Who first again?

I am amusing my reverse side away completely!!!

Abs hurt. Laughing too hard... Must... breathe.

:D

Well, in the case of the men, would they be missed attempted abortions, and would that count?

Since, according to Gloria Steinem as interpreted by Kirstie Alley, if men could get pregnant, abortion would become a sacrament, I am wondering if the litmus test would be if they
had been an attempted one verus having had one.

And I saw the LFC's patootie bouncing around here...

Kerry went one step further. The 'Nam Veteran known as, 'Ole Leatherface' said, "We must hold Republicans/Conservatives to a higher standard, that being, they can NOT be considered for the high Court unless, they were aborted as a fetus!"

Does any one know if John Kerry is a Vietnam Vet?
Just wondering.

Woodstock. NO, I think that he tried to give West Point to the British.

Woodstock Willie:

John Kerry is a highly decorated Navy Seal, who threw somebody else's medals over the White House fence at an anti-war rally. However, it has been conclusively proven that he did not pass veterinary school.

Actually, this might be the only good idea Kerry (the Vietnam vet) has ever had. After counseling for years with women who have had abortions, I have found that the ones who actually ever recover from the emotional and psychological trauma caused by the abortion are among the most ardent and vocal pro-lifers. I also find it interesting that these psychological problems that were the aftermath of abortion were named "post abortion syndrome" by psychologists because it so closely resembled the "post war syndrome" suffered by so many Vietnam vets.....

Lil Kim Il

You should be eliminated from the "competition" for first post. You have an unfair advantage picking up the "new topic" radar with your pompadour!

Since you yourself said you "amused your reverse side away completely". With no reverse side remaining-- maybe you could get to work on amusing the "North" or TOP side away extremely, yah? {be careful though: may have to wait for the eggs to hatch and the baby birds to learn how to fly first)

Sincerely,
your--AHEM!---friend in "racism"...MUUHAHAHAHAHAHA

(ref. to Mohamma-Hemorrhoid Lips' lame post)

Attentioning here to scraplemask cat,
Thank you. So much Thank you.
You possess the humor which is refined very. In addition(ref. to Mohamma-Hemorrhoid Lips' lame post)

Tomorrow I must possess the haircut. Scoshi off the top just. The birds has started putting many annoyances on me.

I possess the rear section, always it is me. ¶ )

deb,
post abortion aftermath? duh.
as you say yourself, you only work with disturbed women, and for all you know they were already disturbed before abortion (maybe before having anything like sex as well). As a "victim" myself I can tell you it ain't changed nothing in my life, except that I did end my PhD instead of staying at home at age 20 with a kid I didn't want and no husband. I'm 28 now, two lovely children and a well paid job, thank you.

Abortion Victim:
Sounds like things worked out well for you. You got what you wanted and worked for.

No regrets. Well, not all people can say that about the actions they take, and for all you know, they were just as blase about it as you until they realized what they had done.

To each his own, and we are all at different places on the walk of life.

Abotion Victim,

At the risk of being harsh and the fact that you are probably "too smart?" for my crass-like comments to have any effect, it is probably a good thing you are only able to hang a piece of paper and not people on the wall as trophies. I only hope that when you stare at your "PHD" in all of its magnificent glory, you remember that it came at someone elseís cost and not your own...Peace.

Abortion Victim:
Your logic is flawed. My roommate in college had two abortions because she didn't want strangers to abuse the child she didn't want, so she aborted both times. Despite the fact that there were childless couples who would have given those children the chance she didn't want them to have nor take the time to give them.

It is a child, not a choice.

If you sold yourself so cheaply to the man who impregnated you, that you had to be rid of any consequence of BOTH your actions, then that is the flaw in the women's liberation movement.

Why any man would let someone he professed to love suffer the consequences while saying "Well, she was asking for it" is exactly the kind of hound that seeks refuge behind the phraase "I am sensitive." and hides behind the women's movement.

If any man like that ever came within 100 yards of my daughter, his chances of contributing to the gene pool would be cut off.

Literally.

Before anything happened.

And before you spout off with something totally inane, I put my baby girl up for adoption 24 years ago when she was three days old. I had to leave her there to the mercy of strangers and trust in God...and He hasn't let me down.

And He never will.

Lil Kim Il

Ya think if you allowed the hair stylist to cut more than a scoshi off your pomp-a-doo that you might just find plenty of things you could make a fortune off of at e-bay?...they might even find Jimmy Hoffa in there!!!

