Capitol Ideas

By Robbie Burns

January 24, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

Good idea! The fetus is a living being. It’s like many things. Until you actually see it, the reality or better yet, the impact, doesn’t sink in. I do not see it as pressuring women; this gives them a view of both sides of the coin before making a final decision.

By OFFENDED FEM

January 24, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

More sexist legislation at it’s worst! Hey, I have an idea to make this a little fairer…What if the law further provides that the father of the child (named by the mother and determined by free paternity testing)is required to view the same sonogram and sign a legally binding contract to provide full child support for that child???? Hmmmmm, what tells me this would not be very popular with the Distinguished Gentlemen who make our sexist laws!

By OFFENDED FEM

January 24, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

OOPS!!! Just noticed the sponsoring legislator is a woman….Shame on you!

By dumb sexist guy

January 24, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

I’m just happy my mother had enough good, moral sense not to abort me. Now the rest of my life is just gravy. I’m so happy to be here.

I’ve never understood the justification behind abortion and how it is not murder. Maybe I’m just dumb. I don’t even go to church and I’m pretty much undecided about God, so that doesn’t cloud my mind. Just my morals.

Now that I have my own son, I find it hard to believe people have their babies terminated, I mean aborted.

By Mel

January 24, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

Of course. we need this law because women are too stupid to know when they go in for an abortion that they will, in fact, get an abortion. Please. When we allow them to pass a 24-hour waiting period without comment, we should expect this. It’s a slippery slope. Most women who face this decision are well aware of what they are doing, and it’s not a cavalier or whim decision. I know the pro-life nazis like to think women are going once a month to an abortion clinic and aborting babies while drinking whiskey and smoking crack, but that’s not reality. Maybe start by taking care of the millions of babies here that are unwanted before wasting the brief time the legislature has on these insulting and unconstitutional attempts to invade the right to privacy.

Republicans are supposed to be for small government, with less intrusion. I guess that’s only the case when it’s something they approve of. Hypocrites.

By OFFENDED FEM

January 24, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

Your name should be Lucky dumb sexist guy because your mother was obviously able to raise you (alone?). Not all women/young girls are able to raise a child on their own without financial assistance. The Republicans try to eliminate all forms of public assistance for these young mothers, so I suggest stronger accountability for the fathers of these children. I do not support abortion for abortion’s sake, but it may be the only viable option for some women in today’s world.

By Lynne

January 24, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Did I read that right? This woman is proposing legislation because she “reasons it will change a woman’s mind”? Okay, and while you’re at it…Where is the proposed legislation on banning women from smoking cigarettes while they’re pregnant, having an occasional drink while pregnant, not getting pre-natal care while pregnant….are we going to arrest women who have low-weight babies? How about poor women with vitamin deficiencies or not getting enough folic acid and the baby has serious medical conditions? Oh and why adoption? Shouldn’t it be illegal to place a child up for adoption when you can raise that child yourself? I mean, a “better life” isn’t a constitutional right - poverty is perfectly legal in this country. Adoption? what a cop out - be responsible and raise your own child! Marry the father and stay that way - don’t worry, we’ve got legislation for that coming soon. Oh, he doesn’t want to marry you? Well, gosh darn it, someone propose legislation that every impregnated woman has the right to require the father of her child to marry her……see where this is going people?

By Curious George

January 24, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

Wow, what a great world we must live in if the “only viable option” for women is to kill a human being. Every argument you can make for abortion — economics, unwanted kids, abuse, etc. etc. etc. — you can make for infanticide. Where you gonna stop?

By M

January 24, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

GREAT IDEA!!!!!!!!!!

By OFFENDED FEM

January 24, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Hey George, did you read my post about requiring the father to foot the bill for raising the child? Men like you want to talk about infanticide, but not about equal responsibility etc. etc. etc. - when is irresponsible fathering of babies gonna stop?????? God, please save me from moral morons! If you are all that moral, try pushing legislation that demands the father of the child to be held equally accountable.

By David

January 24, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Terrific, I would like to see the sonogram techinician be able to find a microcellular two week zygote in the uterin lining; a few rare machines have microscopic capabilities, so the pro-life crowd could revel in the less than compelling image of a dot. Real smart. While we’re on this, around 50% of fertilized zygotes never attach to the uterin lining (first few days of a pregnancy), effectively causing an ‘abortion.’ Does this mean that God is the responsible party?

By NotMyProblem

January 24, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

may be the only viable option for some women in today’s world.

Actually, Offended Fem, keeping their legs closed in the first place would be the most viable option for some women in today’s world. It’s peoples’ promiscuity and willingness to have casual sex that has necessitated the “need” for so many abortions to begin with.

By Curious George

January 24, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Yeah, Fem, and if he leaves her when the kid is 2 years old, just kill it then, right? What’s the difference? No one’s against requiring men to live up to their responsibilities, that’s why the majority of the anti-abortion movement is made up of women. Try omitting the personal attacks and sticking to logical arguments. But then you’d lose because logic is not on your side.

By Lynne

January 24, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Well NotMyProblem, by your name you must be pro-choice since you obviously understand that its not your problem.

By NotMyProblem

January 24, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

You’re right, Lynne. It’s not my problem because I make intelligent choices and have more respect for myself than to have casual sex, resulting in a pregnancy, and then choose to kill the resulting baby simply because I and the person I slept with had no self-control or self-respect. That makes it not my problem. Pro-choice is simply another way of saying pro-abortion and pro-murder.

By NotMyProblem

January 24, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

I can sum up the reasoning for opposition to this bill and the requirement of an ultrasound to see the life you’re killing, in three words:

The Truth Hurts

By J

January 24, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Hey there Offended Fem, I am reading your posts about the State requiring the father to sign a document promising to pay for the child’s care, responsible fathering of children, etc. I’m all for these things, but not for the State eliciting these promises after fertilization.

Why can’t the mother get these assurances from the father BEFORE the procreative act occurs? After all, that is how we’ve done it for the last 10,000 years.

By susan

January 24, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

To all the would be supporters of this legislation and its author: what if we allowed people to use birth control and educated people- men and women on the use of birth control and sex education, do you think we would need the right to abortion as women? Probably not. If we teach people the correct way to PREVENT pregnancy and in the meantime prevent overpopulation and overuse of our planet’s water, natural areas, food, housing etc… we wouldnt be having this discussion.

Unless of course, we all dont mind living in an overcrowded, polluted world without enough food, water and housing!

Get with the program conservatives, birth control is needed and is not a sin!

conservative about preserving the earth

By Moral Minority

January 24, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

What’s really going to bake your noodle later on, FEM, is when someone explains how not all men/young boys are able to raise a child, either. However they get no say in abortion. Your “right to choose” is sexist from the start! Back to the books!

All our legislature is trying to do here is shock, impede, and pressure women to beat them down to the point that they’re no longer able to make a choice. Because it makes the rest of us feel like we’re “moral”. We just lack to morals to call it what it is.

By Andy

January 24, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

NotMyProblem

Thank you for being one of the few honest people on the anti-abortion side to admit in public that this whole thing is really an exercise in requiring a consequence for anyone who wants to have sex out of wedlock.

Banning abortion, preventing the dispension of contraceptives… it’s all part of the same Victorian approach to enforcing sexual conduct that fits some moralistic standard.

The darnedest thing is: it doesn’t work. Legislating morality never works. All the drug laws in the world won’t stop illegal drug use amongst wealthy Conservative radio-heads.

And all the anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-privacy laws won’t make people stop having sex when they want to have sex.

The law is stupid anyway. Any doctor will tell you that they aren’t going to do the D&C without doing a sonogram to see where it is and what it looks like. This is just more dumb moralistic pandering to a small group of fanatical voters.

By OFFENDED FEM

January 24, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

LOL…NotMyProblem, it takes two so don’t talk about promiscuity unless you include the male factor. But then, your name says it all, doesn’t it??? And George, I never said the father should stay with the woman and child. I just said he should be made legally financially responsible for that child. His presence or lack thereof should not affect the responsibility for supporting the child he helped create. As far as the personal attacks…”logic is not on your side”??? Why, because you said so?

By hyper

January 24, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

I’m pro-life, but anti-hypocrisy. We should also force criminal juries, the executioner, the judge, and prosecutors attend an execution, spend the entire day of an execution with the prisoner, meet his/her spouse, parents, kids, family, and impose a penalty on all of them if DNA or other evidence later proves that the prisoner was wrongly convicted before imposing the death penalty. In other words, we should make them think twice before deciding to end the life of a criminal defendant who is almost always overmatched in our criminal justice system just as this bill seeks to make mothers think twice about an abortion.

By It´s about CONTROL

January 24, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

It´s about controlling people, about keeping people DOWN, MISINFORMED AND SCARED. And that starts with the women, as usual. Shame on that repug. Funny how some male bloggers, who DO NOT KNOW, NOR WILL THEY EVER KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT PREGNANCY, think they are omniscient on the subject. AND AGAINST WOMEN, I might add. Maybe they also “talk” to king george´s god.

By Lynne

January 24, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

Whatever “notmyproblem”…you dont’ get it. Whatever choices you make are just that…..YOURS. So live up to your moniker and concede that its not your issue to deal with if a female you don’t know, never knew, could care less about, don’t know the situation, could care less about the situation….decides what’s best for her. Its not your problem, so why does it even concern you in the least if she terminates her pregnancy? Remember, its not your problem. Or do you think you still have the right to dictate what she must do even though you’ve said its not YOUR problem?

By Lauren

January 24, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Carlos Campos asks “Is this a good idea, or is it disrespectful and cruel to subject women seeking abortion to those images?”

I don’t see how this can be considered disrespectful or cruel. All the legislation is promoting is giving women the OPTION of seeing their sonogram. Nobody is going to force it on them.

Offended Fem is like so many who get hysterical when women are given more information about their choices. If you’re really Pro-Choice, then you should applaud any effort to help women make that choice with a clear conscience. Sonograms are already done so the doctor can determine the size of the fetus. Withholding information with the mindset that the information is best left with the doctor only demeans a woman’s ability to choose what is best for her.

Offended Fem, as a self-proclaimed Feminist, then you should really support the right of a woman to have as much information as possible. Otherwise, you’re not really Pro-Choice.

By Eddie

January 24, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

People, you’re missing the point. As a pro-choice male father, who has been through pregnancy with my wife & knows a bit about it, what’s the problem with the proposed legislation? They’re not denying anyone the right to an abortion, just giving them the opportunity to view a sonogram so they have a deeper understanding of what actually happens when you get pregnant.

By OFFENDED FEM

January 24, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

it’s about CONTROL….how true!!! Hit my nail on the head! Had a lot of fun with my comments because I was really trying to rile up those moral males…guess it worked! Thank God my husband of 27 years is not like these male bloggers. By the way, we had 3 children, no abortions, and our children were taught from a young age about morality and responsible sex (they haven’t needed abortions either). In case you didn’t understand my position, it is against legislation that only pertains to women!!! DUH!!!!

By Julie

January 24, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

OffendedFem is just ticked off because she chose a loser to father her child. Now she wants to blame the government for not “making” him pay. Grow up, get a life, and deal with your decision.

By susan

January 24, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

These pros and cons regarding abortion wouldn’t even be as important if the morning after pill, which has been ruled safe, were readily available to all sexually active females. What justification does the FDA have for blocking approval of the OCP of this pill? They have absolutely no justification, only pressure from the religious wrong.

By Andy

January 24, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Lauren: Otherwise, you’re not really Pro-Choice

How about being “pro-privacy”? What ever happened to the thought that what occurs between you and your doctor is something that is PRIVATE and none of the government’s business unless the doctor does something you don’t want?

When did it become ok for government to be so intrusive on our private lives? All these efforts will do is make it harder for POOR women to get the family planning help they need. These laws aren’t aimed at the wealthy; they can fly somewhere else to get an abortion. It’s the poor who are once again being victimized by Republicans.

By Lynne

January 24, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Amen Andy, Amen! This is just about sex, not about children. A sonogram is always performed, this is just plain mean. I think all of the legislature that favors this proposal should swear under oath that they have never had pre-marital sex, an STD, if a woman - an abortion, that they will adopt at least 2 children who are currently available for adoption with absolutely no preference for gender, race, age or family history, will not use birth control within their marriage, will never divorce….I mean if you’re gonna be morally righteous, don’t half-step, do it big!

By Richard

January 24, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

For me the bottom line in all the abortion controversy is that every individual has the right to decide what is best for herself. It is her body and no one in the world has the right [god-given or state-given] to impose his/her views on a pregnant woman’s decision. With this in mind, there should be no impediments imposed by the state to make a decision in favor of abortion by any woman difficult, dangerous, embarrassing, humiliating, or illegal.

By NotMyProblem

January 24, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Lynne, I don’t know what I find more hilarious: your hysterical rantings about why it’s okay to kill a baby, or your assumption that I’m a man.

By ltc

January 24, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Am I hearing this right? Abortion is really a birth control device! Wow, what a inhumane way to make someone else pay for your lack of responsibility. I guess some of you have not learned there are other ways to prevent this mess at the time of intercourse.

