Dear Goddess
I have to agree with you on this one as well, however, for differing reasons. This an opaque facade at best to try and circumvent the law of the land in A left handed manner. I too believe in freedom of choice, I believe you have the right choose to act responsibly, or to live with the consequences of your actions. That being said, I don't believe an anti abortion nut who shoots an abortion doctor is any less guilty of murder than A Charles Manson, that is also A concious choice. I may not agree with what anothers ideas of right and wrong are, but I will defend to the death thier right to believe them. If you wish to stop abortion, you need only overturn the law permitting it. If this is not possible for you within the legal parameters of our judicial system, then it would seem you are in the minority ad must accept that fact until such time as you are not. In closing theese infantile quasi legal manuvers are certain to be seen by both sides for precisely what they are.

I'm with Teebone on the personal responsibility argument. However, I disagree with the assertion that to be properly against abortion one must agree to care for and raise babies that would otherwise have been aborted.

I am against drunk driving. Does that mean that I have to wait outside the bar everynight and drive drunk people home? To properly support affirmative action must I give up my job to a qualified minority candidate?

This is the same illogical argument that liberals use against those of us who want our country to win the war against Islamo-Fascism. That is, to properly support the war you must go to Iraq and fight. Its childish (pun intended) behavior and serves no useful purpose, but to prop up poorly reasoned positions.

As far as paying for unwanted babies, we are already doing that. In Mass the easiest way to get on state assistance is to be an unwed mother, WIC is just one of the programs. If you don't have a kid they will ALWAYS turn you away. So both pro choice and pro life voters have to pay for it. Regardless of which side they are on very few voters would be perfectly comfortable letting a child starve. So the more babies are had by poor and destitute the more money the rest of us evil selfish bastards have to fork over to the poor that society has forgotten (sarcasm). The republican are putting our money where their mouth is. Also when a teenager has a kid her chances of getting a real career is usually shot. Thus one less person paying taxes and one more person on the public dole.

"Does that mean that I have to wait outside the bar everynight and drive drunk people home?" The state does not use tax dollars to get them a cab that I know of.

Sorry
Perhaps I failed to adequately express my thoughts. What I meant is that if theese women insist on being ( baby factories ) anyway, contraception being infinitely less expensive than abortion, they could at the very least give them up for adoption to good conservative families thus making the world a better place for us all. And I most certainly did not intend to sound like a liberal, ( offense taken ) I merely meant that if you disagree with the law of the land, you have every right to work for meaningful change within the strict confines of our constitutionaly representative republic.
P.S.
I would describe myself as more of a strict constructionist constitutionalist, and a conservative libertarian.

A controversial abortion bill that includes a provision requiring a woman to undergo an ultrasound examination before she can terminate her pregnancy...

Wha?? This is stupid. The safest abortions are usually performed in the first trimester, from 2 weeks after conception to about 12 weeks. When a woman is pregnant (been there twice, thank you), her OB/GYN doesn't perform an ultrasound until the fetus is 16 weeks old, usually because the heartbeat isn't viable until then. What the hell is the purpose of requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before an abortion, if the fetus does not even register on an ultrasound yet? This is yet another tactic for the anti-abortion people to use as a guilt trip. What bullshit.

Attn Teebone........

What exactly is a "viable heartbeat" at 16 weeks? I have had an ultrasound at 6 weeks (saw the embryo), 9 weeks (saw the heartbeat) and 16 weeks (can tell gender by then). I am pro-life, BUT in a personal responsibility way. You CHOOSE to have sex, use protection, and accept that it isn't always effective. I think we should toss condoms out at street corners, subsidize the Pill, and surgically, permanently sterilize those who go on welfare or who have a child removed by CPS. Do NOT kill a child because you were too damn lazy or stupid to prevent it.

My OB/GYN told me the heartbeat doesn't register on the Dopler before 16 weeks, thus, that's when it is considered "viable." Yours may have told you otherwise. Of course, my first pregancy was almost 16 years ago, so maybe technology has advanced further since then.

