home
RSS
My Take: Why the abortion issue won’t go away
The 2011 Right to Life march in Washington.
January 23rd, 2012
10:01 AM ET

My Take: Why the abortion issue won’t go away

Editor's Note: R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

By R. Albert Mohler Jr., Special to CNN

After recently addressing a large secular assembly on issues of moral controversy, I turned and faced a woman who urgently wanted to ask me a question: “Why won’t the abortion issue just go away?”

I knew exactly what she was asking. I often meet abortion rights advocates who honestly thought that the national controversy over abortion would simply melt away within a few years of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.

That was clearly the hope of the Supreme Court majority that signed onto the opinion written by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun. In a note he wrote to himself as he drafted the final opinion and looked to its aftermath, Blackmun revealed a rather optimistic assumption: “It will be an unsettled period for a while.”

Surely, he didn’t mean for that “while” to extend four decades.

Sunday marked the 39th anniversary of the decision, and the abortion question is anything but settled. Just look at the crowds gathering in Washington on Monday for the annual March for Life.

In fact, America has been unsettled ever since Roe. Abortion has become a central issue of political conflict, debate and division. If the court had hoped to calm the waters, it failed spectacularly.

As Guido Calabresi, then dean of the Yale Law School, observed, the aftermath of Roe v. Wade produced a “sense of desperate embattlement.” As Calabresi noted, the court’s decision failed to produce a national consensus. Rather, Roe “made it impossible for the opposing views to live with each other.”

Those who thought that the decision of the Supreme Court would settle the issue had reason for that hope. On other controversial questions, the court’s rulings had produced initial furor and outrage, but the nation rather quickly accommodated itself to those decisions. Take integration in public schools.

Not so with abortion.

Why? Professor Lawrence H. Tribe of the Harvard Law School, an ardent defender of abortion rights, at least recognized that the abortion question presents nothing less than a “clash of absolutes.”

Tribe attempted to propose a means of avoiding “pitting these absolutes against one another.” All such efforts have failed, precisely because the competing claims are indeed absolutes.

When abortion-rights advocates and their allies ask why the abortion issue will not just go away, they really mean to ask why, given the stark reality of Roe, the pro-life movement has not dissipated and retreated into the history books.

Here are five reasons why:

First, the radical character of Roe – overthrowing abortion laws in 49 states – galvanized pro-life forces. The judicial imposition of abortion on demand, virtually without restriction until the third trimester, produced both shock and outrage among those who believe that the unborn child has an inalienable right to life.

Within months of Roe, an organized pro-life movement came into shape, looking for any means of limiting and eventually ending the termination of unborn life.

Second, Roe also had the effect, surely unforeseen by the Supreme Court, of bringing millions of evangelical Christians into the fight on behalf of unborn life. Prior to Roe, even many evangelicals believed that abortion was a Roman Catholic issue.

Roe was a legal earthquake that awakened a massive number of evangelicals to the deadly reality of abortion. With remarkable speed, evangelicals soon educated themselves on the issue and then mobilized themselves both politically and culturally.

Third, the death spiral of abortion simply defies adequate calculation. Over a million abortions are performed in America each year. Reports last year indicated that over 40% of all pregnancies in New York end in abortion, a rate that increases to almost 60% of pregnancies among African-American women.

The sheer scale of the death toll sears the pro-life conscience. Young people can now see that millions are missing from their own generation.

Fourth, abortion has proved to be exactly what pro-life activists warned it would be: a deadly threat to human dignity that would target specific populations. Prenatal testing has produced a deadly reality for unborn babies considered less than acceptable by their parents.

The vast majority (90%) of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome are now aborted. Sex-selection abortions are legal in the wide-open “right” to abortion declared by the court. Prenatal testing of other characteristics means that parents can now abort a baby that does not meet their specifications and try again.

Fifth, powerful imaging technologies now allow a look inside the womb, a privilege unknown to previous generations. That window has transformed the equation, as millions of parents have seen their unborn children and witnessed the miracle of life.

They have seen the little human form and the actions of the unborn child, sucking its thumb as it nestles within its mother. Millions of siblings have seen the images of their unborn brothers and sisters taped to the refrigerator door.

Those of us who believe that every single unborn child has a right to be born cannot resign from the effort to protect those lives.

The greatest advances made by the pro-life movement have been made among the young, the generation that has known the death toll from Roe v. Wade all their lives. More evidence that the abortion issue will not simply go away.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of R. Albert Mohler Jr.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Abortion • Opinion • Politics

soundoff (1,716 Responses)
  1. BoldGeorge

    The issue of abortion will not go away until abortion itself goes away. Just as r-a-p-e is still on-going, r-a-p-e will not go away until people decide to stop r-a-p-i-n-g. And I do not see the difference between the two. The only difference is that one is l-e-g-a-l, the other one is not.

    January 23, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • HellBent

      And this is why the issue will never go away – because people like George want to equate abortion with ra.pe – some people will obviously never see the argument from the other side and thus will not compromise. Without compromise there will be no progress from either side. It's George's (and gerald's and russ') inability to compromise which will prohibit their cause from advancing. Yet the irony is lost on them.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • BRC

      @BoldGeorge,
      Ra-pe is a terrible crime that in my opinion is worse than murder because the victim is forced to live with the aftermath (especially if, say, the victim becomes pregnant and is forced to deliver the child against her will).

      Abortion is a legal medical procedure that terminates a developing life before it actually becomes one. Those are two very, VERY different things.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      You have absolutely no idea what you are talking (writing rather) about. But of course how could you know, if you do not know anyone in this forum personally. For that you are excused.