By LIz

January 24, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

The crux of the issue about abortion is: does the government have the right to tell me what to do with my own body? Put another way: does anyone else have any right to tell me that I must allow their religious views to dictate to me what I can or can’t do with my own body? (And guys, since you can’t get pregnant, I leave you completely and totally and utterly out of this discussion.) Here’s what’s about to happen. Roe v. Wade will be overturned and go to the states. Each year legislatures will be dominated by abortion politics. Restrictions will be hotly debated, and will come and go. Women with means will cross state lines to have access to safe abortions. Women without means will be left to illegal abortions, or will be forced to have a baby, and their ability to be independent of goverment support will be diminished. Twenty-five years ago the AJC was full of articles about crack babies leaving the hospital with $250,000 bills, just one of the eight children of a 25-year old mother. Has anything changed up there? Twenty-five years ago I had an abortion at a clinic in Sandy Springs (no, not that one)and I got down on my knees and thanked god that I was able to have a safe, legal abortion and I WAS NOT AFRAID. That was the right thing for me. I knew it. Did I make that decision lightly? No. Are the circumstances of my situation any of your business? No, no, and never. Could I have finished Emory with a child to support? Not likely. Would I have changed my mind if there’d been a sonogram involved. No. But it’s a damn shame that American women have allowed the rights we had 25-years ago get whittled away on our watch. Boo to the Republican party for getting into bed with religious fundamentalists. Boo to George Bush Sr. who was pro-choice in his first presidential run but jettisoned his position like a dirty shirt when Reagan came calling. Boo to Johnny Isakson who used to be pro-choice. Boo to Zell Miller who I once thanked in the Peachtree Road Houston’s for his pro-choice position and boo to every politician - man or woman - who tells me I have to wait or sit through a film or look at a sonogram or travel four states over before I can do what I know is best for me.
So abortion will become illegal, and the pendulum will swing, and we’ll be fighting this issue out for the rest of our lifetimes. And the people who can least afford to have babies will have ‘em. We’re on a slippery slope, folks, and it’s the beginning of the end of America.

By Susan

January 24, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

What is so hard to understand concerning the words “offer” and “option” ? If you find yourself in that situation and don’t want to see the sonogram, SAY NO. Make your own decision and let others do the same. Opinions are as individual as the person they stem from. Why shouldn’t all women be given the CHOICE?

By ltc

January 24, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

Yes the government has the right! Especially if you want me to pay for it through my taxes…get it!!!

By OFFENDED FEM

January 24, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

Richard, Bravo…well said! Julie, see my post…I’m 53, married for 27 yrs to most wonderful guy and we have 3 children, no abortions. I am grown up, have a life and dealt with all my decisions. What on earth is your problem? Is it OK to legislate more when it concerns women, but not ok to legislate more when it concerns men??? Sounds like you need to get a life.

By Andy

January 24, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Itc,

So you’re saying that only if the government is paying for it through your taxes do they have a right to make the rules? What if the government is not paying for it?

And why pick on just poor people? That’s what your real beef is here. Poor folks use your tax money to pay for abortions so they can have more sex without consequences. Do I have that right?

Would you rather your tax dollars go toward a one-time medical procedure or 18 years of helping to raise that child? Which seems more cost-effective to you? Since you’re so worried about your tax dollars, maybe you should help promote MORE abortion procedures so that you can save on your tax dollars.

Heh.

By EW

January 24, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

This is a cruel piece of legislation, which undermines the woman’s right to choose. I’m pro choice because it does offer the option of whatever the woman, or the couple decides to choose. Not I’m not saying everyone run out and have an abortion; however it is their right to be able to make that choice. They need all the information, pros and cons to make an informed, well thought out decision.

By EW

January 24, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Another misconception is that only poor people are the majority of people that have abortions; I read recently that most abortions are obtained by single, white women, mid thirties. Also let’s not even mention our more affluent clients that use abortions as a means of birth control because they can afford it.

By Educated

January 24, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

You want to talk logic? Then why is it that once a woman gets pregnant, the guy is no longer responsible? She’s the promiscuous one, she should’ve kept her legs closed, she is all about casual sex. Hello? A pregnancy is the result of 2 people, not just the 1! Why on top of everything else is the woman responsible for keeping a guy in check? They’re just hepless beings that just have sex all over until a pious, moral-filled woman stops him?! As far as the abortion goes, what is up with you people who are just so self-righteous? You’ve perfected yourself so you’re out to perfect the rest of the world? How about you focus on yourself. Don’t want an abortion? Don’t get one! But who are you to decide what’s right for another person? If someone wants to cut off their arm, that’s their decision. If it doesn’t affect you, what do you care? I don’t think I would get an abortion, but I’m still Pro-Choice because that’s MY decision! If the person next to me decides that’s what she wants, that’s her life and her choice. Kudos to her for making a decision rather than having the government tell her what she has to do.

By PRO RIGHTS

January 24, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Thanks alot Offended Fem, i agree with everything that you have said. I just dont understand why there are so many laws going to the Legislation about woman rights. I wish there was a law that would force fathers who do not pay child support and keep having children to be forced to a Vasectomy. If this law was passed I can guarantee that the abortion rate would go down.

By Sarah

January 24, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Zel Miller doesn’t have a working brain, much the less a uterus, he should just butt out, all men should. We saw his mad cow like rantings and ravings on television, is this the person I want to represent my reprodcutive and privacy rights? A HUGE NO. First off men, if you don’t have a uterus so you will never be faced with this decision so just back off, this is NOT your battle, it’s not your war. What if it were up to women to determine if men are to be either circumcised or had to have a vasectomy. This is not a Taliban country, you can’t rule women here, you will not take our rights away. Go thump your male ego chest at home and restrain your women, just keep your fat ugly nose out of my uterus and my reproductive rights that are by law mine. Again, Zel Miller is a lunatic, a madman, a political scab…and last but not least…a total looney.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

I’m personally not for abortion, but I don’t oppose it on legal grounds. I don’t think the government should legislate morality.

While I do not support abortion as a method of contraception, I do believe that it should be allowed for victims of rape and when the life of the mother is in danger. HOWEVER, all that goes out the door when the mother has allowed the baby to develop past the point of fetus.

Have any of you ever seen an aborted child - via D and C? I have. It is horrifying! It is a viable child. And how about partial birth abortions? Did you know that what they do is pull part of the baby out of the womb and then basically snap/cut the neck of the baby while the head is still in the womb - so that it can be qualified as “not really born”?

All that said, I’m a guy. If a mother wants to murder her unborn child, who am I to say anything unless it’s my child she’s aborting. Let her answer to her maker for that murder.

Women were afforded the ease of having sex outside of marriage when the PILL came into being. And then that old bothersome thing called AIDS came around and made it unsafe to have sex without protection. So, I’m thinking that any half wit out there would not only be on the PILL, but also using a CONDOM, right?

Over 75% of children born to African American women are born to single mothers.

Over 25% of children born to caucasion women are born to single mothers.

Is there a problem here?

Is the way to lower these numbers by retroactive contraception (abortion) or do you think maybe parents need to have serious talks with their daughters and sons and teach them how to prevent unwanted pregnancies before they happen?

But some of the women out there are arguing that it is “both the man and the woman’s responsibility” not just the woman’s….

You are absolutely correct.

HOWEVER….the man doesn’t get pregnant. The woman does. So, ultimately whose responsibility is it? Most women today are apparently very poor judges of character when it comes to whom they will allow to insemenate them.

The guys are gone almost as soon as the afterglow is gone.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Sarah - who do you think makes the decision to circumcize boys? It’s women. It’s the mother of the child (since most times we’re talking about single mothers right?)

So your argument doesn’t hold water does it?

If you can decide if a boy gets a circumcision, then shouldn’t men be allowed to weigh in on whether a mother slices and dices a child out of her womb?

By sedona

January 24, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Here we are in 2006 and instead of going forward we are going back to the dark ages,making women baby machines, and for the person who says women should keep there legs closed and no casual sex, this is a free country and women should be able to have casual sex if they want too!!! How many times do women get talked into sex with a boyfriend or even husband, don’t blame women for unplanned pregnancies, there are many awful reasons why this has happened. To make a woman go through 9 mnths of a pregnancy she does not want is a CRIME to me that is like a nazi slavery thing to do. These politicians should be ashamed of theirselves if you don’t agree with abortion fine, don’t have one but to throw your beliefs on the rest of the women in this country is a shame!! I feel like I will be living in romania with a dictator soon!

By CAS

January 24, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

I’m Pro Choice and am okay with this legislation. It is only the option of seeing the sonogram and everyone should be as informed as possible before making this decision that can affect the rest of your life.

For those of you on here who are oh so pious and good……”She should have kept her legs closed”….I can’t believe women are still the only party blamed for casual sex. Before anyone jumps on that bandwagon I would suggest a quick review of your own life. How many of us can really say that we NEVER had premarital sex that COULD have resulted in a pregnancy? Maybe we just got lucky. How many of you had a pregnancy scare in high school or college and didn’t say “I’ll just have an abortion” because you were scared to death. It’s easy for us to be super moral after when we are older and have been there and done that. And before anyone gets on here and says how they NEVER would have gotten themselves in that situation. Fine - you can lie to me and the rest of the world, but you can’t lie to yourself or God.

By Rocky

January 24, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Lauren, There is a difference between having a sonogram available, and being forced to view it. I’m sure that there are women who do not WANT an abortion, but do not see any other viable option. In these cases, a sonogram is simple cruelty to women who have not had much else in their lives.

Until there are real options for pregnant women (like sufficient child-care, financial support from the fathers, no social stigma against unwed mothers), women will often feel enormous social pressures to get an abortion. There is a huge double standard there - “I say that a woman MUST have her baby, but I’M not willing to help.” Sounds like people want control, but not responsibility.

By momof2

January 24, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Everyone knows they give free condoms and birth-control pills at the health department. AS long as you have sex there is a risk of babies, how about practicing abstinance. Not going to happen because it is a person’s nature to have sex. You could always have all boy babies fixed at birth and then reversed when they are mature enough to understand parenting responsibilities, that way it not all on the female.

But you pro-lifers quote is “We care about you fetuses until you are born and then you are on your own” “We don’t care if you have crack momma’s and have to live on welfare because that is what we pay opur taxes for.

Trust me if a woman wants an abortion she will get one by a doctor or otherwise. They have been doing it for 100’s of years and won’t stop now.

By Rocky

January 24, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Oops - took too long to reply, and lost track of the thread. Sorry, all.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

The argument that the government cannot/should not tell you what to do with your own body is one that is evil and wrong, huh?

What about sodomy laws? I’m sure a lot of you would argue they are okay, but they tell married heterosexual and gay couples what they can/cannot do in the bedroom?

How about suicide? It’s against the law in most states to attempt/suceed to commit suicide?

Statutory rape - Even if both parties consented, it is against the law for an adult and a person who has not reached the age of consent to have sex.

Murder - it is against the law for you to use your person and any object to take the life of another.

Again, I don’t think the government should legislate morality, BUT I’ve seen interuterine video of a D and C (where they cut the baby up in pieces and remove it limb by limb).

When the baby’s leg was cut off (the first limb removed), you could see the baby’s mouth open and eyes squint shut as it silently screamed in pain.

So you tell me….”Mom to be” who should be allowed to do whatever you want with YOUR uterus - is this just up to you?

What about that child who screamed in pain as you had it cut up or suctioned out of your womb?

By Educated

January 24, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

It’s fun to use the worst case scenario as a scare tactic, but the truth of the matter is that most women get abortions right away. They don’t sit there 6-8 months pregnant and think “Hmmmm…maybe motherhood isn’t for me. Gotta get rid of this!” Please! The majority of women seek abortions immediately after discovering pregnancy.

By NotRepub

January 24, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

We should also pass a law to outlaw Birth Control Pills. These pills are only used to prevent pregnancy and promotes “loose morals”. I am sure the Republican lawmaker would howl at such a proposal. But it’s the same thing. Republicans need to live their lives, and not legislate their hypocritical morality into mine.

By Rocky

January 24, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Doesn’t everyone know that no one will change their minds on abortion based on simple conversation? Sheesh. Especially not on a message board.

JT - shock tactics are cheap.

By Julie

January 24, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Sorry Offended Fem, I didn’t read your last post. You are just full of hot air. Women know going into it that a man can walk away. If they are willing to take that chance, then why feel sorry for them? What about women who abandon their children and the father raises them? I’ve seen that happen quite a few times, and the mother doesn’t pay a dime. Where was the father’s decision to have an abortion? This issue is never going to change, women will get pregnant, some men will stick around, some won’t. It’s not a new trend, if you are willing to lay down, you are accepting the consequences.

I guess since you live in such a perfect world and have perfect children, you’ve never had to deal with this. I’ll bet the farm they were having pre-marital sex, they just got lucky w/ not getting pregnant.

By EW

January 24, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

JT, thanks for the unwanted visual picture and shock threats. You make me sick.

By Your

January 24, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

Llz,

Do you hear my crying out for you every night in your dreams? I cannot explain the pain I went through inside your womb. I was so excited to have you as a mommy. Why didnt you give me a chance to live? Do you even think about me when you see other children?

Your murdered child

By PRO LIFE

January 24, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

What is the deal JT? Are you really that crazy? Everything that you just listed are crimes that are commited on another person. I dont think that if i commit sodomy on myself you would really care.You might say DO IT AGAIN

By Sarah

January 24, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

JT you are just the kind of idiot that calls abortion murder but you’ll shoot a doctor in the head as he stands in the kitchen talking with his wife. Face it, you’re mad because you have no woman in your life to control now. get a life, your own, not mine.

By M.C.

January 24, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Go to google images and search for “abortion” and try to tell me that’s not a human being! Three children are killed every minute due to abortion…so next time you’re on your hour lunch break, just think that 180 babies were just killed.

By Rocky

January 24, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

One thought that is rarely mentioned in this debate is that the legality of abortion is often a choice between lives. Either a fetus developes into a child, or a grown woman dies (in child birth, or as a result of a botched, back-ally abortion).

*Make your choice. *

By EW

January 24, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

WOW, here we go, this blog will now turn into the radical pro choice message board. This is why we cannot have a constructive conversation on serious political issues that face us today. YOUR, your mean, cruel and just plain ignorant. I’m sure while your writing this, your doing everything possible to help make a child who doesn’t have shelter, or maybe food to eat tonight a better place, oh what was I thinking you only care about unborn children.

By Lynne

January 24, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

I never mentioned your gender or perceived gender “notmyproblem”. That’s paranoia on your part. I could care less if you’re man, woman or something in-between, the bottom line is you claim its not your problem which means by your own statements - its not. Therefore, you shouldn’t care about any issues involving abortion because it doesn’t effect you. If you feel otherwise, explain the name you’re using because it would imply you have no vested interest in this topic.