Everyone (barring homocidal nutbars of whatever variety) is pro-life. Life is good. I believe the more accurate term, as Amy wrote, is anti-choice. There is pro-choice and there is anti-choice. I had a couple glasses of wine last night...probably killed off a few brain cells...does that make me pro-death?

When a woman is pregnant (been there twice, thank you), her OB/GYN doesn't perform an ultrasound until the fetus is 16 weeks old, usually because the heartbeat isn't viable until then.

Flynne, this is the first and last time that I, a childless woman, will disagree with you, a pregnant woman, over an issue having to do with pregnancy. I promise. But...according to 1) my friends who are doctors; 2) my friends who have been pregnant; and 3) countless infertility blogs that I read, you can *see* a heartbeat on ultrasound at 7 weeks and *hear* one at 11 weeks, at least in the typical viable pregnancy. If you can see the heartbeat at 7 weeks, your chance of miscarriage is revised downward considerably; if you can hear it at 11 weeks, the chance is revised down even further (as in, it's not impossible that you'd have a miscarriage, but, barring any sort of genetic issue with you and the kid's other bio-parent, you should start planning for when you have a baby, not if).

I agree that this law is bloody ridiculous, and I say that as someone who has significantly more moral issues with abortion than Amy. It's a back-door way of trying to reduce abortions. That having been said, I'm of the opinion that everyone having an abortion in the first trimester should undergo SOME sort of screening to ensure that they don't have an ectopic pregnancy, which requires a different approach (and is inherently life-threatening - you'll definitely get that abortion, but the mechanics will be different). Not sure if that has to be an ultrasound, but I occasionally hear anecdotal evidence of women who weren't properly diagnosed as having an ectopic, and that's scary. It's possible, though, that I'm as wrong as Jenny McCarthy on autism, and that I should just shut up...

No no, marion, don't shut up, I'd say you're more right about this than Jenny McCarthy is about autism. See my other post, when I said my first pregnancy was almost 16 years ago. There almost certainly have been advances in the technology since I've been pregnant, I'm sure! All I was saying was that when I was pregnant, I didn't have an ultrasound until 16 weeks. I'm trying to remember if I had a dopler reading before than, and now that I think more about it, I'm pretty sure I did, at 2 months/8 weeks. I'm pro-choice for many reasons, not the least of which is that I do not, for any reason, think that any government has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. Having said that, I cannot stress enough that I am also a firm believer in taking personal responsibility at all times. I would much rather, if some sort of law must be passed, see a law something along the lines of mandatory sterilization for women on AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) that have more than 3 children with the fathers listed as "unknown". I would much rather see a law that makes passing a urine test for those on welfare mandatory before they get their checks. I would much rather see a law that makes it mandatory that these unwed mothers get some kind of job training and be reintroduced into the workforce, after a set amount of time, say 2 or 3 years. Or something like that. The welfare system isn't working in the way it was intended to, because the people in the system know how to "work" it; what was once supposed to be only a "temporary" subsidzing has become a way of life for some of these people, going on almost 5 generations now. It's not helping these people, it's breeding a false sense of entitlement, that the government keeps feeding. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I don't think so. I was on AFDC for 4 months. Then I went back to work, because I hated being on the dole. But that's just me; I don't expect others to do what I did. Wait, that's wrong, I do expect others to get up off their lazy asses and do something with their lives, other than make a living, living off of everyone else. Ah, I dunno, I'm dreamin' again. YMMV

Agree.

Just keep in mind the concept of treading on other's 'property'. I am pro choice though believe abortion is wrong. The Catholic church no business relying on the government to speak/act for it. The minute the government decides or a group decides to leverage government to impose particular religious codes is when the door gets wedged open.

Goes both ways though. Using the government as a mechanism to extract money from those who literally believe abortion is murder is at least as wrong as the scenario presented.