If the corked bats have made a cave of your doo...beware: Casserole will be VERY upset if any harm comes to any of those little creatures.

Word of caution: when selecting your hairstylist don't go to Don King's stylist!---unless of course you want "troll tresses".(:~})----( the salt & pepper cotton candy gone awry look!:~})}

Abortion victim:
You said it yourself, you are truly a victim. Interestingly enough, many women don't come to terms with (or even realize that they a suffering from) PAS for ten to fifteen years after an abortion. Many others simply keep denying and stuffing it all back for years. It is the healthy ones who finally deal with it. If you ever get to the point where you are willing to face it, please remember that there is a loving and forgiving God who wants to help. I am happy for you that you have two beautiful children. I am sure you will agree that they are worth everything to you. As for the well-paying job and the PhD, I doubt if they were worth the price.

This is a false choice. A high school or college girl can have the child, and he/she can be adopted. There is no reason the young woman's education has to be seriously disrupted. The very worst-case scenario is that she takes a year off from school, if pregnancy is disrupting her studies.

Since women live so much longer than men, it doesn't seem like a horrible sacrifice to have to make. Have the kid.

In my case, my boyfriend made the choice. I was under his thumb, and that was that. He even instructed the nurse in which medications "I" wasn't interested in while they did the D&C.;

Was any college girl ever so stupid?

"If you aren't suffering from your decision, then you are in denial"
Nice logic people.
Here's a wild tought: Maybe she came to terms with her choice a long time ago, and doesn't suffer from some "syndrome."
Or doesn't that fit your world view?

SRG
Why choose death? I am very much concerned about abortion being used as a means of birth control when adoption is viable for both mother
and baby.

I also know for a fact that abortion carries greater health risks for mom than carrying a baby to term and giving birth.

My sister and BIL adopted a lovely little boy and he has been their heart's delight and will always be the center of their world.

They are both affluent, both having very lucrative careers. It was a risk because the adoption was closed...they were told that the birth mother didn't do drugs but she did want to
get on with her life and didn't want the baby.

And they are greatful that she chose life for this little guy, because he has given them so much in return. I read Arwen's post and just wanted to cry. I just don't understand why women
are encouraged to abort, especially since adoption is a far better choice than abortion.

You may think I am old fashioned, and so I will admit to it, but I believe in morality and virtue and in virginity for both men and women until they marry. I believe in teaching abstinence and in focusing their energy into
building a career, buying a house and raising a
family.

Not knowing the actual demographics of readers here, I'm going to jump in and say many sound very young. Others sound hmmm, right of conservative.

The abortion issue should not even be legislated. It is a moral issue between the woman, her religion and her doctor (spouse or S/O if applicable). Anothers' opinion is unimportant to a woman or young girl brutally raped and facing months of carrying the results of that assault. Then there are the years of raising it, if the child is not adopted. (For children who are not blonde haired and blue eyed, actually being adopted is statistically lower)

I have two children, but I've also had an abortion. I feel no guilt, did what I had to do and suffered no trauma. I was a single mother responsible for complete care and support; birth control failed. I weighed the options and made my decision.

As for adoption, I *am* adopted. That is not without pitfalls either. Have you ever spoken to a group of adoptees and acquainted yourself with the problems they have faced? My mother could have given Joan Crawford lessons (Mommy Dearest), and my experiences are not unique.

It sounds so easy: Give the child up for adoption or raise it. What about the thousands of children who get pregnant? Will you be there to financially or emotionally help them through trade school, or even high school, so they can learn to support their family? Abstinence sounds wonderful, but it ain't happened yet, so please, stop with the theories. This is reality.

I've always wondered why the far right is so against abortion and so for execution. It is still a life.

Kayse;
I suppose you could say that most of the people who are against abortion belong to the far right. I suppose you could also say that most of the people who are against abortion are strong christians. I suppose you could even say that most of the people who are against abortion are white, but don't say that. Jesse might hear about it and try to extort money from Scott. by the way, I AM a member of the far right (by your definition) and I believe everyone has a choice. Everyone has a choice when it comes to the question of abortion and all of lifes decisions. I am against the idea that I am forced (via taxes)to "be there financially and emotionally to help them" who have made the wrong choices. If you make the wrong choice, live with it.

Kayse:
As a 51 year old father and conservative, I would like answer some of your questions. I'm not necessarily more qualified than anyone else, but here goes.

If you beleive as I do, that life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

Instead of all the shrill retoric (not from your post) that is often thrown out about a women's right to choose, there needs to be a determination as to when life begins. Thats a tough one for every one to agree on, I admit, but if it is alive, and you stop that life it is murder.