By g8trh8tr

January 24, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

I don’t normally get involved in abortion degates, because I know I’m not going to be able to change the minds of those who disagree with me. But I will say this. My mother was a 17 year old High school senior when she got pregnant with me. My dad had just graduated high school the year before, was valedictorian of his class, and had just begun college. I know it would’ve been much easier on them if they had just had an abortion. Instead they got married, and had me. My dad wasn’t able to go to college AND support a family, so he dropped out of school. Because of this, he’s been working at a job that he hates for almost 33 years. He’s still almost 5 years away from retirement, but he’s counting the days. I’m 32 years old now, and I have a younger brother and sister. I’m married with a son of my own and another child on the way. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the right choice is not always the easy one. I know my situation is different from many others, but I thank God my parents made the tough choice.

By DRJ

January 24, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Lets all hear for the South! Where it is OK to oppress people and make sure that your beliefs are forced upon others. YEAH!

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

PRO LIFE and Sarah -

So, I assume you are saying that the child growing in the womb of a woman is not a life. It is not a living thing….so is there something dead growing inside a woman?

You talk about murdering doctors (which I certainly would not condone) and PRO LIFE, you say that I listed crimes committed on another person - so aborting a child is not a crime on another person?

I’m not pro choice and I’m not anti-abortion, but I’m amazed at the pro-choice side likes to fool itself into believing that the baby growing in a mother’s womb is not a living thing.

And Rocky and EW - do you think that the Vietnam War was more “horrible” than previous wars because U.S. citizens, for the first time ever, were able to see just was going on or was it just a worse war?

Aborting a child isn’t a neat, clean little procedure like having your teeth cleaned.

By EW

January 24, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Dear g8trh8tr,

My parents were in a similar situation, however they gave me up for adoption. I’m glad too that my mother made the choice she made. However, the operative word here is CHOICE.

By EW

January 24, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

JT,

I didnt think it was, just didnt need the visual. By the way, I know Vietnam was more horrible, I lost my dad there.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

Science has been trying for years to try to find out what makes a murderer tick so that we could prevent them from killing in the first place. Is this wrong?

If you agree that it is a good policy, then shouldn’t we try to prevent pregnancies rather than deal with the consequences of the pregnancy?

I’m honest to God not anti-abortion - I think it’s a personal choice. But so is having sex in the first place.

Sarah, if you’re in control of your own body and I shouldn’t have anything to do with it (which from the way you sound, no man in his right mind would be), then you should also control your sexual urges or if you can’t do that, take adequate precautions to prevent pregnancy.

If you want to argue that it is men who are oppressing you and preventing you from the God given right to abort children, then since there are more women in the U.S. than men, maybe you need to have a chat with the other women and not make this a male/female issue. Obviously there are a lot of women out there who disagree with you.

Or maybe, you’ve already had an abortion or two or three and you just want to placate your guilty conscience by making me out to be the bad guy.

By Educated

January 24, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

I don’t get why a fetus is more valued than the mother. She’s pregnant and suddenly incapable of making a decision that’s right for her? You’re right, the operative word is choice. The mother is the adult, the functioning human. It is HER choice to make that decision, not some stranger or maniac on a message board. It’s great that some women choose to keep the child, I think that’s awesome! But not everyone is the same and to create laws that puts more value on the unborn than the functioning human just doesn’t make sense to me.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

To offended FEM and Liz:

You are right: it’s about control — YOURS.

It’s called SELF-control.

YOU have a body that produces a baby, not like that of a man.

As was said above: SEEING what is in your tummy is an option.

I believe that a man has a moral responsibility to a woman to not sleep with her until they are married as well.

NO one is ever going to force you not to have an abortion. The way this country is heading, we may be forcing people soon to HAVE one if they get pregnant more than once, what with the environmental negativity and so-called ‘depletion of resources’ issue that you all are adamantly pushing on everyone.

What are you afraid of seeing? Eyes, nose ears and a beating heart?

Are you afraid that indeed something more than a piece of tissue is in there, kicking and sucking it’s thumb?

By MEB

January 24, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Ok. After reading through everyone’s viewpoint I still have yet to see anyone answer the following questions:

1)What happened to a woman/man making the CHOICE before intercourse? Are we saying that we, as humans, lack the capacity to excercise common sense? Just about everyone who has had an abortion knew how preganancy occurs but CHOSE not to act accordingly.

2)If this is really about CHOICE and since it takes two to tango, why doesn’t the man have a choice as to whether or not an abortion takes place? It’s a “No fair” situation no matter how you look at it. Someone’s right to CHOOSE is going to be ingored. If the guy wants the baby and the woman doesn’t (I know…not too likely these days), he has no say-so. If the woman wants the baby and the guy doesnt, he still has no say so.

Why do you think that the founding fathers said Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They put it in that order for a reason. The preservation of life is more important than Liberty (choice) and the Pursuit of Happiness. Liberty is more important than the Pursuit of Happiness.

I am Pro-choice but I am personally against abortion. I would hope that we could begin to take responsiblilty for our actions instead of thinking of ways to escape them.

Also, for the persons who said that the woman is fully aware of what she is doing is mistaken. Organizations like Planned Parenthood hide the stats of how many women have psychological leftover issues that haunt them for years. This makes it easier to sell.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

I can see that self-control is not a popular world in this culture.

I gues that’s why it says that in the last days “perilous times will come, for men will be lovers of themselves…”

Perilous means troublesome, fearful, awful.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Carol- Were you a virgin until marriage? If not, then you can’t tell someone they need to exercise self control. That’s the rule - unless you yourself exercised that self control you can’t tell others that they need to do it. If you are just luckier than the next person that doesn’t mean you are smarter or better.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Educated - we’re not talking about choosing between the life of the mother and the life of the child….at least that’s not what I’m talking about…Obviously the life of the mother should be preserved when that situation arises.

However, if a “mother” (I think it really should be “egg donor”, since if she were really the mother she would be a caring loving person and keep the child she created with the guy who’s name she can’t remember) CHOOSES to abort the child, then we’re not really talking about making a choice between the mother and the child are we? What we’re talking about is choosing to let a child develop and live or let the girl go back to her life like nothing ever happened.

Life is all about choices people. We all make them. Good and bad. I make both daily. I have to live with the consequences. I don’t have an eraser for ever mistake I’ve made. To turn abortion into an eraser for a woman’s mistake is just ridiculous. It’s a quick fix. Maybe if the mother has the child and gives it up or raises the child, then she won’t make the same mistake twice.

Since I am in the process of adopting - for all those of you who want to know what type of person can stand in “judgment of others” - now you know. I put my “heart” where my mouth is.

Can you say the same?

By Lynne

January 24, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

You know EW, you would think there are no more children available for adoption with so much passion on the anti-abortion side of the fence. Last I checked though, there were still quite a few. Someone should tell Nancy Schaefer so she can just run right down to Child Services and start her paperwork….we know how much she cares.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

to educated:

The fetus is more ‘valuable’ or really ‘vulnerable’ because he/she (not IT) is tiny, and weak, and cannot express a voice in the matter.

For those of you who talk about CHOICE and a VOICE like there’ no tomorrow, WHOSE VOICE?

Only BIG people have rights to life here?

Sounds like the so-called ‘Mother’ is being a big bully.

By Beverly

January 24, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

I was single, in a loving relationship and enjoying a great career when I became pregnant. When I told my boyfriend that I was pregnant, he dumped me so fast I barely had time to respond. Everybody pressured me to have an abortion. My boss told me unless I had an abortion my career was over, my mother said I was ruining my life and becoming just another black, single mother. She refused to speak to me and only visited when my daughter was 4 months old because my father shamed her into it. My daughter is now 11, beautiful and the joy of my life. I thank God everyday for this beautiful child, and I tell her everyday that I am so glad I had her. That being said, It was my choice to have her, it was my choice to raise her by myself, and it was my choice to change careers so I could spend more time with her. It was more difficult than you men can ever imagine. Yes, it takes two to make a child, but it’s the woman walking around feeling the shame and unbelievable fear. I guess the lesson I learned from all of this is that abstinence is not such a bad thing. It has taught me to wait for my God Jehovah to prepare me to be a Christian wife, and that a true Christian man will respect me enough to marry me before laying a hand on me. Sex is great, and I do miss it. BUt I have peace of mind and I’ve never regretted my decision. Now here’s the bombshell: Two years prior I had become pregnant and chose to have an abortion. I saw the sonogram and it didn’t change my mind. I KNEW it was the right decision for me at that time. It is a decision I will regret for the rest of my life. But, I made that mistake, not the government. So making women look at a sonogram isn’t going to sway them if their minds are made up. But I think the more information the better. Don’t want to look at a sonogram, don’t. But at least you have all the information you need before you make a decision that will impact the rest of your life.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

CAS—

yes, and I am STILL a virgin!!!

Imagine that!!!

By JohnD.

January 24, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Mass of goo = no rights

By Beverly

January 24, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Oh, both times I was on the pill AND used a condom. Just call me “Fertile Myrtle.”

By CAS

January 24, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

MEB-I also see myself as pro choice AND anti-abortion. I don’t know everyone’s individual situation so I wouldn’t want to dictate how they live their lives, but the psychological effects are long term on these women. I have never had an abortion, but I have friends who have had them and it wasn’t an easy choice.

Very few sexual assaults are actually reported and many women who have been raped did have abortions. They wouldn’t fall into the “unless she was raped” caveat because, officially, she wasn’t raped, but still didn’t have any choice in the matter. My only point is that nobody knows the specifics of another person’s situation so what works for one person may not work for another person. Let them live their lives and you can live yours.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

I am in the process of adopting a child from DFACS. To those of you who are claiming that abortion will stop all the unwanted children who are available for adoption, let me tell you the facts, since I’ve gone through the classes:

As soon as an infant is available, there are fifty to a hundred parents clamboring to adopt that infant.

The children who are in DFACS are largely older children whose parents have abused them either sexually, physically, mentally or they are children who have mental or physical defects.

You would be hard pressed to find an infant, black, white, pink, or purple that isn’t spoken for almost as soon as it is available for adoption. It is the older children - the special needs children - who need adopting.

So don’t give me the garbage about “children available for adoption” because you don’t know a thing about it do you? You’re just quoting stuff you’ve heard others say.

Yeah, I’m pro-choice, but anti-abortion, but I’ve done my research. I’m also in the process of adopting a special needs child. So if that makes me evil and wrong, then tell me how with facts, not just rhetoric.

By EW

January 24, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

I believe in choice, so you should choose to be responsible in the first place, however if not then the choice is still provided to you. I believe that all consenting adults should be responsible in their choices of sexual activity; again however, we all make misjudgments. IF one person says they haven’t they LIE.

By Lynne

January 24, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

I admire you for adopting. I’m sure unlike many, you don’t care which child you’re given, I know you didn’t specify a particular age range, or race, or gender, that you didn’t care about family history or medical history because whatever child is presented before you, you will deal with, no matter what, the history wouldn’t change your mind. I know many people think its noble to adopt even when they’ve decided on a child because its a newborn, or less than 2, or doesn’t have scares from physical, sexual or mental abuse…well it loses some of its nobility when that happens. But anyway, I hope you are successful in your adoption and encourage others to do so as well.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

John D.

A Mass of goo with a beating heart, lungs, fingers, toes that kick.

Think about that the next time you see a woman stroking her pregnant stomach…there’s SOMEONE she is nurturing, not a blob.

CAS—according to abortion statistics, half of us are NOT living their lives.

By Lisa

January 24, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

I am adopted, we have 3 biological children and we are adopting this March. I believe I have the qualifications to speak. I am pro-life. Something ‘growing’ is alive, it can not be dead and grow, that isn’t logical. Abortion causes pain to the baby; stop ignoring this fact. Would you cut off your 3 year olds leg or arm? Would you scramble your 2 year olds brains? Reality is tough. Pre-martial sex causes problems, casual sex causes problems. We live in a world of selfish people that have no control or discipline. We don’t want to be responsible so we have abortions. Bottom line, it comes down to self gratification with no responsibility. But, make no mistake, there are consequences.

By Educated

January 24, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Sad to say, but it’s her choice to be the bully! What if someone walking down the street didn’t like the way you were parenting your child? So they decide to take your child away or make you jump through hoops so that you can be a parent. The way you parent is a choice, right? Your methods used in a way that will fit your goals and determinations of right and wrong. You’d think a stranger on the street would have no business telling you what to do because they aren’t in your life, they have no idea the situation you are in, correct? Same difference! You can’t force a woman to have a child because that’s what you would do! What, she should be forced to carry to term and have the baby? Then what?! Where will YOU be? You will be out there condemning single mothers, users of welfare, and complaining about how your tax dollars are wasted on medicaid. Round and round we go! Bottom line, if you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. No one is forcing you! And until you can tell me you lead a perfect life and make exemplary decisions, you have zilch right to tell somebody else what they should do. I just don’t understand where people get off getting into someone else’s business.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

EW

If we can’t offer real-life examples of those who have made right decisions, then you are correct in saying that it is a hopeless situtaion.

I happen to know MANY who were told by their doctors that the baby would be deformed, or their relatives and ‘friends’ told them that it would bring them misery and poverty to have the child, that had it anyway, and the results were radically different. THAT’s the LIE…believing Hollywood bimbos who are negative about life and the environment, when life can change for the better, and it DOES.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Beverly - You are to be commended for your actions. I know it’s been hard on you. But you obviously are someone who knows how to weather a storm. You also show that you are person who knows how to prosper from lessons learned.

If only more people were like you.

Tell your daughter she’s lucky to have such a good mother.

By OFFENDED FEM

January 24, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

Julie, you are a sick person. What gives you the right to make nasty comments about my children? Talk about hot air! The issue here is legislation/control over women. Yes, my world is pretty perfect…I worked hard to make it that way! I also worked very hard in the 60’s/70’s to secure rights for women, something you are obviously clueless about. I would love to know your demographics….