      The reason I say this is because I have personally talked to and witnessed quite a few women who have went through abortions and they continually live a grieving life, grieving for their aborted child, and the torturous reminder of what this lovely child could've been like. But abortionists would never share this with anyone. It's true that many women that go through abortions might not feel much grief, but a vast majority do. Especially when they look at another child, and infant running around, playing, cuddling with their mommy and just spreading joy to everyone around him or her.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • BRC

      @BoldGeorge,
      I never assumed that you didn't know women who suffered long term effects from abortion (yet for some reason you thought that I wasn't aware that happened). I made no such assertion, because it doesn't make the comparison between ra-pe, which is a violent act committed against a person's will, and an abortion, which is a concious decision made by the woman any more accurate. Yes, some women can have serious emotional issues afterward, and they deserve all the love ans support the people around them can give, but that doesn't make ra-pe and abortion the same thing.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      I was really responding to HellBent's comment. And yes, r-a-p-e and abortion are very similar in that they are both violations to one's right to choose. R-a-p-e is very disastrous, but one may live to tell about it. Aborted life is never given that option.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Nonimus

      FYI:
      "But a study out this month finds that 80% of women were not depressed after having an abortion."
      http://women.webmd.com/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion

      January 23, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      Nominus....I guess that should be encouraging to women....kind of like Casey Anthony's example.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Anatomically Bombed

      The issue of abortion will not go away until abortion itself goes away. Just as toe nail clipping is still on-going, nail clipping will not go away until people decide to stop nail clipping. And I do not see the difference between the two. The only difference is that one is l-e-g-a-l, the other one is not.

      You put your toe nail under a microscope and tell me it's not alive...

      Now let the rest of us clip our toe nails in private since some of us are still wearing flip flops and are not ready to take on the responsiblity of maintaining long nails...

      January 23, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @BoldGeorge,
      "...I guess that should be encouraging to women....kind of like Casey Anthony's example."
      Just as those of your perspective should be encouraged by the Army of God?

      January 23, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      @ Anatomically Bombed

      When you think you've read or heard it all, there comes a comment just like this one that hits rock bottom. How can you compare dead skin that, like you wrote, will be clipped and trashed, to a life waiting to burst out with more life? I guess that is exactly how the world is viewing babies in the womb. Meaningless and trash-worthy.

      And that is the precise reason why we have abortion. Nothing more, nothing less. Believe it or not, you basically rested my case.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      R@pe is an inf ri ngement of another's rights. Abortion is not.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Anatomically Bombed,
      I think nails and hair are actually dead cells. A fetus, regardless of person-hood, is a collection of live cells.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • OK

      "The issue of abortion will not go away until abortion itself goes away."

      If you're anti abortion then you should also be anti vasectomy.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      but of course I am.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Despite all cries to the contrary most fertilized eggs do not implant. That's why so many parents-to-be have to try so hard to get pregnant. Even those that do manage to implant can at a later point self-abort. Further along complications can lead to stillborns. Until very recently in history medical science and prenatal care didn't exist and pregnancy was a very risky business for both child and mother with death rates that would shock us today. Living conditions and disease killed most children before the age of 5. Long before medicine came along to help care for mother and child the death toll as compared to abortion rates was magnitudes higher. So if you are trying to point to the 'sancti.ty' of life as an argument to support being against abortion you are ignoring the 'natural' death toll that God allowed to befall those before proper prenatal care came into being.

      January 23, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
    • fred

      Atheist Steve
      You associate the intentional taking of life with a natural occurrence like disease or failure of an egg to plant. This is the mindset that allowed Hitler’s and Stalin’s scientists to carry out cruel experiments on humans. Just a gathering of cells that no longer will exist anyway at some point in time are little value. That is a far cry from Gods perspective where God says for I knew you before I formed your bones together in the womb.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      But fred, it's not that much different from the same god who killed infants just outside of the womb as a coercion tactic. Maybe Stalin was closer to god than you are.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
    • fred

      faceplant
      Did God kill the babies of Egypt is what I think you are asking. Did God kill the babies over time by disease. Does God kill babies by letting them starve to death....etc.
      I suggest man is responsible because it was man that is the first cause for death not God. If you do not believe the Bible contains any truth or wisdom there is little sense to use the only source referece we have concerning why death must be a natural result or the purpose of life itself.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @fred, do you know believe your own book? Your god very clearly killed infants for a very specific purpose and reason – I think the method would be irrelevant, but nice attempt at a straw man. And apparently gods minions aren't very smart. You'd think god could have just let his chosen angel of death which babies to kill instead of having people put marks on their door. But your god has shown time and time again in your book that he is neither omnipotent or omniscient.

      January 23, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @fred,
      "I suggest man is responsible because it was man that is the first cause for death not God."
      I thought it was God's curse that caused death, perhaps because of what Adam supposedly did, but it was still God's action that was the cause. Or, do I have it wrong?

      January 23, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      HllBent,
      Without compromise there will be no progress? Compromise is the root of the problem. The choice between good and evel, right and wrong is not to be decided by a concensus. Abortion is the foundational right of humnity itself. No other rigth matters until that one is protected.

      January 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      Thanks CNN for completely botching up my post. Life is the most basic and foundamental right we have. If we cannot protect that basic right, then no other right matters. Is that better?

      January 24, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
  2. Russ

    @ tallulah13: "how can it have a mind of its own when it doesn't even have a mind?"
    do you use that same argument for the mentally disabled? it is a denial of the dignity of human existence.

    if life only begins once a life is viable, by which you appear to mean can stand on its own, how does that not extend to an infant, which absolutely needs its mother's care in order to survive?

    @ tom tom: you're missing my point. you're pitting the rights of mothers as women against the rights of unborn daughters as women. if there was ever a case of treating women as chattel (personal property), it would be in killing them as if they were just "another part of my body". an abortion is not a haircut.

    January 23, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • BRC

      @Russ,
      Your argument about infants is false. An infant doesn't need its mother to survive, it needs care, feeding, and protection, but none of that HAS to come from its mother. If they developed artificial wombs, that were capable of gestating a human fetus, or if we developed the ability to transplant a fetus from one woman to another, those would be analagous, and would present other options instead of abortion. But since we don't have those things, a fetus IS solely dependent on the mother, and her life (and rights as a person) are directly affected by the pregnancy. Since it's her life, that makes it her choice.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Voice for the Fetus

      "I knew you when you were in your mother's womb."....GOD

      January 23, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • BRC

      @Voice for the Fetus
      "I knew you when you were in your mother's womb.".... A MAN claiming to be speaking for GOD*

      Fixed it for you.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • God

      And if you were born in Egypt at the wrong time, I choose to kill you after you left the womb so I could try and prove a point to your leader. Because, being omnipotent, I didn't see any other options.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • jimtanker

      Voice –

      Using a work of fiction as evidence is not proof of your position.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
  3. Doc Vestibule

    Blastocysticide is not the same thing as homicide.
    People eat caviar with no remorse, but won't eat the whale.