I wish they can do the same thing for tobacco products...

I agree, Amy.

I have always found gross inconsistencies with the pro-life movement.

The think nothing of stopping women from going into Planned Parenthood and getting contraception (yes, PP has contraception services), and yet, their derisive comments about poor women and men with many children runs smack into the face of hypocrisy when it comes to their rhetoric about "pro-life."

Pro-life means to support life from conception to old age. Yet, we have politicians cutting healthcare, education, cultural programs ..everything that does indeed, enhance and support life. They rally for those politicians who decry wasting taxpayers monies, then spend big time on prisons.

They may be anti-abortion, but they are not pro-life.

I feel that there are "fates worse than death", the main one of which is being born unwanted and unloved, destined to a life of poverty, neglect and abuse (physical, emotional, and/or sexual). While I do not think abortion is a "good thing", it is usually preferable to the type of existance I just mentioned. And ALWAYS preferable if the mother is addicted to drugs or alcohol.

This being said, I have seen people picketing a Planned Parenthood office, against abortion, and even against contraception, (believing that sex outside of marriage is evil, and should be avoided completely). A friend who recruited foster homes approached this group, and handed out her literature and asked if they would be willing to adopt any of those children they demanded be born. No one was willing, of course.

My husband and his first wife adopted two boys (unrelated). She desperately wanted children, but was unable to get pregnant. She died when they were 7 and 12. They were brought up VERY conservatively. When I met my husband, and we married, our family, including another son and a daughter, were increasingly less conservative as the years passed. The two adopted sons both chose to use drugs (the older one started before we were married). They both ended up addicted, and were cruel and emotionally abusive to their father. He could never do enough or be supportive enough to them.

In conclusion, I don't believe adoption is the answer some people think it is. Perhaps, in some cases, it works out well, if people can resist "spoiling" them, or overcompensating for their "loss". There are many cases where their lives (the parents and the children) do not turn out the way they hoped. I believe we must have a choice. Some women are not pregnant by choice. They may have been raped or told by their church that they must not use anything to prevent it. There is little difference, there, in my opinion. To make a woman see that fetus, and hear about the "baby" from people who DO NOT want her to have a choice is just barbaric!

Expect to hear more about this.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/04/15/fragmented.families.ap/index.html

Predictably, the sponsors of the study want lawmakers to invest money in programs that "strengthen marriages." (eyeroll ...) Here's a thought - if you don't like spending $112 billion, well then stop doing it. What business does the government have with anyone's marriage?

Great example of the slippery slope, one that also applies to medical care. You start paying for the stupid decisions people make, pretty soon you have a good argument for dicating other people's decisions in the first place. Not a road I want to see us go down, any more than we already have.

I'm not happy about the fact that people do dumb things when it comes to marriage and reproduction. So far I haven't seen a workable solution to this problem other than birth control in the water, although maybe a good first step would be to stop giving people money for doing stupid things.

Good arguments have been made that welfare programs have contributed to these problems by creating a dependent class of people. How interesting that the proposed "solution" to this problem involves yet another government program.

The shoe can go on the other foot. Everyone has heard the stink over Gardacil, the vaccine for HPV, right?

From Wikipedia:
One way to bring down the cost of the vaccine and to educate the public on the benefits of vaccination is to make it mandatory for girls entering school. This approach has been taken with vaccines for mumps, measles, rubella, and hepatitis B (which is also sexually transmitted) so many state legislators have penned bills that do this. Almost all pieces of legislation currently pending in the states that would make the vaccine mandatory for school entrance have an "opt-out" policy.

Mandatory for girls entering school. How terrifying. Thankfully, my three daughters go to private school so this hype can't be forced on them. Yet. Manipulations by government and big pharma have resulted in such a tangled disaster we're just beginning to notice the effects. Thimerisol? Thalidomide? Doesn't anyone remember these?

The scariest words you never want to hear: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.