By Beverly

January 24, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Carol, please don’t make it seem as if forgoing an abortion means you and your child will sing Cumbayya every day in fields dotted with lillies. I can tell you from experience that it is HARD to raise child by yourself. My choice isn’t for everyone, but it is one I will never regret. Still, I have gone without eating for a day or two so she could have ballet lessons, or so we could pay the heating bill. While my friends were buying their first homes and going on ski trips, I was still living in an apartment and struggling to make the rent. Life is much, much better now but believe me, you will be poor, and you will be tired and cranky, and you will question yourself many times.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Educated - Again, you show that you are not really Educated.

NO, you cannot parent a child any way that you want to. Do you read the newspaper? Children are taken away from parents daily for neglecting them, abusing them, spanking them, etc.

Your argument is absolutely infantile.

For the record, laws are rules that other people how to do things. We are a society of laws. And though I may not be perfect, I get to assist in the legal process by voting. So do you. Laws are out there to take my money away by force in the form of taxes and I’m quite sure that none of the people who wrote or voted on those laws is perfect.

By Curious George

January 24, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

To understand the pro-life position, you must start with one basic concept: the fetus is a human life. After that, no argument you can make makes any difference. If it is an innocent life, there is no justificiation for killing it — none. Not whether the father supports it, not whether it’s going to ruin the mother’s life, not whether it’s going to have a happy life, not “rights” of privacy between a doctor and a patient. The argument that it’s the mother’s body and she has a right to do with it what she wants has been invalidated by science: A fetus has its own separate DNA structure, so it is an indisputable fact that it is not “part of the mother’s body.” It is a separate being that is attached to the mother’s body. Simply put, if you believe the fetus is a human life and you still support abortion, then you must believe that killing is justified at any age, before birth or after. So the debate must center on whether the fetus is a life. All other arguments are fruitless. The pro-abortion faction avoids this argument because advances in science are are making clearer almost daily what they don’t want to admit: It is a life. This is the real reason they don’t want the sonogram measure passed.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Educated— if I walked down the street and saw a woman hitting her child with a backhoe, YOU BET I would tell her that she was not a good parent, and with the local police on her tail as well!

Educated—your LACK OF SELF CONTROL IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, not the atheistic baby-killing abortionists, the government who made this crap legal, etc,it’s YOU!!!

“…Ever-learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth…” (that’s part of the perilous times Scripture).

By Carol

January 24, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Beverly,

I was raised DIRT POOR and should probably have been aborted. Hmm, I guess God had other plans? Maybe to talk some of these girls out of such a terrible mistake.

By KATHLEEN

January 24, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

Liz, RIGHT ON and know that not everyone throws stones like Yours. As for Yours, stick it! My guess is that you’re probably one of those whackos that sit outside of clinics harassing women. Guess what? It doesn’t work! Get a life!

I noticed a lot of pro-choice people on this message string. If you haven’t done so already, PLEASE call your congressperson and tell them NOT to confirm Alito, otherwise our country is going to experience the biggest public health emergency that it has not seen in over 30 years. Also, if you don’t know already, Georgia is one of 4 states with laws on the books allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for Emergency Contraception (EC) an birth control pills if they conscientiously object. Call your congressperson in Georgia and let them know your outrage!

Susan, RIGHT on about approving EC for OTC use! It is DEPLORABLE that so many prescription meds have been approved for OTC use and that the FDA has been dragging their feet on this. Not to mention that EC would ELIMINATE the need for about 50% of the abortions in this country.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Curious George—

Awesome.

That’s like people who refuse to talk about their past—it happened, it’s Truth, it affects them. Hiding things from people never is a good choice.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Offended Fem - I actually laughed out loud when I read your last post! You want to know what gives Julie the right to make a comment about your children, but you, yourself, have disparaged quite a few people in the Blog.

It would seem that an Offended Fem is entitled to be offended and have her opinions but that no one else is entitled to their opinions.

Funny isn’t it….you say you’re right and everyone else is wrong and you are unwilling to listen to the other side. Seems to me that you are doing the same thing feminists in the 60’s and 70’s accused men of doing….

Guess you’re not really a feminist, but rather a Femi-nazi. Right?

By Mark

January 24, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

The tide has certainly changed - There is absolutely no doubt that the more people learn and become aware of facts surrounding abortion, the more inclined they are to support a human being’s most basic right to life. The declaration of independence clearly states that every man has been created with certain unalienable rights including the right to LIFE!! The U.S. constitution certainly provides NO right to an abortion. Pro-abortion advocates have every reason to be worried - Pro-life canditates for public office can increasingly count on solid support from voters as our nation’s moral conscience recognizes that a persons right to life far outweighs a persons ‘precious’ right to privacy. Isn’t it interesting that pro-abortion advocates always fight informing women of the facts regarding abortion?? Lately it has become very obvious to hear the desperate tone coming from pro-abortion advocates regarding the possibility of overturning Roe Wade. Soon abortion advocates will be wishing that was all that happened. The Tide Has Changed!

By Beverly

January 24, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Carol, hopefully I can speak to a few people without imposing my will on them. I think that works better, to speak from experience. Having an abortion was like having a tooth pulled, nothing major. But no one prepared me for the psychological trauma. I didn’t have enough information, and I thought I knew it all. I don’t want to make anyone do what I would do, but I think we should all be armed with the best information before we make ANY decision. Plus, like an earlier post said, no doctor would perform an abortion without a sonogram.

By Sarah

January 24, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

I bet you people who rant and rave over helping kids have never reached into your pockets and pulled out one thin dime to help a kid. You’re all talk and no action. The two very, very pro-life people in my office were the only two people out of group of thirty-two of us who didn’t give a thin dime to help needy kids this past Christmas for our Make-A-Wish tree. Talk is cheap, what have you really done lately? I can’t imagine anyone wanting an abortion, I have never had one nor will I ever have one but it’s all about rights we women should have in certain situations. Of course it’s always the best option to have a child in a loving, providing, nurturing home. Check out DFACS and the truth, all kids are not in loving homes, there are some horrible unmentionable acts done upon kids all day, every day. Try making an angry sixteen year old carry a child she does not want, or any woman of any age. They will terminate the pregnancy one way or the other, thats just a sad fact of the world we live in. We’ll go back to the kitchen table butchers, the homemade remedies that cause horrible pain on both the mother and the child as well as suicides. You only know the emotional side of this issue, not the realistic one. I was tweleve years old when my mom found her sister on her bathroom floor, hemoraged to death, all alone at twenty-nine years old after paying some guy three hundred dollars for the ‘procedure’, and this is just one of thousands of such cases. Some of you need a huge dosage of reality people.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Kathleen—

I have never KNOWN anyone in my so-called camp who sat outside and harrassed people like that. Do you?

Do you and your friends harrass pro-lifers who try to get laws changed/passed?

From the name-calling above, I believe so.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Sarah—

I can’t speak of r everyone, but I do know that I only give to thos organizations that help both mothers and babies.

Beverly—More power to you. I have a more ‘black-and-white” approach, I’m afraid.

Both approaches are needed at different times. I commend you for your last good decision. Others need to hear about this and how abortion has emotional consequences as well.

By Bob

January 24, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Guys, this is not a mans battle. We will never be faced with this decision. We should pick our battles and this is not one of them. Out of almost 5 billion people on the earth, not one single man will face this issue with his own body.

By dumbidea

January 24, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Enough of other people thinking they can make medical decisions for me!!! I might stop smoking if someone made me view an x-ray of my lungs everytime I go to the store to buy cigarettes, but no one seems to be proposing that idea. And I might never drink alcohol if I had to take a test to check to see if I had liver damage everytime I took a drink, but no one is suggesting that idea either. Why do you all think you have the right to make me view a sonogram if I choose to have an abortion??? Enough of this paternalistic nonsense. Why is it always the party that wants less government that is always trying to impose more government on women’s choices? You don’t want anyone to tell the mining companies to provide a $20 locator device to save their lives, but you want women to view sonograms to change their minds about abortion? Nice priorities.

By LG

January 24, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

If God is all-knowing, wouldn’t He know that a fetus is going to be aborted? Yes, he would. If God is all-loving, would He then put a soul in that fetus or lovingly leave the soul out? He’d keep the soul in heaven. Our souls make us human, so aborting a fetus without a soul isn’t murder.

What is murder? The outrageous things that Eric Rudolf did and then having the people in Murphy NC hide him for three years. That’s murder and accessory to murder.

By Sarah

January 24, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Many mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, wives, friends and husbands of the over two thousand soliders that have died in Iraq will someday, when this ‘conflict’ is over and Iraq is more fundamental Islamic than ever before, will wish that our President respected life past the age of eighteen as much as he does the unborn.

By Gary

January 24, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

When I read this, all I can think about is voting out the Republicans in November. But then, since the Democrats in the State Gov are pretty much the same, I can’t vote for either.

Great.

By zigzag

January 24, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

As for Zell Miller - does anyone listen to him anymore? Remember when he first ran for governor and everyone called him ZIGZAG ZELL? I guess we should have listened back then. He changes his mind more times than he changes his clothing.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Hey dumbidea—what if you saw another human looking back at you? Would this change your mind?

Bob—WHO’S a guy?

No one’s making you do anything.

They’re just trying to provide information, which obviously threatens the PRO-CHOICE position, that it’s not really a baby in there.

By lady Z

January 24, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

All of you wonderful people who are here today because your mother gave you the opportunity to live a life regardless of how many struggles you have had over the years she gave you that chance. why use abortion as a birth control method. that is what some of the people are doing. God will choose whom he let come into the earth and whom He wants to remain with Him. that is not your choice. HE Will supply All of your needs TRust Him. Show the ultra sound it will give you a better view of the gift that The Lord has given. I had a misscarriage @ 11 weeks but i was able to see the ultrasound of my baby @ 9 weeks i saw the heart beating and the weird shaped creation but it was eaiser for me to accept that the Lord Called that baby back home with Him because I know that that was a living creation of the Most High God. For those 11 weeks He used my womb as His personal labartory. We need to stop being so selfish and become selfless.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

It’s not about “control” or “women’s rights” or anything like that. It’s simple - is the unborn baby a human child or is he not? If he is, then there is NO JUSTIFICATION AT ALL for killing him FOR ANY REASON. If the mother is not able to take care of him, too bad. If it will “ruin the mother’s life”, too bad.

If it would not be justification for killing a two year old, it is not a justification for killing an unborn child.

The extreme left always talks about a “woman’s right to choose” but they never finish the sentence. Choose WHAT? Choose to commit murder - that’s what they’re talking about.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

ZIGZAG—is that why he is so applauded wherever he goes? No one listens to him anymore?

I guess you just want to silence him like the sonogram: he is the bearer of TRUTH, and you guys hate it.

Sarah—I don’t agree with everything about this war, but I will say this: the soldiers had a CHOICE before they signed the paperwork, unborn babies have been DENIED their right to choose.

By John

January 24, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

Yes, they should be OFFERED an opportunity to view sonogram images of their unborn fetuses. Before they commit the biggest mistake of their sex outside of marriage lives.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Oh by the way Bob - it IS a man’s issue too. Women do not just spontaneously become pregnant, every baby that is murdered is a FATHER’s child too. So of COURSE men should have a say in this discussion.

By Morgan

January 24, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Interesting, how many of the “pro life” advocates are willing to overlook the post birth abortions we are responsible for in Iraq. After all it’s only collateral damage when we drop a 500 pound bomb on a neighborhood.

Perhaps we should have the commander in chief view family pictures of all the Iraqi civilians before each preemptive invasion.

Is there anything wrong with a dual standard?

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Sarah, KATHLEEN, and OFFENDED FEM….

If abortion is okay because you are not killing a life… and this is something that you are defending here…then you must have imperical data that can tell me when life begins.

When does it begin? If you can tell me this and back it up with facts, then the argument about abortion is over isn’t it?

So please educate me since you are so educated and informed on this subject matter….

You argue that anti-abortion folks don’t care about people beyond birth, but couldn’t the reverse be said? You care about people after birth but care nothing for the unborn…

By your line of thinking, an abortion is okay at any point because it is not a living thing until it is born. Therefore, a woman does not need to go to a doctor at any time during her pregnancy except to check on her own well being. If she goes to check on the status of her child, then she is acknowledging that what is inside her is a living thing. And if you acknowledge that, then surely abortion is the murder of a living thing.

Therefore, I hope all of you who are pro-abortion would encourage women NOT to go to gynecologists at ANY time during their pregnancy whether or not they intend to give birth. Otherwise you are being hypocrites.

By curious george

January 24, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

bob, bob, bob: I knew it was only a matter of time before someone made this inane comment. So what you’re saying is if I as a man make an argument against abortion it’s not valid. But if my wife makes the same exact argument it’s valid. What an astounding piece of logic! By the same token, I suppose if a female scientist claims to have discovered a cure for testicular cancer we should ignore her. After all, she’ll never suffer from it, will she?

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Iraq this, Iraq that. This is not a discussion about Iraq - this is a discussion about taking a pair of scissors and shoving them into a baby’s skull and removing his brain.

By Carol

January 24, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Athens—truth lives, or dies, in this case.

By OFFENDED FEM

January 24, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

LOL….J.T., OK now i’m a Femi-nazi? Because I do not believe in legislation that targets a woman’s right to have control over her own body and the right to have a choice? And that’s what makes it OK to make comments about my children? These blogs are ludicrous and a total waste of time. Hope to hear you laughing when a right you hold near and dear is threatened by legislation or just outright removed as seems to be the way these days! BTW, I listened to the other side and it doesn’t work for me. Sounds to me like people thinking they should have the right to make my life decisions. Not likely!

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Again, it’s not about a woman controlling her own body. It’s about a woman KILLING another person’s body.

A woman can have a tattoo or have her ear pierced or do whatever she wants with her OWN BODY. However, she does not have the right to KILL.

