have the same rights and obligations. Both are liable for child support, based on what they can afford.\n\nSecond, we have the period during pregnancy, after conception but before live birth. Let's split this into two separate periods.\n\nIn the last few months, called post-viability, the fetus is capable of living on its own (with medical help). So, who has rights during this time. The two lives directly involved -- the fetus and the mother. The father is not directly involved, since he's not contributing anything to helping the fetus grow. So, he has no rights to affect this part of the process.\n\nSo far, during these stages, there's no real argument about who is involved, and whose rights are at issue.\n\nThe argument comes during the first part of the pregnancy, pre-viability where there is just an embryo that cannot survive on its own. Because it cannot survive on its own, it is not an independent life. It's irrelevant for this discussion whether it's a human life at all or not, because whether it is or not, it's not an independent life. Thus, it does not have independent rights. So, the only person directly involved with independent rights is the mother.\n\nNow, many state governments say that even if the embryo does not have independent rights, the state can still assert rights on its behalf. Thus, you have arguably two parties involved -- the mother and the state (on behalf of the potential future baby). \n\nHowever, in no other legal situation anywhere does a possible future potential person or controversy merit legal protection. Maybe this situation is unique, and special rules are in order. Maybe it's not. \n\nBut either way, the sperm-donor is not directly involved during the first few months of the pregnancy (after conception), and so has no rights. Also, no legal obligations during this period.\n\nSo the only question is whether the government should be allowed to assert rights, on behalf of the future potential fetus. And personally, I don't trust the government to make those kind of decisions, so I'd rather leave it up to the mother alone during that time.
303699
14 year olds are minors and shouldn't be able to choose to have any major surgery without consent from their parents, including abortions. Abortion is not a harmless removal of tissue from a woman's body. It's the ending of a human life, plain and simple. To allow her to choose to end her baby's life for any selfish reason (and they're all selfish reasons) is very wrong. Abortion also can cause a number of health complications and emotional trauma. Of course so can raising a child, but countless people are waiting for a child to call their own and would be happy to raise hers. She CHOSE to have sex, she needs to deal with the consequences of it. She is not a victim - she made the choice. Many adoptive parents will even pay for the entire pregnancy and birth and will help make her comfortable as possible throughout. Bottom Line: There is NO excuse for murder.
618557
Abortion is not murder it is a personal decision, it should be left up to each individual, the government has no business in trying to legislate morality and the people that are against it have no business telling anyone what is right or wrong for them in a moral decision.
35645
NO, not right.  Your question is conveluted and misses the point completely.  I can't even respond becuase your conclusions come from no real reasoning.  The tall and skinny of it is this: our governement is not anti-life.  It is pretty clearly pro-life, and anti-abortion.  Consider the fact that there is currently a third trimester partial birth abortion ban.  This is the only kind of abortion that the Supreme Court has said would be acceptable to ban completely.  And the FEDERAL government did this.  It is not a people or a state issue.  It is no business of the government's what I do with my uterus - I would never presume to tell you or Ms. Rice what to do with yours, so stay the hell away from mine.  The fact is abortion is not a form of murder (argue it all you want, I am talking legally) , so your argument that we can't comitt murder in our bedroom blah blah really doesn't follow.  This is a privacy issue - the Supreme Court has held that our Constitution protects privacy interests in our own homes in many many different ways.  I suggest you consider the fact that this posting board ONLY exists becuase the Constition provides a free speech protection.  The government cannot come in and tell you not to express your opinion (thought the Bush White House apparently feels this doesn't apply to them...).  Get off your crazy high horse, your argument is so off and so full of misunderstings its not even funny.