I don't think most pro choice people are pro abortion as a valid means of contraceptive. It's viewed as a last resort. With the exception of the morning after pill termination involves a fairly invasive medical procedure. So if more pro lifers pushed contraceptives there would be less abortions. DSS (Mass CPS) is full to the brim and beyond with kids that should have never been born. They are severely damaged emotionally many can not be let out into society as they display grooming behavior and will almost certainly offend. So what does the pro life group say about these individuals? What life will they have in an adult locked unit? What kind of hell will they reap if they get out?

Third trimester termination bug me, for many reasons. I'm not against banning 3rd trimester partial birth abortions as these are cutting it a bit too close to infanticide. However if they ban all abortions and then start on contraception because the find sex disgusting and lack the stones to say it, we will all be drowning in hate filled unwanted and abused children.

Today is a day to hear about "religious concerns" going where it needs not. If religion is about your personal relationship with your chosen Deity Du Jour, keep it personal...just like your dirty underwear (I'd hope).

I read elsewhere that there's a new cloning technique. The "concerns" quoted by the article was this:

Unlike the Dolly technique, however, the procedure is so simple and efficient that it has raised fears that it will be seized on by IVF doctors to help infertile couples who are eager to have their own biological children.

Fears that infertile couples might have another chance to have a child. GASP! The horrors! Reminds me VERY strongly of the "moral outrage" against the first successful IVF (non-cloning) process back in 1978. Idiots. In almost every case, the primary motivation to this sort of "controversy" is based entirely on "religious concerns" or fear by politicians of offending the religious.
Yes, there IS always adoption, but for some people - they don't really consider it a true option - and why should that choice be made FOR them?

Juliana
This is off topic.
Whether or not your girls go to private school, whether or not the gov't mandates it, it's up to you to be frank and honest in discussions about sex. Sex, sex, sex. Yes, you have to talk to them about it because they're already talking if not experimenting with it. And more, when they start to get boyfriends you have to talk to both of them about it because you just can't take it for granted that any school or that other kid's parents has done it. Sex, sex, sex. Yes, we talk a lot about it here at this house, with one teen and one pre-teen.

HPV is the cause of cervical cancer and it is sexually transmitted.
So you'd be smart to vaccinate your 3 girls for this.

"How interesting that the proposed "solution" to this problem involves yet another government program." Um, given that the problem was cased by a federal government shouldn't changes be made to said federal government to fix it. If nothing else just put a damn cap on collecting and eliminate the per child credit for welfare.

"Thimerisol? Thalidomide? Doesn't anyone remember these?" Not the best place to start the anti-vax rant. Thalidomide I agree was a huge fuck up and now if you are a female cancer patient you have to screen every six week for pregnancy or they won't give it to you. In fact if you a women of reproductive age 12 to 89 they test you before doing anything. My grand mother was 89 and had to take a pregnancy test. Now onto the Thimerisol horse shit. It's been removed from most vaccines and Autism rates haven't moved let it go.

"The scariest words you never want to hear: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." That depends on how, leave me the hell alone and keep the crazies locked up, good. Pushing scientific based medicine that save more lives than it takes, good. Making me worship XYZ and funding lunatics, bad.

Vlad
But that's the irony with the whole anti-abortion movement.
By blocking access to clinics like Planned Parenthood, they're also restricting the availability of low cost or free contraception.

They're also the SAME ones who don't want sex education being taught in school.

As far as the third trimester abortions, those are tragic and are usually done because of some major medical problem. So you really have to get your head around the fact that third term abortions aren't being done for convenience. They are rare. They should not be outlawed. The parents, doctors and nurses should not be thrown into prison. Rather, the choice to do them should be made by the parent(s) and the physician, and keep the fundies and politicians out of the picture all together.

If you're against lynchings, you're free to march up and down the streets with picket signs, carry around "bloody" bedsheets and nooses, and pay for ads in magazines in hopes of persuading the rest of us that you're right. ... But don't you dare try to interfere with MY right to lynch people that I don't like!