    January 23, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Nonimus

      I agree with your point but, isn't caviar from fish, sturgeon mostly?

      January 23, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Anatomically Bombed

      "Beluga caviar is caviar consisting of the roe (or eggs) of the beluga sturgeon Huso huso." No whales were harmed, or squeezed during this production :)

      January 23, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • Staring Horse with Tongue Sticking Out

      Well that's good because whales don't have any eggs so it would be a wasted effort.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
  4. derf

    When I want to buy a dog I look at the mother. If the bit*ch doesn't care about her litter the pups are probably no good. Let ladies abort if they're just not good mother material. We'll all be better off. By the way, my mother was a saint and still is.

    January 23, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
  5. catholic engineer

    I can well understand that many women are faced with a pregnancy that makes them feel desperate. The folks I don't understand are the Pro-choice males. As we all know, when a male impregnates a woman, his thinking is going on from his pants. Later, when his brain is active again, he faces the consequences of his actions. Now, he becomes pro-choice.

    How is it what pro-choice women think of pro-choice males as their allies?

    January 23, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @catholic engineer
      Pro-choice is not the same thing as pro-abortion.
      I am a pro-choice male because it isn't my body and therefore, my opinion is moot.
      I've been in that situation. I voiced my opinion and the reasoning for it, but supported her decision 100% even though she chose differently than I wanted.
      Not my body = not my choice - and I wouldn't deign to deny another their right to choose.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "his thinking is going on in his pants." Speak for yourself. You must have some extremely low standards.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      DocVestibule, Pro-choice is not the same thing as pro-abortion? Yes it is. If there is not choice to abort, that only leaves life. Stop hiding behind the curtain. men who are not willing to protect women and children from being victimized and remain on the sidelines are not men at all.

      January 24, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
  6. Russ

    @ tallulah13: over 99% of abortions are belated birth control (not inc'est, r.ape, or mother's life at risk). in the vast majority of cases, the mother chose to put herself in this situation. the unborn child did not. shouldn't women's rights include the roughly 20 million unborn women who whose lives were ended without asking them since Roe v. Wade?

    @ tom tom: you are pitting 'forced childbirth' (as I said to tallulah, the vast majority chose to get pregnant) against murder. this whole issue comes down to when life begins.

    pro-choice is about the mother's quality of life.
    pro-life is about the child having a life at all.

    in any other case (e.g., a child outside the womb), this would be a given. the mother would go to jail for ending the child's life in order to preserve a higher quality of life for herself.

    January 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Russ, that is because someone born has rights. The fetus does not have rights equal to those of the woman. If you think you can answer the question I posed, have at it. You and gerry haven't met the challenge yet.

      Under what circu stances are people in this country forced to donate a drop of blood? An organ? Even when it's a matter of life and death, our laws do not compel someone to do something with her body against her will without infringing on the rights guaranteed by the Const i tuition.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Of course, one problem is that those who do not support abortion would not think "a drop of blood...An organ" is the equivelent to a fetus/baby.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, the problem is those who cannot grasp the argument that was made.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Sorry...but your argument only works for those that agree with your co_mparisson...many would not and therefor it falls flat.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You fail to grasp the argument once again, Lice. Let me know when you think you've figured it out.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Oy..no Tommisa...I understand you point perfectly. I am merely poiting out the flaw of it from another POV.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, do you? Then state it.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Lycidas

      No. Are we done playing elementary level games now?

      January 23, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You get testy when you haven't won, don't you? Poor thing.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Lycidas

      What was to be won Tomissa? The only goal I had was to provide a POV you were neglecting to thing of. Sorry if you always think their has to be a win or a loss in these things.
      Think on it.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Gosh, that's twice you've used "their" when it should have been "there", Lice. You're slipping.

      Here's a little hint: I didn't make a comparison between a drop of blood and a fetus.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Or was it a "comparisson" (sic)?

      January 23, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Sorry Tommisa the Spelling Gestapo.

      If you want ppl to believe that wasn't what you was doing....sure sure.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why would I care if someone is so clueless? I'm just surprised you are.

      January 23, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      You must care enough to try and get the last word in hun.

      January 23, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
  7. I'm Happy, Are You?

    I think someone summed it up nice when saying:

    "You hate God and the Bible because you wish to be free of all guilt associated with your godless behavior. "

    And this doesn't just go for the abortion issue, it goes for lots else, just look at the anger and hate in the typical cnn belief blog comments. ~90% from atheists. God brings love and peace but he does require obedience, even though we all stray at times.

    January 23, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Never been happier since dropping my faith, thanks

      Typically arrogant believer – thinking that they have a monopoly on morality when all evidence suggests otherwise.

      And it's awfully hard to hate something that's imaginary. Do you hate mermaids?

      January 23, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • bobcat

      Anyone who *Requires* obedience to do good is a tyrant and obedience to a tyrant is nothing to be proud of As for accountability, we hold ourselves accountable to our fellow man in the here and now.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Isn't all behavior "godless" behavior?

      January 23, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • monica bendele

      never been happier. You should try it. The atheists I know are more moral than the "believers" I know....

      January 23, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Alternatively, according to the Bible, isn't God pro-abortion/pro-child killing, e.g Abraham, Jepthah, and miscarriages.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • turtlemom

      I know a lot of atheists, AND a lot of christians..... how many atheists do you know?

      One family we know... He is a climatologist, she is a history teacher at a charter school. They adopted two children from Korea who play violin and baseball. They both bike to work daily, remodeled heir own home, recently, to make it "greener", and rarely drink. They sound awful.

      Another atheist family.... they are both DA's (that means district attorney), have three children, and volunteer their time and money to help with political and social causes they believe are good for HUMANITY (not "god", or themselves).