There is a legal maxim, “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” Your right to control your body ends when it comes to murdering another person.

By Sarah

January 24, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

Athens and Curious George…Bob said MEN, this excludes you. Carol: FY.

By Morgan

January 24, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

“Athens RTLer” … so you object to scissors but not bunker busters. Thanks for the clarification. You are a sensitive individual.

As the sole male sibling in my family, I willingly differ to my four sisters; whatever their decisions are on this topic.

By Janet_G

January 24, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

To the “ladies” out there who think it’s sexist to OFFER to let the woman view a sonagram, I have one question. How is not sexist to allow the woman to have the only decision-making power over whether the child inside her lives or dies and the father has none? Seems to me, if a woman can make the decision to become a mother, a man should have the right to make the decision of whether he wants to be a father. I say that if women have the right to do away with their parental responsibilities toward a child, then men should have the right to sign away their parental rights and NOT be held accountable for child support. Fair is Fair!

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Sarah - how many women do you know who spontaneously become pregnant?

Every child that is aborted is some MAN’s child. So why shouldn’t men have a right to an opinion here?

A woman’s right to “choose” ends when it comes to murdering another human being.

And you all are trying to change the subject to Iraq - do you do that all the time when you are confronted with the truth?

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Sarah is OBVIOUSLY someone whose opinion is valid since she has just told Carol to F*&% off. Gee, such language ALWAYS comes from the educated….

By Morgan

January 24, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

“Athens RTLer” … me thinks your control over anyone else’s body ends at their nose.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

It is not a question of controlling anyone else’s body.

If I go to my neighbor and strangle him with my hands, is that legal or illegal? WHAT?!! You’re saying it’s illegal to strangle my neighbor? YOU’RE CONTROLLING MY BODY!!!!! My hands are part of my body!

You CANNOT use your body to kill another person. That is simple common sense.

By Morgan

January 24, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

“Athens RTLer” … please take your medication.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

That was a meaningful comment.

The point is, a woman’s right to control her body ends when it comes to killing another person. Do you have a response to his, or just other “meaningful comments”?

By Morgan

January 24, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

“Athens RTLer” … by your rules, I can’t say bomb Iraqis but you can draw reference to strangling your neighbor. I’m lost …

By CAS

January 24, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

You all do realize that the politicians LOVE to throw out emotional issues such as this one to keep everyone too busy to look at what they are really doing with our taxes etc.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Changing the subject, versus giving an example.

You say that you can never control another person’s body. Even saying “You cannot use your body to kill another person” is impermissible in your view.

So I am pointing out an example where it is PERFECTLY FINE to control someone’s body. You cannot use your body to kill another person. I cannot use my body to kill my neighbor; why should a woman be entitled to use her body to kill a baby?

By Morgan

January 24, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

“Athens RTLer” … your gender ?

By Former ATL girl

January 24, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

The thing about this blog that scares me the most is all of the erroneous assumptions that are made. No form of birth control is 100% effective and not everyone who has an unplanned pregnancy is a promiscuous fornicator. Even the most responsible people have unexpected events in their lives. With that in mind, do we take the freedom of choice away from all of us because we many not agree with someone else’s choice? No.

By Julie

January 24, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Oh my, I guess some people just can’t handle the truth.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

No one has the right to choose to kill. Using ATL Girl’s logic, we should legalize all murder. Just because I don’t agree with someone’s choice to kill his neighbor, doesn’t mean that I should take away his freedom of choice.

Whether you’re a promiscuous fornicator or a puritan nun, doesn’t matter. Still, the unborn baby is a life, and neither the promiscuous fornicator or the puritan nun has the right to kill him.

I am a male - and I have just as much right to an opinion on this as a female. Every child that is aborted is some father’s child - so of course men should have the right to defend the lives of their children.

By Morgan

January 24, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

“Athens RTLer” … then you have the right to an opinion. The white, male (patriarchal) foundation needs to change in this country. Until all are equally represented in government (executive, legislative, judicial branches) we aspire to equality in this country. It is unconscionable for a male dominated government to dictate women’s issues.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

This is as much a man’s issue as a women’s issue, because as I have said time after time, each child in the womb belongs to some father.

This is not just a women’s issue - it is also a men’s issue. Men are fathers.

By Meg

January 24, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Not forcing your beliefs on others is right? SO when that mugger who thinks it’s perfectly OK to shoot you dead is holding the gun on you, you can be thankful that you aren’t forcing your “anti-murder” beliefs on him. I believe abortion is good for society and civilization in one way. It takes people out of the gene pool who are hard hearted enough to murder their own baby, it keeps a neglected unloved child from growing up to be that mugger, and it keeps welfare recipients and democrats down, as you can read in the book “Freakonomics,” in which the economist who wrote it credits abortion for lower crime rates and less welfare recipients. HOWEVER, abortion, like slavery, is a murderous stain on society. A society that allows it, because of the above benefits thinly disguised as “beliefs” is a sick and soulless society. It shouldn’t be tolerated for that reason, as murder of adults isn’t tolerated. I have 6 kids, a great husband, and I raised my oldest myself because his father didn’t want to help, but I saw his little heart beating on a sonogram, beating like mad, and I knew that if that tiny little thing was working that hard to stay alive I wasn’t going to do anything to stop him. He’s 19 now, 6’4, heart still beating, and I have no regrets. I met my husband after my son was half grown, and life has been so much easier, but if I had had to raise all my children alone I know I would have and could have. It’s the right thing to do. Anything else is just selfishness. When they’re all grown, I’d love to adopt.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Okay, so is an embryo that cannot survive if it is not attached to the mother really life? That is the question. Since it cannot survive away from the mother is it really a living being?

The reason that I ask this question is this - when people have trouble conceiving a child they may turn to in vitro. Eggs will be taken from the mother and sperm from the father and fused together outside of the mother. Only 4 embryos can be used at any time and the others will be disposed of at the patient’s discretion. These embryos WERE used in stem cell research until the laws prohibited it so many of them are now just thrown into the trash. Following the “an embryo is a living being” logic shouldn’t in vitro fertilization be outlawed? Or shouldn’t EVERY embryo have to be implanted in the mother?

By ltc

January 24, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

The liberals have defiled the minds of a lot of women in our country and some men. Do we want this kind of leadership in our government. They used judges to make law. Thats how Roe came about. Liberals know how you should live but do not tell them how to live. I say its like wearing seat belts. Why can I not have a choice. Now your into saving lives…huh. In liberal terms it is the truth if it fits THEIR agenda. I will always be against liberals.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Life is defined by DNA. Does he have the complete DNA sequence of a separate individual human being? If so, then he is a separate individual human being. This is basic science.

By Morgan

January 24, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Given the opinion of “Athens RTLer” and the life altering implications of a decision upon “Sarah,” I’d have to give her position ultimate authority.

By Morgan

January 24, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

… er … not that my opinion carries much weight on the topic.

By jill

January 24, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

unless you have a uterus, no one cares what your opinion is on the topic of abortion.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Athens RTler - so you are saying that in vitro fertilization as it is practiced today is immmoral and should be against the law?

By Morgan

January 24, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

“jill” … That’s what I was trying to say. (Forgive me any opinion, even if I’m on your side.) See my prior posts.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

Jill - if you don’t care what a man’s opinion is, then it is apparent why you would be needing an abortion, isn’t it?

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

If it kills human lives, yes.

And men have just as much right to help make the laws as women do. Having a uterus doesn’t have anything to do with it. I have a CHILD, in the womb. And I have just as much right to protect that child using the law as a woman does.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Jill - Apparently you cared enough what a man’s opinion was when you allowed him to insemenate you didn’t you? Why does his opinion stop now?

With that kind of attitude, it is apparent why there are so many single female parents out there - they think they don’t need men at all. Obviously that’s not true or you wouldn’t have needed a man (or at least a man’s sperm) to have a child, would you?

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

How many wives have asked or told their boyfriends or husbands to have vasectomies? What right does a woman have to say anything regarding a man’s sexuality if the reverse is not also true?

Don’t be childish Jill. That’s an infantile argument.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

If men shouldn’t be part of the solution, then you shouldn’t make them part of the problem….go buy one of those “back massagers” they sell at Inserection or Starship and then you won’t have to worry about getting pregnant and you can still have your sexual jollies without killing an unborn child.

By Eddie

January 24, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Allright, one more & then I’m outta here, because most of you have gone over the edge and taken this blog totally out of context. It was originated to discuss the proposed legislation and instead had turned into a debate about, let’s see: poor v. rich; educated v. not educated; Rep’s. v. Dem’s; men v. women (& dad’s v. mom’s); safe sex v. “spreading your legs”, etc.; and so forth. What most of you are failing to discuss is the legislation, and it’s apparent most of you don’t know what it says because the debate is on abortion rights, etc., not what the legislation says. In fact, Rocky and dumbidea you have it exactly wrong. No one is being FORCED to view anything. Merely the legislation is proposing that women considering an abortion are given the OPPORTUNITY to view the sonogram. In fact, this gives additional opportunity to the poor, who may not have the resources to get an ultrasound in the first place.

Understanding what you’re talking about before ranting. And as I mentioned before, I am pro-choice but can’t see why others with my same opinion would be so against giving some the OPPORTUNITY to view a sonogram. And by the way, a lot of women change their minds, in case you’re ignorant about that as well…

By BGF

January 24, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Nancy Shaffer needs to get a life and stop trying to regulate everyone else’s life and morality. Neither the state nor any church has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Okay, for the pro-life folks out there I have a question. Why are you not as concerned about the in vitro process as you are abortion rights? People actually pay doctors to create more “lives” and then dispose of the ones they don’t need. This is actually premeditated. To me this is much worse than someone who made a mistake and now is choosing to terminate a pregnancy.

My point is that it is really easy to stand in judgement of the “slutty woman who couldn’t keep her legs closed” and not the desperate married couple who really want to have a family of their own. We equate slutty woman to evil and married couple to good, but in this example who is really evil? The person who accidentally got pregnant or the people who decided to create extra life and then only terminate the ones they don’t want?

By expectinginapril

January 24, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand…the wording says the mom has the OPTION to have an ultrasound, not that she HAS to. Seems like the women who have made up their mind could just decline, unless I’m reading it wrong. (Although part of me feels like it’s a little unfair that women who are thinking about having an abortion would get the chance to see their babies while those of us who wanted our babies generally have to wait unless we’ve had problems before…my best friend has to wait till she’s 18 weeks along to get a chance to see her baby due to insurance restrictions, and the wait is killing her. )

But I really don’t think this is an effective way to curtail abortion. I had early ultrasounds with this pregnancy because my last pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. My 6 week ultrasound, frankly, looked like a little blob. Of course I had looked at books and ultrasound pictures online and could look at it and say “Oh! there’s its little head! And that little stick is going to develop into an arm!” And the heartbeat was the most magical thing I had ever seen. (I had previously lost a baby and found out when we went in for an ultrasound and saw that there was no heartbeat).

But a woman who isn’t thrilled about being pregnant is probably just going to see a little blob that won’t impress her. Even my husband, who was excited, had a hard time seeing a “baby” in there. (He could see an alien though, lol) My 9 week ultrasound was a little more impressive…you could see the head pretty easily and something that might have been a hand. But by time you see eyes, a nose and ears, you’ve had enough time to make up your mind anyway and abortion may not even be legal at that point…I’m not sure what the laws are.

I just don’t see this program really dissuading anyone who’s got their mind made up, and frankly I’d rather spend my tax dollars on something else. If you’re hellbent on stopping abortions, I think contraception programs and educating people about different options would be more effective: Fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions.

By Morgan

January 24, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

“Athens RTLer” … you fail to see the converse. Women have just as much right to make laws as men do, however the legislature is stacked against them. Rather than spoon feed you; tell me how many men and women have positions in the legislature.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Morgan - With over 50% of the U.S. population made up of women, then I would say to you - elect more women to political position - if you think that the presence of women will ensure that abortion is legalized.

By Christie Sanders

January 24, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

What happened to making as informed a decision as possible? AND, why shouldn’t women be given any/all tools and resources available so that they can fully comprehend what they are doing when they terminate a unborn baby? Those of you such as ‘Offended Fem’ and Merle Evans of Doraville (see pg 10 of the AJC (@Issue section) are just afraid of having nowhere to hide from the truth - that abortion is flat out killing an unborn baby. To speak to several points that these two make: Yes, choosing to have a child when you are unwed and unprepared financially has got to be a difficult decision but it is 9 months of your life and the results a beautiful baby for adoption to a family who wants and can provide for him/her. You don’t have to keep the baby, just don’t kill it. Adoption has to be a better choice than living for the rest of your life with the fact that you killed your unborn child! And if the decision to have an abortion doesn’t haunt you something is seriously wrong with you. Yes, the fathers should share in the responsibility of creating and providing for the child and/or giving up custody of the child to an adoptive family. I have no problem with fathers being made legally and financially responsible in as fair and equal manner as possible. To think that someone (Merle Evans) would say, “if men would take responsibility for preventing pregnancy, we wouldn’t be having to make this a debate,” absolutely flabbergasts me. Aren’t the pro-choicers the ones who decry any/all efforts of others to control THEIR bodies? Woman, it is your body! Protect it yourself! Use birth control, use condoms too so that you don’t get diseases! Abortion isn’t an issue of sexism/feminism or any other ‘ism’. Simply put - abortion kills an unborn baby - whether it is yet recognizable as one or not - it is a baby… your baby. I say put that sonogram up for all to see. You have the life of your unborn child in your hands - if seeing the sonogram gives you a heartwrenching pain in your chest and causes to you to change your mind - everyone will be the better for it.

By Mel

January 24, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Everyone speaks, no one listens. There are so many wrong statistics and facts on this blog I don’t know where to begin.

Basic science does not say life begins at conception.

There are not three children aborted every minute. That’s just nonsense.