Does anybody here buy that argument? No, I didn't think so. But to the folks who believe that abortion = murder, the two arguments are identical. I, personally, don't go quite so far as to say that abortion is always morally equivalent to murder, but it certainly is the killing of a human being, and as such should not be taken lightly.

It sounds to me like this Oklahoma law is just a rather clumsy and ill-conceived (no pun intended) attempt to get prospective abortion recipients to at least think about the gravity of what they are contemplating.

"So you really have to get your head around the fact that third term abortions aren't being done for convenience. " Sorry should have been more clear, I meant only those done without medical necessity. There are some though very few that are done without medical need.

john w.: Morbid curiosity question, what is your stance on sex ed and contraception?

But there are people who would agree with that argument john w. Otherwise there wouldn't have ever been lynchings. Fortunately the majority finds the whole idea rather unpleasant and so a law comes into being. And there is no question as to whether that person was a person(barring contemplations by "Nuttiest Letter of the Week" LW).

The question of when a bunch of organized & dividing cells turns into a person is still up for debate. I'd prefer the debate stick to science rather than religious morality.

The message behind this law (and similar attempts by anti-abortion legislators, like requiring the state to issue a death certificate after an abortion or requiring a woman to wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure) is simply this: women are stupid. We're delicate flowers in need of the pro-life movement's protection because we don't understand pregnancy. Of course we silly creatures need to be reminded there's a baby in our tummies, lest we think we just stopped by the clinic for a manicure on our way to the mall.

If that's too snotty (Hi Crid!), I'll say it another way: laws like these come from a basic, insulting assumption that women don't think long and hard about the impact of a baby in their lives before having an abortion.

" ... Morbid curiosity question, what is your stance on sex ed and contraception?"

No problem with either one, although I do think that sex education ought to be carried out by parents, not by bureaucrats in government-operated schools.

++++++++++++++++

" ...he question of when a bunch of organized & dividing cells turns into a person is still up for debate. I'd prefer the debate stick to science rather than religious morality."

But science cannot answer ethical and/or moral questions -- and shouldn't be asked to do so. And in any case, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that there is any significant biological difference between, say, an 8-month, 3-week old fetus and a 1-week old baby. And yet, killing the former is considered 'reproductive choice' whereas killing the latter is considered homicide.

> If that's too snotty

A sister!

"But science cannot answer ethical and/or moral questions"

And religion can? Miss how many of the worlds greatest human tragedies have been committed or rationalized by religion?

Religion has a very spotty track record regarding morality. Great at preaching it, spotty in practice. Religion loves to claim to cover ethics, but it's more about keeping the sheep in the herd.

Reason, logic, and philosophy tend to be more rational. Especially without the organizational hierarchy and mob-mentality of many religions.

To quote a rather old philosophy:

Thus one loses Reason and then virtue appears. One loses virtue and then benevolence appears. One loses benevolence and then justice appears. One loses justice and then propriety appears. The rules of propriety are the semblance of loyalty and faith, and the beginning of disorder.

Organized religion is frequently more about propriety at best, at worst the "semblance of loyalty and faith."

"it is absolutely absurd to suggest that there is any significant biological difference between, say, an 8-month, 3-week old fetus and a 1-week old baby." Agreed, unless medical need arises I'm not for 3rd trimester abortions but that's not really the only question. What if any is the difference between an embryo of 1-2 months and a 1-week old baby? What about a frozen embryo, should it be murder to dispose of the unwanted ones after fertility treatment?

"But science cannot answer ethical and/or moral questions" Agreed but then what should? I don't see religion as a viable answer.

What if any is the difference between an embryo of 1-2 months and a 1-week old baby?

This one's easy, vlad, the difference is that the 1-week old baby is outside of the womb, breathing on its own.

Some say that the soul doesn't enter the body until the moment of pysical birth, and so abortion is not the taking of a life.

Some say that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception, thus abortion IS the taking of a life.