      Another family, she works for my husband (curing arthritis..), and he is an executive at a major natural food company. They have four children who act, sing, all four playing piano together, gymnastics, track, and soccer.) Wouldn't want to be associated with them...

      Us... We got married at 24. I was an RN for 7 years working with chronically ill heart and lung patients. Now, I'm going to grad school for anthropology. My husband is an MBA scientist who has been trying to find drugs to cure inflammatory disease for the past 10 years. We have three kids and give a LOT of money to charities including Sierra club, Barrack Obama's campaign, Wounded Warriors, Children's camps, Dog shelter, Environment Colorado, and the YMCA. In fact, we don't trade gifts for Christmas, we give to charity. We are in the top tax bracket and are happy to pay our taxes to help out. WE rarely drink, never do drugs. and are commited to each other. Sounds horrifying.

      I do know some great, religious people, but they are private about their religion and tolerant of other beliefs.

      But you know what? The one family in the neighborhood who are the most "verbal" professing their Christianity, are the criminals down the street. We recently invested a lot of money with them to help them start a business. This guy claimed to be "all about family", and said he was ready to "work hard to make this happen". They claim to be "christians" and go to church regularly, displaying religious statues in their home and work. We gave him a chance of a lifetime and he blew (literally) through our $350k in 4 months, went on a smoking, drinking, cocaine, strip club spree. Writes hot checks like it's a pastime, is cheating on his wife, stole money from us, and continues to lie to everyone about who he is while trying to take more people's money. All the while he professes his christianity, and attends church.

      So don't give me that BS. What atheists do you actually know? Many call themselves "humanists", and that word means that they ACT and don't PRAY for change.. We do and give to charity, we pay our taxes happily, and invest in better and better education, and we can see past the ends of our noses...

      What have you done for humanity, lately? What "slips" have you allowed yourself, knowing you'll be forgiven? I have to answer to my OWN conscience......

      January 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Hurrah

      turtlemom,

      Thank you for a great post... and thank you for being you.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • fred

      turtlemom
      Who are you angry at God? His chosen ones the Hebrew and then the Gentile all did the same thing as Adam and Eve, they reject God. You reject God. Be thankful that God has given you life and free choice to decide. You have decided to remain separate from God and God will grant you that wish. So be thankfull we serve a loveing God.
      As to the crook that took your bucks hey, Judas gave up Jesus for 30 schekles.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @fred: Lot of anger today.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • turtlemom

      fred....

      There is no coherent thought in anything you just wrote.

      And as for our money.... we were smart in our investment, so we can just just write it off, but it is the principle of the thing.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • turtlemom

      If you sense "anger" it is temporary..... due to your permanent ignorance.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • Nope

      "Who are you angry at God? "

      LOL! That's the stupidest repose to a well written post. I didn't read anger in that post at all but I guess if you are intolerant of others you would read anger into it.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • fred

      SeanNJ
      50% of sports watched their favorite teams lose yesterday, look out domestic voilence spikes on playoff games and Superbowl. I am sure alcohol has nothing to do with it. P.S. both my teams lost someones gotta pay

      January 23, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Huh?

      "50% of sports watched their favorite teams lose yesterday, look out domestic voilence spikes on playoff games and Superbowl."

      Please provide the source you used to form this opinion.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • fred

      turtlemom
      God is not responsible for the number of leatherback turtles dropping to all time lows that is man who is responsible. I am glad you are a responsible atheist. However, if you were intellectually honest you would take one step up the lader towards God and claim to be agnostic.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • fred

      Huh?
      oops I was referring to NFL playoffs and 50% of them lost yesterday as did their fans. There is no reason to believe atheists became any more or less violent after the games. Actually, they may have been better loosers basking in the afterglow since most were still thankful that God did not answer Tebows prayers last week

      January 23, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      One feels guilty out of hurting their fellow man, no more no less

      January 24, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
  8. J.W

    There should be a way we can all compromise on the issue and make everyone happy. Why not have it legal, but just with more restrictions?

    January 23, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      For what purpose? The number of abortions has steadily decreased and with education could continue to drop. Why should there be more restrictions? To force more women to resort to illegal abortions? To prevent the poor from being able to have a safe abortion? Yeah, that's a great idea.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • J.W

      How would they be forced to get an illegal abortion if abortion was still legal? That doesnt make sense.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • BRC

      @JW,
      I think most reasonable people would agree with simply increasing restrictions and making better definitions. The problem is that you have to get past the court's "slippery slope" mentality. They tend to propose that if you write a law saying, "No abortions after 22 weeks", that one day someone will use that to push the law back to simply say "No abortions". As of now, they believe that it is important to protect women's rights to pursue the proceedure (I agree), so they're not generally willing to risk it. If the ssytem (and people) worked a little better, we could have lawmakers take the wil of the people, determine a compromise that respects the rights of the individual, with as much respect as possible to all sides of the argument, and codify that into a law, that could then stand; but as of now we all know that would take 10 years and even when it was done someone would try and mess with it.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • gerald

      i.e. why not make it okay to kill some babies and not others. How can one compromise on life and ever have it be right?

      January 23, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • J.W

      I agree that there will always be people that are not happy, and that makes changing things a little scarier. I don't know what kind of forms or what information women have when they go to get an abortion, but maybe the abortion clinic could explain other options that they have and make sure they are educated.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Because placing more restrictions on abortion would force some women to resort to illegal abortion. What part of that don't you get?

      Placing more restrictions on abortion is exactly what anti-choice zealots do to attempt to prevent abortion at all costs.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • BRC

      @Gerald,
      Because the definition of a life is not a clear cut as you might like it to be. To many, a mass of dividing cells that has the potential to one day be a person (there are a good number of obstacles along the way), is not a life, it's still a part of the mother. At that point, before a new life has truly formed, if the mother KNOWS that bringing a child into the world in her current situation will do more harm than good, why should she not have the choice?