Roe v. Wade was not the best written decision, but a newer case, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, solidifies the right to privacy. Your so-called partial birth abortions are so rare they almost never happen, and are used merely as a means to save a mother’s life if the mother will die and the child has little or no chance at survival. It was overturned because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL not to include an exception for the life of the mother.

Get educated outside of church and talk radio before you speak.

By jill

January 24, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

if men got pregnant, abortion would be considered a right of passage. it is a woman’s body, only she has the right to decide what to do with it.

By jenou

January 24, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Neither government nor men should even have a voice in this argument. They will NEVER know the feeling of finding out that you are pregnant and knowing that this secret will destroy everything around you. The ignorant people who have not ever walked in these shoes should stay out of this debate.

By MEB

January 24, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

CAS-

I have no problem letting people live their lives because I have more than enough things going on in my life to try and run someone elses life. However, I do worry about the woman and her emotional well-being after the abortion. Her ability to function in society as an emotionally healthy person can affect those who had nothing to do with her decision to have an abortion.

Also if you look back over history in this country, we are now committing more violent crimes against defensless childrens. Do you think it has something to do with objectifying the unborn to nothing more than tissue? It is not a stretch to then objectify a baby or young child as insignificant.

By Sarah

January 24, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

I will say it, JT I would never have an abortion unless the doctor told me it was YOU I was carrying. You are insane and you need help and you might also need to be investigated as an accomplice to Eric Rudolph. I bet you cried when he was convicted, I bet you masturbate to his picture.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Yet another extremely meaningful comment from the abortion-on-demand crowd.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Gender is simply irrelevant to this discussion - it is just as much a men’s issue as a women’s issue. So gender is irrelevant, and the only relevant issue is that the baby is a human life.

By M.C.

January 24, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Athens Rtler you make perfect sense to me, but you’re wasting your time trying to explain something logical to a liberal. Either they dont get it, or deny the truth. Morals or values?…it just wouldnt be the liberal way now would it? Good posts my friend.

By Mel

January 24, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Athens RTLer, you make perfect sense to M.C., and probably most of the pro-life hypocrite crowd. Probably the next nut to shoot a doctor or blow up a clinic, too. Good job!

By Been There

January 24, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

First of all, if the mom-to-be would like to see the sonogram pictures…let her. If she doesn’t…don’t make her. If the father is at all concerned about the pregnancy or unborn child, let him have the same option.

For those of you asking about making men legally responsible…they are held accountable. However, if the mother doesn’t seek the help to make the dads take responsibility, then she deserves to bear the burden. It is an organization called Family Support Registry or Child Support Recovery (depends on where you are).

If the man is so concerned about his opinion being considered, then don’t turn your back when she tells you she may be pregnant.

For those of you who feel abortion is never warranted, regardless of circumstances….try this. Close your eyes and picture a 15 year old girl, babysitting at night. The child(ren) are asleep. Someone breaks into the house, ties her up, beats her up, then rapes her. She is in so much shock, she can barely breathe, much less, call for help. Imagine the emotions she is already going through. The trauma. Fast forward a few weeks. Now you are sitting in a doctor’s office with this girl who has just found out she is pregnant. Look at her face…see her tears, feel her terror and pain all over again from that night. Now you tell her she has to carry that baby for 9 months and then give it up. That terror, pain, and shame never go away. Believe me…i am that 15 year old girl.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

MC - I will ask you since Athens RTLer doesn’t want to discuss where life begins etc anymore and would rather focus on the men’s issue vs women’s issue. Why are conservatives not as concerned about the in vitro process as it is practiced today? Is it because this is something that might be beneficial to you so you don’t want to legislate it?

By M.C.

January 24, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Hey Mel, go google the images of “abortion” and then come back.

By M.C.

January 24, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Life begins at conception. Does the fetus have DNA? Yes. Why is this so difficult to understand?

By CAS

January 24, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

MC- I completely understand. So you think that the in vitro process as it is practiced today is immoral and should be banned?

By Mel

January 24, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Let’s try it another way, MC. Why don’t you post the websites where you want me to look. Let’s see who is posting them. Better yet, let’s not waste our time. I’ve yet to see one that didn’t have an agenda.

When women are no longer raped, when you people take financial and emotional responsibility for those children already here and unwanted, and when mid or late term abortion becomes the norm, we can revisit the issue.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Sarah - I’m insane, huh? You’ve leveled this accusation against others on this blog and me several times, but you have yet to say why. Then you go on to make wild and bizarre accusations that were this not a blog would be libelous.

Apparently you equate anyone who is pro-choice, but anti-abortion with an abortion clinic bomber. How does that figure?

You show your lack of education and/or intelligence in your inability to debate logically and rationally.

I feel sorry for your employer as they obviously have a very unhinged person working for them.

By Mel

January 24, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

MC - sperm has DNA. eggs have DNA. I guess, for example, that if you waste sperm (like sex without procreating or masterbation), you are, by your logic, a murderer.

get a better argument.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Or letting any egg go unfertilized…..now THAT would result in a hedonistic society!

By stacy

January 24, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

This is NOT a discussion about whether or not abortion is right or wrong, it is about giving women the OPTION to view a sonogram. Everyone has a different reason for or againist abortion and if you think you are going to sway someone else’s opinion by repeating your’s over and over, you are an idiot! It was decided 33 years ago that women can make that choice for themselves.

By M.C.

January 24, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Mel, why didnt you just say that you cant stand to look at the pictures of murdered children? Typical Lib, cant stand the truth. You’re acting as if the pictures are fake just because of the website that are posting the pictures. Dont make me laugh anymore. Children are not “waste of time” to me, but they are to you. Heartless.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Sperm and ova do not have the complete DNA sequence of a human being.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

As a matter of fact, the statement that minds cannot be changed on this issue is not true. I used to be a very ardent pro-abortion supporter.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Mel - you are arguing illogically. You are equating men not taking emotional or financial responsibility in fathering a child with abortion. That is not true, nor is it a fair comparison. One has nothing to do with the other.

You are absolving women of all the responsibility and laying it on the man. Is the man responsible for getting the woman pregnant? Yes 50% correct. She is too.

However, it is a simple fact of nature: women get pregnant and men don’t. Until that changes, women are going to have to bear the burden of giving birth. If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant she has many options: 1) Don’t have sex 2) Don’t have intercourse - just have foreplay 3) Go on the pill AND make the man use a condom AND use a spermicidal sponge.

Is the majority of the responsibility on the woman? YES! Absolutely.

Is it fair? It doesn’t matter. It’s a simple fact of nature - the woman gets pregnant and the man doesn’t.

You can kick and scream and get angry, but it still won’t change the fact that women get pregnant and men don’t.

As I’ve said many times before - and to the anger of many anti-abortionists: rape, incest, danger to the mother’s life - those are all valid grounds for abortion in my book. But change of heart or as retroactive birth control or as “whoops!” control - Heck NO! Actions have consequences. Grow up women! Show us men that you have more integrity than we do.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

JT - I will ask you - do you think that in vitro fertilization as it is practiced today is immoral? Why or why not? Embryos (with human DNA) are disposed of daily - why is this acceptable while abortion is not?

By Mel

January 24, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Um, JT, I didn’t say anything about men v. women. By taking responsibility, I meant the hypocrites who believe in bringing children into the world, will fight for that, will get into someone’s business for that, but then don’t put their time into taking care of the unwanted children, the thousands of them, who are in this country alone.

I agree that women bear the most responsibility. They bear the greatest burden. Thus, they are well aware, when pregnant, of their decision. The majority of women DO NOT use abortion as birth control. The point of this blog was the inane legislation, one of many we’ll soon see, I’m afraid, that presumes women are stupid and don’t have a clue what they are doing. It is the woman’s burden, and her choice.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

So what if the woman gets pregnant? It’s just as much the man’s child as the woman’s. So men should have just as much say as women in laws to protect that child.

It seems silly to say that rape and incest are grounds for abortion. In this country we do not kill children because of a crime that their father committed.

By M.C.

January 24, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Abortions from rape or incest account for less than 1% of all abortions. Irresponsible women are using their “right to choose” to murder the others.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

You always say the same thing - “it’s a woman’s choice’. WHY? Don’t just keep repeating the same tired old sound byte over and over again - back it up with some reasoning. WHY should a woman have the right to choose to commit murder?

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Mel and those of you pro-choice/pro-abortion activists, what M. C. has been trying to get you to do is the following:

Type www.google.com

In the empty field, type, “abortion”.

Then, above the empty field, click the word: Images.

Then, if necessary, click Google Search.

Images of aborted fetuses will appear.

If you can honestly look at those images and believe that aborting a child is okay, then any children you might have are better off dead, because you would surely be a horrible parent.

If you are so self-righteous about your “right to control your own body” take a look at those pictures and ask yourself, “Who has the right to take the life of the child that is inside you?”

Apparently pro-abortion activists believe in the parenting joke: “I brought you into this world and I can take you out” as a real life attitude.

These are not little blobs of unformed DNA…take a look if you dare…if you’re willing to back up your convictions with reality….

I dare all of you…

By CDog

January 24, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Excellent idea. If the unborn child isn’t really a child (as pro-abortionists claim) and just a “blob of tissue,” then no one should have a problem at having the option of looking at the “blob of tissue.” Abortionists fear this because people contemplating an abortion will be faced with the reality of what they are doing - murdering a human child.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

JT et al- I dare you to respond to my in vitro question. It is really easy to just villify the ‘slutty women’, but none of you will address the exact same thing with in vitro fertilization. You said you want someone to use logic in debate and then you completely ignore it when it is presented.

By Mel

January 24, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

again, not stupid. I know what he was trying to get me to do. I also looked at the “sponsors” of those pictures. several are classic doctored or mislabled photos. try a neutral site, then discuss.

further, you know nothing about me or my reasoning, or anyone else’s here. get off your soapbox.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

CAS - I personally believe that an unfertilized egg (with its own DNA) is just that - an unfertilized egg. I also beleive that sperm (with DNA) is nothing more than sperm. (LOL - Thank heavens I think that way - otherwise me and every other boy past puberty is guilty of abortion).

Frankly, I don’t presume to know that a soul enters a child upon conception. However, I’ll err on the side of caution and say it does.

I don’t think of myself as a radical - please, I’m basically a liberal - but when I see pictures of aborted babies and have seen interuterine video of babies being aborted, crying in pain when their limbs are cut off - then I can’t stand back and say nothing - it’s no longer just an argument of DNA - it’s a matter of actually murdering something with hair, eyes, lips, nose, sexual organs, fingers and a beating heart.

I hope I have explained my viewpoint as rationally as I can….

By CAS

January 24, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

You have explained your point and I can see that with late term abortions which are not allowed except in the case of the mother’s health being compromised.

In in vitro, embryos (sperm and egg fused to create life) are thrown away daily when they are not needed. Parents actually pay a doctor to create the embryo and then dispose of the ones they don’t need. How is first term abortion different except that the conception itself was not premeditated?

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

What is your evidence for claiming that the photos are “doctored” or “mislabeled”? Just because you don’t want to see it so you grasp at straws to find some way to dismiss them? Show me your proof.

By Chuck

January 24, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Is it really going to stop them? Maybe one of out a 100. Listen, even if you overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortions, it is not going to stop it from happening. Dealing drugs is illegal, teenage smoking and drinking is illegal, prostitution is illegal, owning automatic weapons is illegal, and yet, nothing is stopping these things from occurring. What makes anyone think that they are going to stop abortions from occurring?

I don’t know one person who has ever encouraged someone to have an abortion, but as long as the technology exists, and it can be kept regulated and in a safe, clean and sterilized medical environment, it needs to stay legal. The options are worse, people. Outlawing it just pushes it to the back alleys, or it will get chalked up as a D & C by the GYN. And if you think differently, you’re either insanely stubborn or ridiculously naive.

If you are going to show sonograms, show the picture of the foster care workers in this state who will be working to raise that child.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Mel - as to the “doctored” photos. Say what you will living with your head in the sand. If this were not something that was monumental, then why would there be a debate at all?

If you don’t like the photos on Google, then do some research on your own. Go to a medical supply store and pick up a student manual on abortion and look up just what a “partial birth abortion” is. It will tell you in detail how to perform the operation. But here’s the long and short of it: the baby’s body is removed from the womb so the doctor can get to the baby’s head. Then the doctor either pierces the brain, snips the neck, or crushes the skull of the baby and then removes the now dead fetus from the womb. Doing this procedure allows the doctor to avoid prosecution for murder since the baby was not “technically” born.

I’m sorry, but when an unborn child has hands, fingers, sex organs, eyes that open and close, lips, a brain (which can be seen plainly through the thin skin), a beating heart - how can you tell me that it isn’t a living being?

I’ll bet many of you who are pro-abortion wouldn’t think about hurting an animal and are vehemently opposed to euthenasia (as am I especially since I’m on the board for local Humane Soceity). Don’t you see the inhumanity in your weird point of view?

By Hope

January 24, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Hello Everyone,

I just turned 18. I did want all of the opportunities that a young girl wants. I wanted to finish school. I wanted to start educating myself with technical college or even college. I was in love, young love. I was also pressured by a guy whom I will have a future will. I was stupid. I should have waited. I took a pregnancy test at 17 and it was positive. I immediately knew what I was going to do. I was going to go against my God and have an abortion. I was too young and I couldn’t raise a child…let alone myself. The father didn’t want a baby. I was alone. I went to the OB/GYN to consult alterative. I was trying to look away from the sonogram the nurses was performing. I saw LIFE. That changed my mind and my decision. I took the responsiblity because no one was going to admit any wrong doing. I don’t regret that. I think if a young lady, like myself, needs to look around or talk to nurses and conselors before they make a decision that might haunt them the rest of their life. I don’t regret what I did. I am happy and so is my little girl. Please. Talk to someone before making a life alterating decision. I couldn’t tell my mom at first but my mom, the very understanding lady that she is, calmly told me that I was doing the right thing. I am working at home and studying at a technical school in the evening. I am doing IT! I don’t regret what I had to do. Be a mom.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

CAS - Would that you were right about there being no such thing as late term abortions, but that’s simply not the case. Partial birth abortions are allowed to take place way into a pregnancy.