Some say that the embryo/fetus is not viable if its life cannot be sustained outside the womb.

People can argue any way they want to, the bottom line is that the woman who is pregnant is the one who makes the decision. Not the bible-thumping pro-lifers, not the pro-choicers, certainly not some nameless, unseen government entity that is only pandering to a certain sector of the population. It's the woman's decision, NOT EVERYBODY ELSE'S. I say we should just leave her alone. It's a hard enough decision to make without everyone and their brother telling her what she should or should not do.

I do think that sex education ought to be carried out by parents, not by bureaucrats in government-operated schools.

Well, so do I. But I know that most parents don't talk about sex to their kids, other than, "Don't do it," or "Did you get your period?" or "Are you making out?" which to me, isn't really talking or teaching anything about sex.

So I gladly welcome classes where kids can learn with their same-sex peers about sexual development, reproduction, contraception and relationships. They also have to know about STD's --again, kids are more receptive to the info if they're surrounded by peers.

Which doesn't mean that this makes parents immune from talking about it as well. However, the fundies are sure that by talking about it at school, it somehow disempowers the parents. Pure bull! If anything, it brings it into the open and parents have an easier way of bringing it up --other than waiting to find their kids screwing on the sofa in the den, or finding little Janey preggers. (and wow... how many here are willing to admit they screwed around in the den? or getting busted in a car? Isn't that something we'd like to avoid with our own kids?)

Since the reality is that they're surrounded by sex via the media at an early age, if all a parent is going to do is say, "NO! Don't do it! Save it for marriage!!, there has to be an additional source of information for them.

john w. -- but I never suggested it was a moral/ethical question, although I appreciate that is your position on the decision of abortion. Science might be able to provide some answers about conscious brain activity or some other medical milestone that seems reasonable to a majority, if we could extract the morality police long enough to ask the questions logically.

I personally have concerns about aborting a fetus that could live outside the womb on its own (except in medical emergency cases)...that's my personal opinion on when there's a life there that might need to be considered. It shouldn't take a woman that long to realize she's accidentally pregnant!!

But I also believe the difference between a 1 month old embryo and a 1 week old baby is huge. One is alive, the other is not.

The intent of this proposed law is to guilt a woman into continuing the pregnancy. The suggestion that most women need to better consider the "gravity of what they are contemplating" is unfair. While there are some who may use it as birth control (and I'm all for sterilization there!) the majority don't just bounce off to the clinic on a whim.

Moreta wrote: " ...Fortunately the majority finds the whole idea [of lynchings] rather unpleasant and so a law comes into being...."

Apologies for replying to you in bits & pieces instead of in one coherent post, but I should have made a few comments on that statement also:

a.) I hope we are all agreed that lynching (or anything else, for that matter) isn't morally wrong *because* it's illegal. If anything, the causality flows in the other direction: It's illegal because most people think it's wrong.

b.) Speaking of majorities: One of the reasons why there is so much bitterness in the abortion debate even after 30+ years is precisely because of the fact that this question was NOT decided democratically by a majority of the people. It was pre-empted by 5 senile old men in black robes who got together one day and decided to force their worldview down everybody else's throats by inventing a previously non-existent 'fundamental right' -- to Hell with democracy and to Hell with the Constitution.

Granted that the really hard-line religious fundamentalists wouldn't be swayed in any case, but the rest of us -- who are sort of moderately uncomfortable with abortion -- would be a whole lot less uncomfortable if we thought we were dealing with a genuine consensus of our fellow citizens, rather than a judicial fiat.

Agreed on point "A" and I think that's what I said. Just my wacked Canadian humor to say "rather unpleasant" instead of "wrong". But we didn't have to put that one to vote, did we?

And point "B"...I can see your point about checking to see if its really a majority. But if you personally believe its ethically and morally wrong, will a consensus really make you feel any better?