      January 23, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • BRC

      @J.W,
      Obviously I can't speak for past conditions, but as of now I believe it is extremely rare to find ANY legal abortion facility that doesn't take time to get to know the patient, explain the other options, and provide any information they can (for all of people's criticism of Planned Parenthood, they work very hard to make sur ethe woman is well informaed, and knows about every option they are willing to listen to). I've even heard of places were before the procedure can happen, they require the woman to recieve brief counseling, such as from an on staff psychiatrist to make sure they understand the decision they're making.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • J.W

      What are you so angry about Tom? You will probably never need an abortion.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • J.W

      That is the kind of things I am talking about BRC. I hope that they are all required to do that. And perhaps they could have a program in place that they could help the woman financially if she has the baby.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm not angry. I'm just amazed by the ignorance.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • fred

      BRC
      I had to step in and help a young pregnant girl. I then stormed over to Planned Parenthood that tried to bum rush her into an abortion. Even the manager of Planned Parenthood defended her employees actions. I was angry because they were not giving out the information on free medical and financial assistance to pregnant mothers. It was not until I had a friend at the state level contact Planned Parenthood that they finally put out the brochures on assistance available other than abortion.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • BRC

      @Fred,
      I would agree with you that that facility was in the wrong, and that all fo that information should be availabel and actively presented right from the beginning. But for everything I have heard and udnerstand sites like that are becomming less and less common.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • J.W

      My point is that we can decrease abortion without necessarily making it illegal. There could be laws that require clinics to give women all the information they need, to help women financially if they want to keep the baby, or to help them with adoption. They could be required to counsel women before having the abortion.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      That is already occurring, JW. I don't consider that a restriction.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • J.W

      Well if that is already occurring then that is good. One thing we could work on is stopping rap.e and incest. Those both contribute to abortion. We could make penalties greater for committing such crimes.

      January 23, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
  9. catholic engineer

    Abortion promoters insist that it is only a matter between a woman and her doctor. The nation of Russia is feeling the effects of that notion. Russia is one of the fastest depopulating countries on the planet. By 2050, there will be 35 million fewer Russian. Such drastic demographic shifts cause wars and poverty. Yet in Moscow every year there are 50000 abortions and 1.5 million nationwide. Russia has begun a program called "The Holiness of MOtherhood" to help stem this precipitous depopulation

    January 23, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Gee, I wonder how it is that countries with exploding populations are suffering from malnutrition and poverty?

      Do you think forcing women to give birth against their will is going to fix something? Dream on.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • catholic engineer

      @Tom I have raised four children from infancy to adulthood. They will be paying taxes to fund Social Security and Medicare of people such as you. Kind of like Planned Parenthood. Facing funding cuts, they are probably now wondering "Why, oh why, did we help eliminate millions of potential taxpayers !?" This should start you thinking.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • gerald

      Tum Tum,

      Killing babies in the United States and Europe and Russia really helps out third world countries all right. Our economies are slumping so we can less afford to send aid to those countries. Why is our economy slumping? A large part of it is do to lack of growth in population.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • gerald

      BTW my guess is your more in favor of China's method of forcing them to have abortions.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So women who don't want or can't afford to raise a child should be forced to do so to help the economy?

      Wow. You really do think women are just vessels, don't you?

      January 23, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      gerald, what part of 'choice' don't you grasp? Is it beyond your ability to understand that forcing women to do anything with their bodies against their will is ant it hetical to those who favor giving women a choice?

      Dolt.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • gerald

      Women make that choice when they get in to bed. If you can't afford to have a kid don't get pregnant. Duh. Once there is a child involed the choices need to be done with regard to that life. But for a hedonist like you life is of little value and murder is fine.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • gerald

      By the way tommy how many women have you gotten pg and helped out with abortions?

      January 23, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • gerald

      BRC, sorry I don't submit to you. Different DNA, a differnt life.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      gerry, honey, I'm female. I'm pro-choice. Never had an abortion or sought one. My mother was pro-choice, too, and never had an abortion or sought one. I've never "helped" anyone get an abortion. I've never urged anyone to have one or even mentioned it as an option to anyone who was pregnant. That's because, unlike you, I think women have brains and can decide for themselves what is best for them. Get it? That's what choice means.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Sorry, gerry, but the law doesn't work that way. Consent to s3x doesn't equal consent to give birth. Too bad for you, but you don't have any say in the matter.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • Nope

      "Once there is a child involed the choices need to be done with regard to that life. "

      So gerald how many children have you adopted?

      January 23, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
  10. just helping out

    all abortion is murder

    January 23, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • bobcat

      statistics show fewer christians=fewer abortions

      January 23, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Not murder–murder is a legal term for "unlawful killing." Abortion has never been considered 'murder', even when it was not legal.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      Hmm....since the amount of Christians in the country is higher chances are our "drop in the bucket" would be higher.

      ..but, if you want to go there.... Since the rate of Abortions are higher in the African American and Latino community.... your "this" equals "that" .... if we get rid of those two communities.... then again the rates of Caucasians getting Abortions are higher than Asians and those of Middle Eastern decent... so maybe the Caucasians need to be less of a well.

      To drop Abortions... we need to leave the country to the Muslims and the Asians. :)

      January 23, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • bobcat

      Faulty logic is based on absolutes. As proven for both my and Just helping out's claims

      January 23, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • turtlemom

      "just helping out" needs to start helping out by adopting all the crack babies that weren't aborted...have a fun life....!

      January 23, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      The legal definition of murder is: "The unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought."
      The Merriam-Webster is: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

      As abortion is not unlawful, and therefore, not a crime, abortion cannot be murder.

      "Murder" is a word. A word has definitions. It is imperative that we understand that definition prior to using the word.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
  11. catholic engineer

    Judge Blackmun, some feminists (not all), and pro-abortion advocates thought, in 1973, that Roe vs. Wade would make the issue simply disappear. Apparently, these people thought that the American populace were no more than mindless sheep who would fall into line one R vs W became law.

    January 23, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Where is your evidence for that, cat? Do you have any proof that's what anyone thought?