As to in vitro fertilization, I’m going to give you this argument: Since I’ve already stated I’m against abortion in several areas, but for it when the mother’s health is at risk, I’ll put in vitro in that category. Women are not cats or dogs. They cannot safely carry multiple (with in vitro, often eight or more fertilized eggs) children.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

You’re right, outlawing it will not stop it. But so what? People commit crimes all the time. People commit rape - does that mean we should legalize it? WHY NOT? If you keep it illegal, it’s not going to STOP rape!

The point is - the goal of the criminal law is to define certain conduct as wrong and to punish those who do it. Deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, etc. Those who do wrong should be punished. That is what the criminal law is for.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

JT - So wouldn’t it be the moral thing to NOT create any embryos that would not be implanted in the mother?

By Nikita

January 24, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

The option is fine — the requirement is not. Because the requirement adds certain burden that are unreasonable. Specifically it increases the cost and time required for an abortion, which may well be the only real intent that the sponsors have.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Why is an embryo in the mother (that could not sustain life outside of the mother) considered to be a live, but one that is outside of the mother not considered to be alive?

By Bob

January 24, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

JT and AthensRTL, guys you have crossed the line here to being pathological about this subject. How can womens reproduction play such a role in your lives? Passion is one thing, total obsession is another. How far are you guys from a molitov cocktail being thrown in a window or shooting someone? You guys may need…nah, you do need, therapy. Hopefully you two don’t know each other and can’t partner up; you seem to have a chemical imbalance going on. Get help, there are lots of resoures out there, even if you don’t have a job. JT if you do have a job, how can you post all day long. You’re a real asset to the compnay if you are on the clock.

By jason

January 24, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

The next time you see your mother… remember to thank her for not having an abortion.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

I own my company. Nevertheless, you have demonstrated another favorite tactic of the far left. Insult the other side, and make wild and baseless accusations against us. Anything but face up to the truth, huh Bob?

The reason I feel so passionately about the subject is my affair. The point is that I have the right to feel passionately about it and I have the right to participate in the lawmaking process to eventually make abortion illegal. Until then, I can work to restrict it as much as possible. Because, for the 1000th time, IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT WOMENS REPRODUCTION. It’s a baby’s life - not a woman’s.

By M.C.

January 24, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

LOL I’ve heard it all now Mel…”doctored photos.” You are a trip.

To Hope - Atta Girl!

By Carlos Campos

January 24, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Readers: Thanks for making today’s Capitol Ideas blog a huge success. Obviously, abortion is a loaded topic with high emotions on both sides. I think, for the most part, today’s debate has been smart and on point. However, I am concerned about personal attacks and name-calling. Please refrain from such attacks and keep the debate intelligent - as I believe the vast majority of you have. We like healthy debate, but will restrict anyone engaging in vulgar attacks from further participation - thanks.

By Drew Plant

January 24, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Sen. Nancy Schaefer is up to her (divisive, hysterical, jam-it-down-their-unChristian-throats) tricks again. She SAYS her proposal is about giving women a CHOICE. Well, if you want to empower women, give them choices, Nancy, not roadblocks. Too, it’s insulting to imply that women take abortion lightly, that they do not already consider the consequences, and that they cannot make a decision on their own. What Schaefer does not like is that some people disagree with her; that they see abortion as a viable option, whereas she is against it. Yes, women should be empowered. They should have reproductive choices. And they do. And they are quite capable of making decisions on their own. So get out of the way, Sen. Schaefer!

By Sunnie

January 24, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

Soooooooooooo what’s the BIG DEAL if a women changes her mind about having an abortion, after having an ultra sound??? I feel, that if this law preserves the life of ONE child and relieves a women from years of regret and emotional pain, then pass the bill!! It’s about time we pass some legislation that is GOOD for women…….Believe it or not, when faced with an unexpected pregnancy, most all women/girls’ first reaction is to make it “go away”!!…… Their decision to abort the baby is only for a quick fix and a decision not normally thought through. I know this to be true, as a former sonagrapher. It’s amazing what we don’t teach our children about protected sex or fetal development……did YOU know that a baby’s heart starts beating at 7 weeks??? And…to top it off, most young girls don’t even suspect they are pregnant until around 12 weeks, (by the missing 3 period)!! This is when a sonographer can determine if the baby is a girl or boy and though barely felt, you can see considerable movement, including thumb sucking! You would be surprised to see these girls faces when they REALIZE it’s really a BABY….and not just a “blob of tissue”…..Financial circumstances can change….Abortion is final!! Unfortunately, Georgia law states that a young girl does not need parental “permission” to have an abortion…she just needs to “tell” at least one parent….however, that is never done! At the abortion clinic the nurse just asks, “have you told a parent?”!!!….A minor can’t buy cigarettes, alcohol, or see a dentist without parental concent AND in the case of seeing a dentist, the parent has to be present! What is wrong with this picture????…..Regardless, if seeing arms, and legs and a thumb being sucked, changes someones mind about killing their child, then………all the power to them! I’ve never heard a women say she made the wrong decision………….when she held her baby for the first time, however, I’ve had many tears shed on my shoulder from women who, in their own words say, “I should have waited….I didn’t know…..I wish I hadn’t!!!…….

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

How is it a roadblock to give the woman all the information? Most of the time, abortionists tell women that the baby is nothing but a blob of tissue, etc., anything to make their money. They outright lie to women, many of them. So how is it wrong to make them give women the true facts?

This does not regulate women; it regulates the abortion “doctors” who make their money preying on women.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

MC and Athens RTLer - I will not insult you by calling you anything like “them libs”. However, why do ignore my questions on in vitro? This is a logical question regarding what constitutes life and I don’t understand why you want to completely avoid that topic. I understand your opinion and respect it, but I think this subject does merit some intelligent discussion.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

I thought I answered your question above. I said, yes, it is wrong to intentionally kill children after conception.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Athens RTLer- So why aren’t pro lifers working as hard against the fertility specialists as they are the abortion clinics? I would daresay more embryos are thrown away in the name of in vitro than there are abortion in a day.

By Mel

January 24, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

JT - I understand your point on late term abortions. Actually, we are in agreement that, after some point, it should be merely for the life of the mother. As I stated before, when congress passed the law regarding partial birth, they made the mistake of not putting in an exception for the life of the mother. I know how abortion occurs, I do not have my head in the sand. I have studied extensively in my long life the process of conception and pregnancy. But many here, some of whom you have defended, demonize women across the board without regard facts, merely by calling people names or trying to shame them with inaccurate labels. They live in a fantasy land of the perfect moral world that’s black and white. It just ain’t so.

By M.C.

January 24, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

It is morally wrong to murder an innocent child after conception…regardless of the situation. As a said before, many liberals try to counter that and say “Well what about the circumstance of rape or incest?” Is it the unborn child’s fault? Less than 1% of all abortions are from rape or incest. In the next one hour, three more will die.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Can only tackle one issue at a time. And this has been around longer. And this is the one we’ve made the most progress on so far, so let’s keep on with it. We’re talking over 40 million abortions here.

Actually, Congress in passing the PBA Ban DID have an exception for the LIFE of the mother. The reason the lower courts struck it (pending review by the new Supreme Court) is because it did not have an exception for the mother’s “health”. Which can mean anything - the author of the leading abortion textbook testified that he could say ANY pregnancy is a “health risk”. So putting a “health exception” in would have made it meaningless.

We are not demonizing women at all. The majority of pro-life Americans are women. The early women’s leaders were all pro-life. Abortion is something that is simply unacceptable.

By Vincent T. Bell

January 24, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Sounds like a bad idea. Why confuse the abortion decision with facts? If you want to believe the fetus isn’t a person, then you should not be forced to do so by opening your eyes and looking for yourself. Ignorance is a basic right, protected by the Contitution. Let’s not tamper with that.

By Gary

January 24, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

I don’t see anyone actually encouraging abortion, so how exactly is this rhetoric getting anyone anywhere? The term pro-abortion is so unbelievably loaded, it’s downright sick. Until I see a group of women out in front of an abortion clinic chanting “Get one; it’s fun, easy, and a great form of birth control!” I refuse to consider otherwise.

I’m neither a Republican nor Democrat, and am personally opposed to my wife having an abortion except under extreme circumstances (rape, medical emergencies). In my definition, though, while this indicates I wouldn’t support an abortion, it isn’t within my rights to tell or even influence others how to form their own decisions in life.

Abortion is among the most personal decisions anyone will ever have to face and endure, therefore anyone not intimately involved with those who are deliberating should have absolutely no say in the process, especially when it comes to public policy.

A woman can already request a sonogram independently if she wants to see her unborn child without the legislation; all this legislation would serve to do is pressure her after days, weeks, or even a month of emotional turmoil over the decision. If you’re the type who enjoys hassling emotionally distraught women at their most vulnerable moment, then this legislation is for you.

By Your

January 24, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

Llz you havent answered me…why did you kill me and not give me a chance to live my life? Did you not hear me screaming when they inserted the needle inside me? I thought I was being brought into the world, but instead they were cutting my arms and my legs off. I was a gift to you from God, why did you do this to me?

Your murdered child

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Pro-abortion is an accurate term. It means that you are in favor of abortion remaining legal. Take another example - someone is in favor of the death penalty remaining legal, what do you call them? Pro choice? That is technically the more accurate term - they are in favor of juries having the choice to impose the death penalty; they are NOT saying “YAAAY death penalty, everyone should get it, speeders, jaywalkers, people who remove the tags from their mattresses, everybody.” They are pro death penalty because they want the death penalty to remain legal. You are pro abortion because you want abortion to remain legal.

It IS within society’s rights to tell others what they can and can’t do. It’s called law. The government says we cannot speed, for example. We cannot rape, even if we are using our own bodies to commit the rape. So why is abortion the only situation in which you say “It is not within my rights to tell someone else what they can and can’t do”?

By Yevette

January 24, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Unless you have had an abortion or had to go with someone to get one, you really don’t know what goes on. It is as if you believe there is a ticket that you pull off and head to the room and everything is done without any human contact. I don’t know any men who can have a baby…but I do know men who don’t pay child support. You cut spending on social programs, healthcare and education, but you pay for Viagra and support legislation that will give men who “say” they spend time with their children (like they don’t leave them with their mothers or girlfriends)to lower their child support payments. WOMEN, we had better wake up. You don’t want me to have an abortion, but you also don’t want to pay child support or help people out with health and child care. As if we get pregnant alone. I only know of one woman who had a baby without help from a man…that was Mary and her son, God’s Son, Jesus is far more understanding and forgiving than all of the Repulican and Right to Life hypocrites. So since Zell has finally “come to his senses” will he be writing a check to the Democratic Party to pay back all of the money that was used to get him into office and that now allows him to have a wonderful retirment? Or will he just use his healthcare to get some more Viagra?

By pat

January 24, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Instead of just killing babies, lets kill all children who are a burden to their parents. Actually, let kill anyone we deem useless. I have another thought, why in the hell is killing a pregnant woman a double homicide?Is it only ok to kill a person if you wear a white coat on?

By Taken Aback

January 24, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

That’s just reprehensibly sick. I can’t believe that was even allowed on this blog.

You have zero clue how hard an abortion can emotionally exhaust the woman, much less the family, for years thereafter. Every bit as much as a miscarriage, or even giving the child up for adoption.

You are everything wrong with the pro-life movement.

By J.T.

January 24, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Gary - if you can’t “tell or even influence others how to form their own decisions in life” then lets hope you don’t become a parent, because that’s just what you have to do with kids. It’s your responsibility to influence. Hopefully on your job, you influence people and make decisions that affect others. If you interact with other human beings at all, you are effectively influencing others.

You voted for a president a couple years ago. In doing so, you were voting for or against troops going to war etc. If you weren’t going overseas, I suppose you shouldn’t have voted at all. It didn’t really affect you did it?

If the only people who made decisions about things in this country were the people who are affected by the decisions, then it would be a very weird world and very one sided world too.

Don’t be lame with that kind of PC-speak.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

I am in favor of making non-custodial parents pay child support. But if we are going to make the man take his responsibility to be a parent, then we need to make the woman take that responsibility too.

I know full well how emotionally taxing an abortion is for years and years and years to come - especially when the woman has been told “It’s just a blob of tissue” from the abortion “doctor” who makes his money lying to women like her. This is why we need MORE regulations on abortion “doctors”, not fewer.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

Athens RTLer - it seems to me that we’ve only tackled listening to rhetoric and when presented with facts and logic you try to avoid the real debate which is “What constitutes life?” My questions are valid and well thought out, but you already know this, right? Otherwise, you would jump in with both feet. Instead you rely on sensationlism and rhetoric to say the same thing over and over again while never addressing any real issue.

Politicians also know how to use rhetoric and that is why they even propose this type of legislation. This will get the conservatives up in arms over baby killers while not really doing anything to ban abortion. However, we will all be so caught up in this emotional debate that we never pay attention to the back room deals that are made that actually will have an effect on our day to day lives. Abortion will probably never be illegal again and the politicians know this, but they can make promises and get people whipped into a fury to get their votes.

By pat

January 24, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

I have one more question…How many of you parents find your children to be unaffordable? How many do not find thier children financially burdensome? Have you ever had a moment where you did not know how you were going to pay for something your children needed? If you need the solution I got it! Just kill ‘em. Kill the little leaches, they don’t do anything, tend to be lazy, always want something. If your kids are a burden, just kill them. If it’s legal for mother’s to do it when the the baby is in their tummy, then why not after? They are still our kids, they belong to us and are still a part of our bodies, we should be able to do to them as we please, with no government involvement.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

CAS, I respectfully believe I have answered all of your questions. I’m sorry if I might have missed one.

But still, from a scientific standpoint, a new human being is formed when the complete DNA sequence is formed. Which is at conception.