" ...While there are some who may use it as birth control (and I'm all for sterilization there!) the majority don't just bounce off to the clinic on a whim. ..."

Actually, I read somewhere a while back, an amazing statistic that somewhere around 20% of the abortion seekers account for 80% of all abortions. In other words, there is a significant minority of women who are 'repeat customers' and who do in fact use abortion as a substitute for birth control.

I don't think that you & I are really very far apart on this question. I would not want to see (first trimester) abortions criminalized for women who have made an honest mistake, and I wouldn't even want to see late-term abortions criminalized where there is a real, genuine risk of serious damage to the mother's health or where there is a high risk of delivering a baby with a serious birth defect.

Smells like some gasbag politicians have a few medical industry buddies they are trying to take care of with that bill. I imagine this is one of many future attempts at subsidizing health care, with needless doctor visits, before it completely crumbles under the weight of America's fat ass.

"It was pre-empted by 5 senile old men in black robes who got together one day and decided to force their worldview down everybody else's throats by inventing a previously non-existent 'fundamental right'" Roe v Wade was partly about the issue of states right. If each state was allowed to decide independently there would still be abortion but only in the northern states. Should we take a group vote on the issue? So you'd be fine with abortion if we took a general vote (true democracy) and it was discovered that more than 50 % of people were pro choice. That sounds kind of iffy.

"This one's easy, vlad, the difference is that the 1-week old baby is outside of the womb, breathing on its own." The question was aimed mainly at john. Also by that logic the same would be true for an 8-month 3 week old fetus, science suggests otherwise. Personally I don't know what the cut-off should be but first month is acceptable and 8 months plus is wrong.

Ok, I just saw the Pope on the tube and it occured to me, he looks just like the emporer in Star Wars!?

I think this legislation is basically blowback from what has been happening in the midwest with abortion over the last few years. Kansas and Oklahoma came out real hard against partial birth abortion. They essentially put severe restrictions on it tying it to the health of the mother or a non-viable fetus. Then a doctor George Tiller started defying the law by considering any mother who wanted a late-term abortion as being in a life threatening situation, (emotional stress of having a baby), so as to do the procedure. It seems he was skirting the law but that's not my decision, nor do I know that much about the case. So he was doing late-term abortions by the scores, (he claims over sixty thousand), and the people got kinda pissed off because they felt he was shunning the law. Tiller is still fighting charges as far as I know. So now it seems they are going off the deep end and making more and more restrictive abortion laws as a way of fighting back. I personally think this one goes over the line. Everyone knows what a baby is and everyone knows what abortion is, the only real reason they are trying to mandate this is to try to tug at your heart strings and change your mind.

"I would not want to see (first trimester) abortions criminalized for women who have made an honest mistake.."

John w.
What's with this "honest mistake" concept?

Should only "nice," or somehow suitably chastened, girls escape prosecution?

*Ok, I just saw the Pope on the tube and it occured to me, he looks just like the emporer in Star Wars!?*

He certainly has the old-guy-on-drugs eyeball thing going, that's for sure.

And I mean that with all due respect to old guys on drugs.

One has to wonder how sick someone has to be in order to get a feeling of "accomplishment" out of the idea that some woman might actually be scared/guilt-tripped into continuing an unwanted pregnancy via this bill. Is this the way "pro-lifers" really want children to be brought into the world? Clap on the back and a, "Well done, that's another one for us!"?

I don't even want to get started on picketers who have enough free time on their hands that they can add birth control to their list of "Big Bad Things." Particularly the dim-minded folks that conveniently forget that birth control isn't just for the lustful pre-marital set. It's also for responsible married couples like me and my husband, who really, really don't want to produce a mouth we can't afford to feed. If that's too 'iffy,' then also consider my mother, who was given the pill to help control her excessive blood clots from ages 52-55.

Of course, I get the feeling that if these great men and women working the lines did take a few minutes to actually think over what they're protesting that there'd probably be less of them. Maybe. There are just some plain ol' idiots out there, after all.