      January 23, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • catholic engineer

      @Tom the Piper Proof that that's what anyone thought? That's what the article strongly implied. Please re-read it.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, that's what YOU think.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:47 am |
  12. catholic engineer

    "Professor Lawrence H. Tribe of the Harvard Law School, an ardent defender of abortion rights, at least recognized that the abortion question presents nothing less than a “clash of absolutes."

    Tribe is wrong. The abortion question is a clash between abolutes and moral relativism.

    January 23, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • The Bobinator

      Anyone who claims there are moral absolutes is an absolute moron.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • HellBent

      Since your god is an obvious moral relativist, not sure what the issue is.

      Also, just so you know, the pew research foundation shows that a majority of american catholics support abortion rights.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • gerald

      Bobinator,

      Are you absolutely sure of that?

      January 23, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • JDJ

      Putting aside the abortion issue for a minute, it would seem that there has to be some absolutes. How about killing toddlers for fun? Would we say this is always wrong? I think we would have a hard time finding someone who would say no.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • HellBent

      The god of the bible kills infants. So, no, there wouldn't seem to be much of an absolute here.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > Are you absolutely sure of that?

      Yep. But good thing I'm not talking about moral absolutes.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
  13. David Johnson

    If the Christian Right is successful in their latest assault on our rights, and contraceptives are banned... abortions will go through the roof. Abortions done in back alleys for the poor. Abortions done in another country for the rich.

    Cheers!

    January 23, 2012 at 11:02 am |
    • The Bobinator

      Not to mention that abortion rates are lower in atheistic countries, suggesting that it's the faithful getting a higher percentage of abortions per capita.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • gerald

      Oh you mean like russia and china? Which atheistic countries are you talking about? Back your stats. U can't.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > Oh you mean like russia and china? Which atheistic countries are you talking about? Back your stats. U can't.

      Well first of all einstien, you need to compare countries that have the same standard of life. In this case, we're comparing the US to other first world nations that respect human rights and freedom. China isn't and neither is russia.

      WIth that out of the way, sweden and norway are good examples. England is another example, although the numbers of faithful are kinda muddied because it's not a socially talked about thing.

      Short answer, Sweden and Norway have populations that are athistic (>50%) are democratic, and respect the rights and freedoms of their people. These two countries have a lower crime rate and abortion rate, which you can easily look up.

      There's the backup for my argument. Go educate yourself now.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What is confusing about gerald's arguments and those of catholic engineer is that they're advocating precisely the same thing as what China has done with its one-child policy. The Chinese government forced women to abort for the 'good of the country.' gerry and cat would have women give up their rights for the good of our country. Doesn't it occur to you guys that when the government has the right to force women to have a child they don't want, it can just as easily force them to terminate the pregnancy if the fetus is one deemed not valuable to the economy?

      January 23, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
  14. Chuck

    I would have more sympathy for the pro-life folks if I thought they truly cared about human life. However, their history shows they are quite willing to kill people once they are born. They have little care for the lives of those children once they are here.

    January 23, 2012 at 11:02 am |
  15. David Johnson

    Abortion is an important part of a balanced family planning toolbox.

    A fetus is not a baby. It is a potential baby.

    Woman's body. Woman's choice.

    Cheers!

    January 23, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • Russ

      @ David: you said "a fetus is not a baby. it's a potential baby."

      considering that babies have survived outside the womb being born as early as 21 weeks, how do you delineate? even for those who don't believe life begins until birth, your definition is not helpful. Is my wife's 30 week "fetus" less of a baby than a 25 week pre-term birth?

      January 23, 2012 at 11:02 am |
    • SeanNJ

      @Russ: If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • Question(s)

      So it's a potential baby... This implies that it has a potential for something else? What's your criteria for a baby? What is, existentially, a baby? Because the fetus is human. That is biologically undeniable. It can't be anything other than human. I want to know the switch-over point. When is the fetus now a baby? Because when I search "fetus" Google returns "An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception."

      Maybe you are arguing that it could become a baby or it could cease to exist? Perhaps. But first I need to know what is ceasing to exist first. Because I don't think you can adequately define a difference between a fetus dying and a born person dying.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:08 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Russ

      Yep, once the fetus can survive on its own, it goes from potential baby to actual baby and has all the rights given to any other infant. But, while it cannot survive on its own, it is a parasite.

      You are correct about babies as young as 21 weeks surviving outside the womb. states allow abortions up to anywhere from 20 weeks to 24 weeks. The majority being 24.
      The reason the 24 week max is chosen, is because the fetus in not able to live outside it's mother until 21 to 24 weeks, with 24 being the usual.

      Until the fetus is about 24 weeks, it feels no sensation of pain. It is not a baby. It is a potential baby.

      Cheers!

      January 23, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • The Bobinator

      > So it's a potential baby... This implies that it has a potential for something else? What's your criteria for a baby? What is, existentially, a baby? Because the fetus is human. That is biologically undeniable.

      So is a brain dead person. We can keep them alive via feeding tubes and machines to control their heart. Would it be wrong to end their life as well? Cause that decision is made all the time and it's no where as big as abortion.

      > It can't be anything other than human. I want to know the switch-over point. When is the fetus now a baby? Because when I search "fetus" Google returns "An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception."

      Because internet defintions are always accurate.

      > Maybe you are arguing that it could become a baby or it could cease to exist? Perhaps. But first I need to know what is ceasing to exist first. Because I don't think you can adequately define a difference between a fetus dying and a born person dying.

      I can. It's called brain activity. No brain activity or development, abortion is fine because it's no more then a cluster of cells or like a plant. The second it has a working brain, I'd say that's the time that you cannot touch it.

      I think that abortions should occur no later then 12 weeks. That's two months that you've missed your period and 8 weeks to make a decision. This whole waiting a whack is morally unacceptable and irresponsible.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • fred

      Such typical atheist justification for playing God. You athesits have an excuse for everything. Oh, the baby was not viable, the baby was not the right $ex, I wanted a new car instead. Bottom line David a godless people do godless things.