The fact is I am all for a women choosing whether or not she wants to be pregnant and bear a child, but cannot sit idly by if I feel that some one is being murdered. It is not the coice I am against, it is the timing. Be pregnant or not, that's your choice. But birth control is cheap (free often), easy to use, and generally reliable. While yours failed, that is not the case in most abortions; no precautions are taken, and the abortion is used as a form of birth control. Rape and incest are a small minority of abortions, and if the life of the mother is in danger (physically or mentally) then I think that an abortion would be acceptable.

As for the death penalty, the differance is easy: the criminal did something terribly wrong by our societies rules, while the fetus is an innocent, defensless bystander. Not all deaths are equal. And if the fetus is defenseless, don't you think that a societies greatest responibility is to protect those amongst us that can least defend themselves?

Hope that clears up a few questions, but it probably creats just as many.

Peace. WW

Abstinence theories? When abstinence is taught, the birth rate for teens is lowered, as are the stats for rape, STDs and welfare payouts.

You made your decision and feel no remorse for what you did...that is your choice. You had a terrible situation with being adopted and make the generic statement that your situation was not unique. Well, I beg to differ in many respects and one of them is that of the adopted children I have had FIRST hand knowledge of, many were abused in foster care and have had problems throughout life because of it.

And the ones who are adopted as children, I know of two parents right now who are struggling to teach a yound man responsibility and he is a danger to them and to the community.

He has vandalised their home, threatened their children, both biological and the other adopted ones. He has been with them for four years and still in spite of the counseling and the attempts at correcting his behavior (no, they don't use corporal punishment)he is a very angry young man who was abused by his birth parents then the foster care providers.

There are people out there trained to deal with post adoption issues (not that you were a problem child, sounds like your mother was the issue) but from what I have seen in over twenty years of adoptions and foster care adoptions, of the people I know, the kids are loved, welcomed and wanted. And when things didn't work out, they tried harder and got help for themselves and their children. And either this help did not exist when you were adopted or your mother and father may have thought there was a stigma to seeking help.

ALSO: My best friend was gang raped when she was 16. She was pregnant as a result. She carried the baby to term and placed him for adoption. She knew that baby was NOT the responsible one for the trauma that she suffered, but she also knew that this one deserved a chance.

I am also aware that there are parents who abuse their children. Those people should not be allowed to have anything to take care of because they can't deal with it. Give them a house that is inanimate and that they can keep spic and span.

I have seen more that is positive than that which is negative, which leads me to believe that good things are happening more than are the bad things. So, we can agree to disagree.

It sounds like you made a change in your life that is good and I hope good things happen for you. I just happen to disagree with abortion.

Willie and Cricket

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I respect your positions on abortion and feel it is not my place to change your mind. I ask only that you consider one thing: When rights are removed, it starts a pattern. Look at our "Rights" now compared to 50 years ago. We really only have one that hasn't been manipulated. We aren't yet forced to quarter troops.

I feel that this is not a legislatable issue. Consider how inclusive it might become: No vasectomies as it is killing sperm that are humans. No tubal ligations as it kills eggs that result in humans. Most pro-life proponents have strong religious affiliations which help form their opinions. That creates the issue of church and state compexities, and is forcing others to live by your beliefs. (BTW, I am extremely spiritual, but walked away from organized religion after being sickened by hypocrasy.)

Such arguments become horribly messy, and while I agree that abortion should never be used for birth control, I do not feel I have the right to force my values on another. That is the antithisis of the promise that became America.

In the case of the men, can forcing your girlfriend to have an abortion count?

Also, what if the woman says the abortion apparatus was inserted, but "didn't inhale"?

As far as the death penalty vs. abortion, the death row inmate has willfully given up his right to live in society by being a scourge to his fellow man. Not exactly the same as a "fetus" who is merely inconvenient and might give someone stretchmarks. It's about innocence and guilt, the fetus is guilty of nothing.

An impressive, fairly calm discussion on abortion. I commend everyone at this site. My unqualified thoughts:

Abortion was not a "right" until Roe v Wade. It was either legal or illegal, as the state legislature saw fit. And while I used to think Roe was a correct decision, I want to live in a society where true "privacy" is a protected interest, I know now I was just agreeing with the political decision I wanted at the time.

I think abortion (given current technology) should remain legal until viability, but only b/c of my concern for government power. But anyone who thinks that it is an explicit right found in the consititution -- like speech or not having troops quartered in your house -- is kidding herself, and applying a political outcome to a legal issue.