> What's with this "honest
> mistake" concept?

Word!

Ah, the old abortion merry-go-round. How I've missed you. I'm not going to go over it all again today, but I will add one comment to my all-time most asinine things I've read list:
"they shouldn't be able to have an abortion because they're too stupid or lazy to prevent it" (paraphrased)

Nope, they should just go right ahead and stupidly, lazily raise our next generation. That'll teach 'em!

"Should only "nice," or somehow suitably chastened, girls escape prosecution?"

Well, what's with making exceptions for women who are victims of rape or incest? Why should we let them off the hook and only punish the whores who had sex for fun? If abortion is killing a baby, what difference does it make to that baby whether it exists because of rape or incest?

"If abortion is killing a baby, what difference does it make to that baby whether it exists because of rape or incest?" Political practicality.

Political practicality.

Wow. Now there's an oxymoron if ever I did see one! o_O

That's my litmus test. Anti-choicers who try to defend their views on the "you're killing a baby" argument fall flat on their faces when they start making exceptions for victims of rape or incest. Because then obviously this is not about abortion killing babies, and it's obvious that even they don't believe that. They just want to punish women for having sex, and the whole "abortion is murder" argument is nothing but a front that they are trying to hide behind. If a fetus is really a baby, then it's a baby no matter who the father is or how complicit the mother was in its making.

Disclaimer: I don't think abortion is murder or that fetuses are babies anyway.

Pregnancy is punishment for woman that have sex. That would be the only logic behind allowing women that were raped to have an abortion (because they didn't want to have sex), as opposed to the ones that did it because they like it.

Well, exactly, Chrissy. And if someone wants to make abortion illegal because they think women should be punished for having sex, then they need to just grow a backbone and come right out and say it.

I was just distilling what you had said into a nugget of pure wisdom!

Onto the Pope, he reminds me of the Easter Bunny!

Just one more thing:

Vlad said: The question was aimed mainly at john. Also by that logic the same would be true for an 8-month 3 week old fetus, science suggests otherwise. Personally I don't know what the cut-off should be but first month is acceptable and 8 months plus is wrong.

Well, yes. Once the fetus' lungs are fully developed (at 32-35 weeks), it is very possible that it can live outside the womb, breathing on its own. So you're looking at the tail end of the pregnancy.

"Well, what's with making exceptions for women who are victims of rape or incest? Why should we let them off the hook and only punish the whores who had sex for fun? If abortion is killing a baby, what difference does it make to that baby whether it exists because of rape or incest? "

Amen to that! And I have a friend who's 23 week preemie survived. The youngest baby to survive, to date, was 21 weeks. So how does one decide when it's ok to have an abortion based on viability, when viability changes almost monthly?? My 32 weekers were fully formed, breathed on their own(no oxygen no respirator) babies. So how does one decide when "life" starts? Seems to me it's either at conception, or when the umbilical cord is cut. Anything else is just for convenience. I agree too many unwanted babies are born-hence the need for sterilizing those who tend to have them. Good luck getting that law passed, though.

And I am a foster parent, and would never picket PP. There are other ways to stop abortions-like birth control!!!!!!!!

It all comes back to personal responsibility. The unborn baby has no "choice" in this question. Birth control is freely available, even from PP. Why should a baby be killed just because a woman wanted to get it bareback, but didn't want to take care of the baby? I agree there shouldn't be any unwanted babies, but there are better options. Birth control is best. Adoption is good too. There are plenty of people out there who can't have babies but would gladly take an "unwanted" baby. They appreciate how precious this new life is, seeing as how they can't create one of their own.

If all the guys who feel so strongly about 'life', and how precious it is, I'm assuming they all use condoms 100% of the time to make sure that no new life is created that they won't have any control over. Bottom line always seems to be controlling women's bodies and women's sexuality.

Usually it's the guy who wants to 'do it bareback', and because he's the irresponsible one, I guess he should take care of the resulting baby.