      You paint God as a killer on this site when it is man that does the killing. Those who point to God killing in the Book of Samuel and Nubmers need to check out how that society was riddled with $exual disease because of their worship of Baal. They put young children into the arms of a red hot bronze statue of Baal and cheered and danced as the baby screamed. God finally had it with these people and when the last possible soul that can be saved is saved Judgment will be swift.
      We are much better now we hide the killing by man behind the backdrop of sterile sheets. The nurses tell us of how the babies squirm in a cold stainless bowl. Medical practice requires the nurse wait until the squirming stops before putting the baby into a secure medical waste pouch. What is the difference between red hot iron and ice cold stainless steel on such tender skin.

      You hate God and the Bible because you wish to be free of all guilt associated with your godless behavior. Just because you close your eyes in denial to the truth of your actions and make nonsense excuses will never change what you have done David.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • DamianKnight

      I personally believe life begins at conception. But that's more of a theological belief, and therefore, are not relevant when discussing when and how to create a law. That said, I don't think we should outlaw abortion. All it will do is cause people to do the procedure, except without the expertise of a physician.

      However, the argument of "when is it a baby" is essentially, when is it considered a life? In the legal definition of murder, we make a clear delineation. "The unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought."

      Now, my question becomes, is the reason for the delineation so that we don't get into arguments about whether a fetus is a person, or are we saying that a fetus is not a human being but we want it included in the definition of the law? I can see both sides to that argument.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • David Johnson

      @question(s)

      A tomato seed has all the necessary DNA to become a tomato plant. But the seed is not a plant.

      A chicken egg, contains all the DNA necessary to develop into a chicken. But the egg is not a chicken.

      A spiders eggs contain all the DNA necessary to become a spider. But, the egg is not a spider.

      Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

      And so, a fetus contains the DNA to become a human baby. But a fetus is not a baby. It has the potential to become a human baby, just as a carrot seed has the potential to become a carrot.

      "Roe v. Wade: The Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a const_itutionally guaranteed unqualified right to abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy.

      She also has a right to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester, although the state may limit that right when the procedure poses a health risk to the mother that is greater than the risk of carrying the fetus to term.
      In making its decision, the Court ruled that a fetus is not a person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Const_itution." – Wikipedia

      "However, the Court also maintained that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus after viability—that is, after the point at which the fetus is capable of living outside the womb.
      As a result, states were permitted to outlaw abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy except when the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother. " – Wikipedia

      Hence, states allow abortions anywhere from 20 weeks to 24 weeks. The majority being 24.
      The reason the 24 week max is chosen, is because the fetus in not able to live outside it's mother until 21 to 24 weeks, with 24 being the usual.

      The fetus, less than 24 weeks is not a person. The fetus is not capable of feeling any pain until 24 weeks:

      Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, consists of a review of studies conducted since 1997 on the neuroanatomical and physiological development of the fetus. It concludes that fetuses at the 24-week stage of development do not possess the wiring to transmit pain signals from the body to the brain's cortex. Even after 24 weeks, the fetus likely exists in a state of "continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation," due to the presence of chemicals such as adenosine in the surrounding amniotic fluid.

      The womb belongs to the woman. The fetus, in her womb has no legal rights until it reaches a stage that it is able to live outside it's mothers body.

      "One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives."
      — Ayn Rand ["A Last Survey — Part I", The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. IV, No. 2, 1975.]

      Which brings to this:

      13th Amendment : "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

      Women or any part of their bodies, cannot be owned. Not by the government. Not by religious nuts.

      We can't legally force somebody to donate blood to save somebody else; it thus makes no sense to legally force a woman to continue a pregnancy that she doesn't want.

      Women are not broodmares. They have the right to abort the parasitic fetus, until the fetus is viable.

      This is not a religious debate. It is about a woman's right to do what she will, with her own body.

      Cheers!

      January 23, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • Nope

      "You paint God as a killer on this site when it is man that does the killin"

      Nope your God creates the hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, that is not created by man. Your God flooded the earth and murdered everyone on it because he didn't like what man was becoming, oops your God made a mistake. Then to top it all off if you don't believe in your God, it created a hell for people to burn in eternity. Oh and since only 30% of the world is Christian that meas 70% of people go to hell according to your bible, probably more since so many of you Christians are screw ups (like those priest that molested the children). Your God is a monster, not the loving God you're trying to portray it to be.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • An inconvenient truth

      All the mass murderers of history have used lengthy reasoning to justify their killing, David Johnson is in good company and has risen to the highest ideals of atheism, total disregard for human life.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • fred

      Keep on justifying putting babies into cold stainless steel bowls so the world can see your godless heart.
      Nonsense David, a carrot seed is very different from a 27 week old baby that already knows its mothers heart beat. That is denial.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • fred

      Nope
      Hell is separation from God. You want that separation and God is giving you what you want. You are in greater denial than David. What sin is it that has you in such bondage that you choose separation from God. Must be a real doozie given all the excuses you lay out to keep on doing it. When I help drug and $ex addicts they have just as many excuses as you do and each and every one of them think their excuse is valid.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • BRC

      @Fred,
      Noone on here has agreed with termination at 27 weeks. At that point the Infant is absolutely viable, and I think everyone here would agree that at that point you are ending a life (unless there is proof of obvious and significant birth defects, such as absent organs necessary for life outside the womb).

      January 23, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • fred

      BRC
      What is the maximum age of baby when the mother no longer has control of her womb?

      January 23, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      ferdy, google the statistics on the percentage of abortions performed at 27 weeks. Go ahead. People like you undermine your own arguments by making idiotic statements about full-term infants being aborted.

      The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, long before viability.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Nope

      "All the mass murderers of history have used lengthy reasoning to justify their killing, David Johnson is in good company and has risen to the highest ideals of atheism, total disregard for human life."

      Religion has killed over 480 million throughout history so you're in good company too. ;-)

      January 23, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Nope

      "What sin is it that has you in such bondage that you choose separation from God"

      There is no bondage when God does not exist. LOL!

      January 23, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • David Johnson

      @fred

      Hmmm...

      It is said: "By your fruit you will be known."

      Let's look at your god's "fruit".

      God directly or at His insistence, murdered men, women and children including babies. This isn't evil? Is this moral?