Abortion, whether legal or not, is killing. The fetus has all of the DNA, chromosomes, etc as a born human. (Kayse: sperm and eggs do not -- they have 1/2 of the chromosomes -- they are not human.) The only difference is the stage of development, just like a one month old is at a different stage of development than an 18 year old (though they bear similar emotional maturity).

The end of Roe would not be the end of society. If you reverse Roe v Wade, abortion will still be legal in most states. And if your state isn't one of them, then get in your car and drive to one where it is legal. If you can't afford to do that, why did you get pregnant?

I think that it is likely that some women who have abortions feel guilt and suffer emotionally. But they are not "victims." Taking responsibility includes feeling guilty, and even accepting it and moving on. Feeling guilt for doing something wrong is good. Guilt is a tool that keeps some of us from doing bad things. Of course, it is OK to come to terms with what we did and not be an emotional basket case; we need another psycho-bable "syndrome" like we need another spending program. On that point, I agree w/ SRG.

Some random points: statistically speaking, abortions are not often caused by rape, incest or threaten the life of the mother. These are red herrings of the pro-abortion movement. I would make an exception for all three (the first two pre-viability; the third at any time), but it is a political question.

I also do not believe that most unwanted pregnancies are caused by "failed" birthcontrol, unless you mean by failed that you didn't use it, or you used it incorrectly. I used two forms of birth control for 10 years, then the first week my wife and I tried, she was pregnant. Fertility was not a problem.

Since I raised the issue, I have to answer the big question: when abortion should be illegal: when we can remove the fetus, and grow it outside of the womb for adoption, w/o significant risk to the mother (risk of removal compared to risk of abortion). Then, and only then, I will let the State's interest in abortion be greater than the mother's, pre-viability.

KJ

KJ writes: "I also do not believe that most unwanted pregnancies are caused by "failed" birthcontrol, unless you mean by failed that you didn't use it, or you used it incorrectly."

I have to chuckle a bit at this one. When I got pregnant unexpectedly, my birth control really did fail: I had an IUD, and was taking birth control pills for hormonal stabilization. My long-term boyfriend was diagnosed as having an extremely low sperm count. Yeah, right!

Thanks for your comment regarding the calm discussion. This is an emotional topic, and often, tempers flare. I, too, appreciate the tone of responses. It's refreshing!

No, abortion is not a guaranteed right of long standing. But, it is a right now. There should be parameters on when it can no longer be performed, and I have issues with partial birth abortions. Then again, I've never been in that type of critical situation, nor has anyone close to me, so I'm not a fair judge.

Some of the lessons I learned after pulling away from organized religion include tolerance and the realization that there are no nail holes in my hands. I have not the wisdom nor ability to pass judgement on another human.

All comments are simply how I view things.

Kayse --

I think your birthcontrol experience is a statistical anomoly. People I know who initially claimed an unexpected pregnancy b/c of such failures usually admitted, when questioned, of another explanation (eg, got pregnant while taking prescription meds that nix the pill). I have read some allegedly scientific surveys that support this, though I have little knowledge of the details of them. Of course, even if I am right, to the person who is the statistical anamoly, that is little comfort.

As for you abandonment of orgnaized religion, I appreciate your observation of hypocracy. But that is to be expected in all institutions operated by men. You can't judge all messages by the flaws of the messenger. Despite man's flaws, there is still value in organized religion, if the message is truth.

As for passing judgment on another, I would fall back on the "hate the sin, not the sinner." I do (in fact, I think I have an obligation to) judge conduct, mine and other's. That does not mean I know or judge a person's soul or salvation, for all of us sin. But commenting on/judging behavior is appropriate, especially behavior that is the possible subject of legislation.

KJ

While I'm neither Republican or Democrat (I vote as my conscience dictates, regardless of party), I am in favor of less legislation and beaurocracy.

God gave man free will, but the government seems to feel superior. There is a great sense of "do as I say, not as I do" floating down from Washington these days.

Abortion should be a matter of choice (partial-birth abortions excepted, unless done to save the woman's life).

But there is no way a "right" exists to abortion; the idea is ridiculous. It is not something granted by God. It is not in the Constitution. How can one compare ending a pregnancy to such things as speech, freedom of association, peaceful assembly, and other necessary limitations on the power of the state? If anything, it's more like driving: a "privilege" (a sad privilege) rather than a right.

And it is not something that should be encouraged to the degree that it is. (Much less be something girls are pressured into.)

