What a vile, scumbag organization!

[darin]

No, we'll just have more dead women. This post shows that you don't value the woman's life at all. It's only fetal life you care for. The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus - it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women. Women have abortions regardless of the law, regardless of the risk to their lives or health, regardless of the morality of abortion, and regardless of what the fetus may or may not be.

it shows I care for ALL life. I value babies as much as people; killing one life to POTENTIALLY save women from their own CHOICES is at its core, hateful. If you want to solve this issue through body-count, how about we take the number of babies NOT killed and subtract from that the number of ladies who willingly take back-alley abortions and end up dead. Which 'saves' more life - abolishing abortion on demand, OR allowing wide-spred infanticide?

"the fetus" - Your word choice betrays a hateful disposition; your disregard for life seems at odds with your claimed Buddhism.

It happens to be true that prior to Roe, many women died from unsafe, back alley abortion procedures. Others committed suicide. Do you care about the woman's life at all?

In all these cases, the fetus AND the woman died.

Do you want to punish any woman who terminates her pregnancy by imprisoning or killing her?

How many? How many vs. the number of babies slaughtered in the name, solely in the name of convenience? I have NO problem with anybody engaging in dangerous behaviour. Babies do not GET to choose. That's the problem. Maybe we allow them to be born, grow up, THEN decide if they want to die?

[tailfins]

It happens to be true that prior to Roe, many women died from unsafe, back alley abortion procedures. Others committed suicide. Do you care about the woman's life at all?

In all these cases, the fetus AND the woman died.

Do you want to punish any woman who terminates her pregnancy by imprisoning or killing her?

In an ideal world, imprisoning yes. In a less than ideal world, from a pro-life perspective, take what you can get. In this case, take what you can get means not letting the abortionist do an unfettered sales job on a woman with a crisis pregnancy.

[Wind Song]

Oklahoma: When a zygote-personhood bill came before the state Senate, Sen. Constance Johnson penned an amendment declaring that ejaculating anywhere outside a woman’s vagina constitutes “an action against an unborn child.”

Texas: Contesting a bill mandating sonograms before abortions, Rep. Harold Dutton unsuccessfully offered three amendments in a row. The first would have required the state to pay the college tuition of children born to women who decide against an abortion after seeing a required ultrasound image. The second would have subsidized the children’s health care costs until age 18. When that failed, he lowered the age to 6. That didn’t fly, either.

Those two bills really get at the heart of the issue, and address the oh-so inconvenient truth about why most women seek abortion in the first place: for economic reasons. Not, as the righties would have you believe, because we women are either murderous monsters or too stupid to know what’s up in there. We know the incredible burdens of pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing. We know the lifelong emotional trauma of adoption.

The fetus-fetish cult are the worst hypocrites. They’re not pro-life, they’re not even pro-family or even pro-fetus. They’re anti-sex and not just any sex, they’re anti sex outside of a wholesome Christian marriage for the sole purpose of procreation. And not just that, they’re anti-women having sex outside of a wholesome Christian marriage for the sole purpose of procreation, because they are stubbornly attached to the traditional idea that men are horn-dogs who can’t control their urges (as God intended!) while women are delicate little flowers who graciously submit to the icky nasty but really don’t like it (also as God intended!). All straight out of the “Advice To Young Brides” manual.


http://southernbeale.wordpress.com/2...re-not-amused/

[Wind Song]

In an ideal world, imprisoning yes. In a less than ideal world, from a pro-life perspective, take what you can get. In this case, take what you can get means not letting the abortionist do an unfettered sales job on a woman with a crisis pregnancy.

Thank you for confirming your position. How about execution? It's "murder" according to you, isn't it?

You want your folks to do an unfettered sales job making the woman have no choice in the matter. Pretty hypocritical of you to criticise clinics who offer women their legal choice.

[darin]

Hi! I'm Wind Song. In usual form, because I cannot fully argue my point of view; because my ONLY ability is to SHOUT MY OPINION from the rooftops, I change the topic when I can't support my position using reason, data, or even proper polite disagreement

Fixed that for you.