I believe that soon abortion will be illegal. Roe v. Wade is on very shaky legal ground and when one more pro abortion Justice is replaced, it will be very ripe for review. Then we will pass laws banning abortion, shutting down abortion clinics, and prosecuting those who continue to perform them.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

If politicians are so concerned about baby killing why haven’t any of them said anything about stopping in vitro and throwing away embryos. They were very vocal about not using the embryos for stem cell research because the Christians could get behind that, but it’s still okay to create the embryos. Is that because many Christian couples NEED that technology in order to have a family? I think so. Why not just create one embryo per procedure so none have to be disposed? Because the procedure is expensive so they can only afford to do it once, but, in this case, it is okay to terminate an embryo you don’t want because it was created in the name of Family - And it wasn’t just some slut who can’t keep her legs closed who created it.

By M.C.

January 24, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

Who are you talking to Taken Aback? If it’s “Your” that you’re talking about…why is it so sick to read things like that or look at the pictures of aborted children? If liberals cant stand to read about/see murdered children, why are so many for it??? Denial much?

By Yevette

January 24, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

pat, So how may of “our” child have you adopted or you provide money to on a regular basis. How many times have you sat up with a mother whose husband or boyfriend has turned is back on her and nursed her sick child back to health. Women in this situation don’t just wake up and say, “Oh well, I don’t have anything to do today so I will go and have an abortion”. If you don’t want government involvement, then stop being a hypocrite and telling me what to do with my body. You can’t have it both ways…either we have constant government intervention into our lives or we don’t.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

No, you have skirted my questions, but that’s okay because I expect it. I wouldn’t expect to have any intelligent discussion on this subject on a blog. My mind can be changed on any subject with intelligent thoughts and debate, but not with rhetoric or sensationalism.

By Gary

January 24, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

It IS within society’s rights to tell others what they can and can’t do. It’s called law. The government says we cannot speed, for example. We cannot rape, even if we are using our own bodies to commit the rape. So why is abortion the only situation in which you say “It is not within my rights to tell someone else what they can and can’t do�?

By Former ATL Girl

January 24, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

I should have said earlier that all choices have consequences, some more severe than others. The consequence of a woman having an abortion is that she has to live with that decision for the rest of her life. No choice is without consequence. It is up to the individual to determine if he or she can live with that consequence.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

“How many children have you adopted”? That seems like a silly question. We can’t be against abortion unless we adopt all the unwanted children? That seems foolish - that seems like saying “You can’t be against domestic violence unless you marry all of the abused husbands and wives out there.”

Why do you keep going back to the old sound byte “telling me what to do with my body”? IT’S NOT YOUR BODY - IT’S AN UNBORN CHILD’S BODY. IT’S NOT YOUR BODY. IT’S NOT YOUR BODY. IT’S NOT YOUR BODY. How many more times must it be repeated for it to sink in? Scientifically, the unborn child’s body is completely different than yours.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

Way to miss the point Gary. all you said is we can never tell anyone what they can and can’t do. And my point was OF COURSE WE CAN. It’s called LAW. So why can’t we make a law telling people they can’t commit abortion?

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

ATL Girl you missed one consequence.. another consequence is that a CHILD IS MURDERED. Why do you keep ignoring that consequence?

By CDog

January 24, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

If you want to abort your own body, feel free. Bringing harm to yourself should not be a crime. If you want to abort someone else’s body, that’s murder. Bringing harm to someone else’s body should be and is a crime.

By getalife

January 24, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Sen. Nancy Schaefer,

As a member of the coc, how about coming out with a bill to stop corruption.

Corruption kills in Iraq.

By Mother

January 24, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

I think it is a good idea. I am not one of those crazy choose life people but having had my babies born 2 1/2 months early(yes I had twins)and seeing them so small at only 2 lbs I thought how could anyone think it is okay to have an abortion in the later stages of pregnancy. For those who argue it, what is the big deal, if it won’t change the person’s mind, might as well show them the baby they are killing. There is a thing called Medicaid and WIC to pay for healthcare and formula so how can you use I don’t have enough money as an excuse? There are also places to live for single mothers. Maybe I’ll get rid of my husband since we are getting low on cash. Obviously the people who say abortion is okay because it isn’t a real baby have never been pregnant.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

CDog- Would you care to answer any of my questions regarding in vitro? Is the reason none of you want to touch that because you didn’t know about the process of disposing of the embryos? Or is because there wasn’t a politician around to spout rhetoric so you don’t have thoughts on it? Look at any in vitro website and they tell the parents the embryos are their’s so they will determine what to do with them. How is that ANY different than a woman’s right to choose?

By Been There

January 24, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

Your- You keep addressing Liz. As a person who has had to make this decision….why isn’t this `murdered child’ asking the father the same question. Could it be because the father was not man enough to live by his mistakes, or is it because you are of the narrow-minded belief that abortions are only given to those who have become pregnant through immaculate conception?

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

For the final time. KILLING A CHILD IS WRONG. WHETHER IT IS DISPOSING OF CHILDREN THROUGH IN VITRO, OR NOT, IT IS WRONG.

Let’s get abortion put in the ground first and then we can worry about those other things. This is top of the agenda right now.

By CAS

January 24, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

Athens RTLer - more babies are killed with in vitro disposal so wouldn’t it be more important to tackle that issue now? Wait, that one won’t be so cut and dry and you won’t quite see the support so let’s forget that and look at more pictures of dead babies. I understand now - you need time to think this one through because you didn’t know about the embryo disposal, did you? That seems a bit uninformed to me so you might want to research a little more before we put the final nail in the coffin of Roe vs Wade.

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Misuse of the term “immaculate conception” - that refers to the sinlessness of a person rather than the way in which he or she was conceived.

In any case, maybe the father did not know about the abortion, or knew but could not do anything to stop it because of the biased laws on this topic. Or maybe, as you suggest, the father just didn’t want to own up to his responsibilities? I do blame him in the latter case, but not in the former two.

But still, just because the father does not own up to his responsibilities does not mean that the child should be killed. Again, if it’s not reason to kill a two year old, it’s not reason to kill an unborn child. Say a two year old’s father walks out on him, completely vanishes. Should the mother be allowed to kill that two year old, because she can’t afford him, or whatever? IF NOT, then WHY should she be permitted to kill the unborn child for that reason?

By Your

January 24, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Llz please stop ignoring me mommy. I was so excited to be able to have a life when I was growing inside you. I had my very own feet, hands, ears, and a beating heart, just like you. I wanted to be just like you when I got older, but I was not given a chance. I screamed, “NO MOMMY, IT HURTS!!!” so loud that I just knew that you heard me…as the needle pierced inside me. Do you ever think about me and how old I would be right now if you had chosen to give me a life of my own?

Your Murdered Child

By getalife

January 24, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

Okay, don’t go Eric Rudolph on us

By Athens RTLer

January 24, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Again another tactic of the left. Making wild baseless and false accusations and trying to invoke “guilt by association” by unfairly associating us with other people.

By KZGUY

January 24, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

Hey Not My problem. Since you don’t play the game you don’t get to make the rules. Isn’t it sad that most Pro lifers are the first ones to vote against welfare or any type of assistance.

By OFFENDED FEM

January 24, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

WOW!!! I work and was just catching up with this blog. Just want to say the fanaticism of some of you Right-to-Lifers is downright scary! Leaving Georgia soon and can hardly wait! Is there any other constitutional right you would like to remove from me? I’m sure you all know what is best for Lefties like me! I hear how “intelligent” you all are. Don’t forget all the other ways you want to change this country to be perfect for ‘the right kind of people’.

By Pro-Situation

January 24, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

I’m a woman. I am pro-situation, meaning mostly pro-life except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is at risk. I’m not against birth control, even for the unwed. It’s more important to prevent an unwanted child from being conceived than to kill an unwanted child by abortion. I’ve had to face this situation myself, when I was raped by an acquaintance. I understand there are things beyond our control. But when two consenting adults have sex, they should take responsibility for that and use protection. They shouldn’t be able to use abortion to kill the one person in the equation who had no choice in the matter. Requiring a sonogram, if the woman is REALLY so OK with the idea of abortion, shouldn’t be an issue for her. It should be one more step in the process if abortion is really no big deal. It’s a big deal. Most women who have abortions will tell you that they are never the same. Most will always miss their unborn child. I took the abortion pill without ever knowing if I was pregnant, and I will always wonder if I was.

By Your

January 24, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

Been There, I only knew my mother. I had not yet met my father, since I was not given a chance to live from her decision. I kicked inside my mother’s womb while I was growing…that’s how I communicated and told her “I love you Mommy.” It was my only way to tell her, since she couldnt hear me.

By CDog

January 24, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

Human life begins at conception, so ANY willful destruction of that life at any stage (zygote, blastula, morulla, gastrula, embryo, fetus, etc.) via in vitro or staight-up abortion is murder.

The most idiotic argument abortionists use that, “it may be murder for you but it is not for me.” Murder is not relative! The unborn child either IS or IS NOT human life. Sonograms, modern science, common sense, and the Bible all leave no doubt about that question, but even if there were doubt, should we not err on the side of life?

By Been There

January 24, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

Your- were you the bully in school? It takes exceptional courage to step up and openly discuss such a controversial topic. What kind of pleasure are you getting out of tormenting any readers with your questions? When you have had an abortion or been faced with having to make that decision, then you come back and repeat YOUR comments. It is difficult enough to live with this kind of decision, people don’t need you rubbing salt in an open wound, so to speak.

By CAS

January 25, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Okay CDog - so why haven’t the politicians who are so concerned about abortion and baby killers not made quite as big of a deal about in vitro if it is the same thing? My thoughts: They don’t REALLY care about the little embryos, but you DO care and they know that if they look like they are trying to legislate abortion you will vote for them. So they take advantage of your morals and convictions and throw out sound bites and bits of legislation here and there ONLY to get your vote.

Just as an FYI, I do think abortion is immoral and wrong, but no more than the current in vitro process. Of course, I change that opinion in cases of rape or incest or mother’s health etc etc, but those are the lines that I draw and I can’t draw lines for everyone else so I am also pro-choice. I really believe that for all the bluster of many of you regarding it ALWAYS being wrong that you wouldn’t really tell an eleven year old rape victim she had to go through nine months of pregnancy (and some eleven year olds DO menstrate). I understand that you feel that way in theory, but theory to reality can change anyone’s mind and deep down you realize that, too…..but that’s when your arguments start to break down so you can’t admit it here.

By Kim

January 25, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

No offense to anyone, but making a woman who was raped see the fetus that she is about to abort borders on cruel and unusual.

I am pro choice. Mind you, I would never have an abortion, but there are instances where abortion needs to be legal. Rape, incest and the like. It is already an EXTREMELY emotional time for these girls and women, why compound the issue by making them see what has happened to them and make them remember AGAIN what happened … all the while rubbing it in that she is a horrible, horrible person for aborting the fetus that she did not have a choice in conceiving in the first place?

By Julie

January 25, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

Even women who are raped should have better sense than to murder and innocent human. What a lame excuse to allow abortions. OVERTURN ROE V. WADE!!!

By CAS

January 25, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

So, Julie, you would personally be willing to tell an eleven year old that has been molested for 4 years that she now has to 1)carry the product of her violation for 9 months and 2) become a public display for other children to tease and to ensure that everyone knows what happened to her? If you are willing to take that job on then we will go ahead and pencil you in for it IF Roe v Wade is ever overturned.

By Julie

January 25, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

CAS, unfortunately we live in a world where ugly things happen to innocent people. Yes. I believe the 11 year old should have the child. The 11 year old should be taught that human life is so very precious.

Do you really believe that it’s okay to murder an innocent human life to prevent children from teasing? I don’t believe that you do. Our natural instinct is to protect the victim, but with abortion you only create another…

By CAS

January 25, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Yes, Julie I do believe that it is okay in that situation. However, you didn’t answer my question - would you, yourself, be willing to tell her she had to have the baby and take the child into YOUR home during her pregnancy?

By Julie

January 25, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

To save a life, absolutely. Are you asking for help?

By CAS

January 25, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

No, sweetie - I’m way past that age, but I am asking for you to have some empathy. I think we can agree to disagree on this one because I don’t think that I will change your mind and I KNOW that you won’t change mine.

By Julie

January 25, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

I hope you realize how special that 11 year old was… and how grateful that baby is… :)

By carlie

January 26, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

I think women should have the right to choose. While 18 and trying to impress my “slimy” but good-looking military boyfriend (who was with me all of 2 weeks before going after my sister), I became pregnant and had a abortion before 3 months passed. I never regreted doing it, because a few months later I met my husband-to-be with whom I had 4 wonderful children. I am now a grandmother. Having that baby by that sorry scum would have reminded me of him every day, and I would have been resentful. Do you men not wonder why so many children are abused nowadays? How much worse it will for children and families be if abortions are banned. I wonder just how many anti-abortionists are adoptive families? Hypocrites!

By Sheri Divers

January 26, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Folks,

There’s one simple solution to these folks passing all of these rights-robbing laws:

VOTE DEMOCRAT IN NOVEMBER 2006 ELECTION FOR EVERYTHING!

By Exador

January 31, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Oh please, this is such an obvious roadblock. How much does a sonogram machine cost? The anti-abortion crowd is just trying to add a huge additional expense to limit those who can provide abortions.

By Almetra king

February 2, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this

I think that abortions are a good thing because when a women doesn’t want her child (only for a good reason) she doesn’t have to keep it .It like if you baby have a disorder problem and the state is making you keep it ,and when you have it it might make you die and that will be the state fought .

By Bob Cornetti

February 2, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

When you take a life against its will it is called merder.Why wouldn’t you use every tool possiple to prevent this to happen.

By Michael

February 3, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Well, personally I think that in a marraige the father should have rights to the fetus. If my ex-wife would have seen something like this my child may have been born. Keep stiffining up these laws and maximize responsibility so the unborn “fetalities” can be minimized.