There are soooo many families waiting for every infant. And if babies who are not white (or "blue-eyed") were not desirable, why would we be doing so many international adoptions? We are so much in need of babies that we "import" a lot of dark-skinned ones from other countries. We wouldn't be doing this--especially given the paperwork nightmares of international adoptions--if the demand weren't there.

And: adoptive parents are screened more carefully these days than they ever were in the past. Believe me--I know.

(Yes. I aborted the only biological child I will ever be likely to have. Because I was pressured into it by a guy who had crazy amounts of financial and emotional power over me.)

We just need to be more reluctant to do this. It's the first resort rather than the last, and it shouldn't be that way.

It's a cultural change that's needed.

One of the reasons why the framers of the Constitution didn't list specific rights was because they didn't want rights to be limited to the ones listed. That's why the 9th Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution or certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I agree that the 9th Amendment is relevant, and means something. But what? The 9th Amendment can be fairly read to give expanded meaning to the rights enumerated, and also can mean certain things that even the conservatives on the Supreme Court have recognized as unenumerated rights for competent adults, eg, right to control the education of your children, right to dictate your own health care choices. These are very old, common law rights, that were presumed in the 1700s.

But if you make the 9th Amendment whatever the judges want the law to be, then you admittedly give legislative power to the judges and have a meaningless constitution. The 9th Amendment isn't that broad; and it surely didn't mean, at least in the late 1700's when it was drafted, that women could terminate unwanted pregnancy.

While I, as a libertarian, would like to strike down lots of laws on the ground that they prohibit behavior that does not involve force or fraud, or interfere with the life, liberty or property of another, I couldn't (and wouldn't) do it under the US Constitution, even with the 9th Amendment, b/c that just isn't what it says or means.

I, too, am very impressed by the reasonable tone of the debate regarding abortion here. It gives me hope that this technology may help defeat those who have spent so much time and effort polarizing the American people's viewpoints on abortion so that the status quo may be maintained.

How many legal abortions have we had since Roe now? 38 MILLION? 40 million? And most of those can be traced back to a single, unprecedented (if you disregard Dred Scott) decision by 7 -- count them, seven -- *unelected* men in 1973.

"How long . . . ?"

I know that not many people are going to agree with this, but this is what I think: The best prevention is abstinence. Abortion is murder, and vasectomies etc. are not, since as KJ said, neither side has all of the chromosomes until they combine.

This means 'if you don't want one, you shouldn't have been trying to have one'. I don't care if it's fun, it's meant for reproduction, not fun. And the Bible (and Talmud, and Koran, for that matter - they all agree on this) forbids both adultery and fornication (adultery is to be punished with stoning, and fornication is merely forbidden, AFAIK). There are special cases where I think differently about it, but they have been made out by pro-abortion groups to be much bigger causes than they really are.

And don't call me a hypocrite, I DO practice what I preach. Of course, I was taught that the whole thing (dating, marriage, etc.) should wait until about mid-20s, because people tend to be a bit more responsible by then.

I may sound like an old-fashioned prude, but I don't recall reading about many cases like this in history books. It seems like abstinence worked pretty well then, why shouldn't it work now? Some of that was the fact that you couldn't get away with it, because there were always 'shotgun marriages'. I'm not saying we should go back to that, but it seems like abstinence worked pretty darn well.

I also will vote on conscience, not party line, but the way my real opinions go, it's likely to turn out the same way anyways. ;) Not that it matters, given the state I live in.

"Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate!"

It isn't difficult, folks. Just think with the big head before you think with the little head. It will save you a lot of trouble.

SRG: Sounds like a plan. Not thinking with the second one at all will save even more trouble.

I'm confused. Which one is the little one?

LOLOLOLOL...I have a friend that used to tell me men were like the brontosaurs in that they had two brains...one controlling the front and one midway controlling the rest of the tail..

Of course, I am a mere female.

Two brains, but only enough blood to run one.

Johnny,
The one that DIDN'T kill you.

If sex were "meant" for procreation only, and not intended to be fun, why is it so much fun? Surely God intends for us to have pleasure in our lives.

I've been told that comparisons of birth certificates with marriage certificates in the New England colonies shows a lot of babies came "early."

I'm not slamming traditional morality, but I am pointing out that it's always been a challenge to meet the standard set in the Bible.

As far as stoning is concerned, that was for women--not men. Jesus was the first to advocate a single standard of sexual morality that applied to men as well as women: he explained that, yes, men could commit adultery too. A new concept at that time.

I'd say it's an incentive, actually.