[tailfins]

Oklahoma: When a zygote-personhood bill came before the state Senate, Sen. Constance Johnson penned an amendment declaring that ejaculating anywhere outside a woman’s vagina constitutes “an action against an unborn child.”

Texas: Contesting a bill mandating sonograms before abortions, Rep. Harold Dutton unsuccessfully offered three amendments in a row. The first would have required the state to pay the college tuition of children born to women who decide against an abortion after seeing a required ultrasound image. The second would have subsidized the children’s health care costs until age 18. When that failed, he lowered the age to 6. That didn’t fly, either.

Those two bills really get at the heart of the issue, and address the oh-so inconvenient truth about why most women seek abortion in the first place: for economic reasons. Not, as the righties would have you believe, because we women are either murderous monsters or too stupid to know what’s up in there. We know the incredible burdens of pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing. We know the lifelong emotional trauma of adoption.

http://southernbeale.wordpress.com/2...re-not-amused/

OK, so we have established that state Senate, Sen. Constance Johnson might not be well-versed at writing legislative amendments. I propose we send her to a class on writing professional legislation.

It also appears that Rep. Harold Dutton is adept at sabotaging legislation. At least have the honesty to state the intent of his amendments.

[Wind Song]

Then why is there such opposition to at the very least educating the woman (or girl in this case) what an abortion actually is? I don't see much effort being made to have a bias toward carrying a pregnancy to term. Terminating a pregnancy is the "business" of the abortionist and is left unfettered to do a "sales job" on someone with a crisis pregnancy.

There is a big difference between educating a woman on what termination of a pregnancy means and forcing her to submit to a sonogram against her will.

[Wind Song]

OK, so we have established that state Senate, Sen. Constance Johnson might not be well-versed at writing legislative amendments. I propose we send her to a class on writing professional legislation.

I suggest you recognize that there is difference of opinion on the choice issue and that you don't own everyone else's minds.

[tailfins]

Thank you for confirming your position. How about execution? It's "murder" according to you, isn't it?

You want your folks to do an unfettered sales job making the woman have no choice in the matter. Pretty hypocritical of you to criticise clinics who offer women their legal choice.

Tobacco is also legal, but there are warning messages on the package.

[Wind Song]

Tobacco is also legal, but there are warning messages on the package.

That's fine. If anyone asked me to counsel a pregnant woman I would lean against advising her to terminate the pregnancy. What it sounds like you want is for her to have no choice.

Force pregancy to term or else, face imprisonment or death.

[tailfins]

There is a big difference between educating a woman on what termination of a pregnancy means and forcing her to submit to a sonogram against her will.

How is requiring a sonogram before an abortion different than requiring a building permit before building a shed on your own property?

[darin]

Wind Song banned for 24hrs; posting Rep comments in public forum w/o consent of the author/giver of those comments.

[Thunderknuckles]

The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus - it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women. Women have abortions regardless of the law, regardless of the risk to their lives or health, regardless of the morality of abortion, and regardless of what the fetus may or may not be.

That about sums up the very nature of the problem WS.
Thank you.

[fj1200]

It happens to be true that prior to Roe, many women died from unsafe, back alley abortion procedures. Others committed suicide. Do you care about the woman's life at all?

In all these cases, the fetus AND the woman died.

Do you want to punish any woman who terminates her pregnancy by imprisoning or killing her?

I recall another poster stating that more? women die getting abortions present day than those before Roe v. Wade but I don't recall your response.

I also disagree with your premise that overturning Roe will make all abortions illegal; that simply isn't true. Will you acknowledge that legalizing a behavior legitimizes the practice, even those that you seem to acknowledge is morally wrong?

[Abbey Marie]

I recall another poster stating that more? women die getting abortions present day than those before Roe v. Wade but I don't recall your response.

I also disagree with your premise that overturning Roe will make all abortions illegal; that simply isn't true. Will you acknowledge that legalizing a behavior legitimizes the practice, even those that you seem to acknowledge is morally wrong?

YES! A thousand times, yes!

Aand that is EXACTLY why she so badly wants to have gay marriage legalized.