      God killed every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah and his family, because man was wicked. Afterwards, He decides He won't kill everything again, because man's heart is evil from his youth. This isn't evil? Is this moral? An all knowing god didn't know this BEFORE He murdered everyone on the planet? OOOooopsie!

      God had a man believe he was going to sacrifice his son to Him. Do you know how traumatic that would be for a father and his son?
      If you had the power would you do this? Would you be so insecure? This isn't evil? Is this moral?

      There was a man who loved God. God made a bet with Satan that even if the man were tortured, his Possessions taken, and his children killed, he would still love God and never curse Him. God won the bet.
      Would you do that? Would you kill a man's children for a bet? This isn't evil? Is this moral?

      God sent a bear to kill a group of children, because they had teased one of His prophets.
      Did the children deserve to die, because they teased a bald man? This isn't evil? Is this moral? Is this a just god?

      God allowed a man to sacrifice his daughter to Him, for giving the man a victory in battle. Human sacrifice! This isn't evil? Is this moral?

      God killed the innocent babies of Egypt. The 10th plague in Egypt involved the murder of every first born of the Egyptians. Only an insane monster would kill children.

      Jesus / God says he also will kill children in Revelation 2:23?

      God created a place He can send people to be burned for all eternity. Could an all benevolent god construct such a place of misery?

      If a puppy wet on the floor, would you hold it over a burner? Even for a second? I couldn't do that. Not to a puppy. Certainly not to a human. I am more moral than the Christian god.

      I call Jesus, Himself as a witness!

      Jesus had this to say:

      Matthew 7:17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

      Luke 6:43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.

      1. A god who is not evil, can't do evil things!
      This is established, by Jesus' testimony.

      2. The Christian god is guilty of horrid crimes against humans
      Evidenced by the atrocities recorded in the bible and the Christian god's own admission:

      Isaiah 45:7, KJV says the Christian god is responsible for at least some evil: "..I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

      3. Therefore, god is evil. He bears bad fruit.

      If you whine that I am taking these examples out of context, then I invite you to read the examples of god's behavior again. Tell me in what reality or under what circ_umstances, these actions would not be evil? Or the doer of the deeds not vile?

      Cheers!

      January 23, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • fred

      BRC
      TomTOm
      Looks like 4% of abortions are between 16-20 weeks and 1.4% after 21 weeks. No excuse even if there is no God

      January 23, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • BRC

      @Fred,
      Technically never, that's not the right way to look at it. The woman never looses control of her own body. BUT, if the fetus is viable outside of the womb (as pointed out repeatedly 20-24 weeks), then I would agree the mother waited too long to act, and now an abortion would be taking a life. Bu tuntil that point, until the fetus has all of its organs and a functioning nervous system, there is no LIFE to take. You can talk about potential life, fine, but you don't know that that potential will be realized anymore than anyone else does. Talk to any mother, or any Doctor, that time between the first 12 weeks and delivery of the baby is NOT garaunteed. There are many very sad things that can happen just from nature, and even after the baby is born there are still dangers.

      For as good as we have become at medicine, the healthy delivery and survival of an infant is not a definite. That people tell others, who are already facing a difficult decision, that they don't have the ability to make that choice because THEY belive that it is wrong, when there is no garauntee to begin with, is incomprehensible to me.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • HellBent

      @fred,

      Not even if it saves the mother's life?

      January 23, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • SeanNJ

      @fred: How many of those are to protect the mother's life? If they aren't already filtered out of your percentages, I've a feeling the numbers would drop precipitously once they were.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • fred

      Nope
      480 killed by religion is to be expected since well over 90% of people historically believed in God. Statistically atheists are 7 times more likely to subject non atheist people to mass extermination. It is godless men that kill and some who think they fear God that kill and some that actually fear God yet justify the killings.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No excuse? How do you know what the reasons are for such late-term abortions? Women don't simply suddenly decide after 7 months of pregnancy to undergo such a procedure, and there's no excuse for your ignorance of that fact. The great majority of those who have late-term abortions have made an agonizing decision about a pregnancy that was planned and wanted. There are many late-term abortions that are performed when the fetus is unable to survive or has already died. Good grief, you're a moron. You must really hate women to discount their ability to decide what is best where their own lives and their health are concerned.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      >>>"Yep, once the fetus can survive on its own, it goes from potential baby to actual baby and has all the rights given to any other infant."

      Actually David, in many states if a person kills a woman who is pregnant then then he or she is charged with two counts of murder.

      So, if a pregnant lady walks down a street and is killed in a robbery. The police catch the murderer and it is found that the woman was also pregnant, the law in those states say that the man or woman who killed the mother also killed the child.

      The same street a woman walks into an abortion clinic, who is also just as pregnant as the woman who was gunned down, ...and she terminates her baby. Why is the one now being charged for killing an additional human and the other killed and called it a "choice"?

      In those instances the counts recognizes the baby as a human life, should not Abortion also be illegal in those same states?

      January 23, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, look, Mark uses the same nonsensical argument yet again, in an attempt to prove that a fetus has the same rights as a person.

      One doesn't get to make the choice FOR HER, Mark. Killing someone else's fetus is a crime because it infringes on the rights of the woman carrying said fetus. Abortion is not a crime because it doesn't infringe on anyone's legal rights.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • fred

      HellBent
      SeanNJ
      They do not release those details so your guess is as good as mine. The cause of the mothers best medical interests also includes mental stress of raising a child which classes the abortion as medically necessary. The doctors also fudge the data so they do not look like scu-m. I am sure you read the reports as well about nurses quiting the field after watching babies die ....some living 45 minutes.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, ferdy, I don't read those stories, because I have the sense to know they're propaganda put out by the nrlc. You apparently aren't able to discern the difference between fact and fiction.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • Mark From Middle River

      >>>"Women don't simply suddenly decide after 7 months of pregnancy to undergo such a procedure,"

      Hi TomTom. :) So, your excuse is the "time" factor? Would your blanket of understanding also apply to Susan Smith? She had three years of one son and 14 months of the other before she also felt that those children had to die?

      Also, babies that would be stillborn, I believe is not a abortion issue...since they are already dead.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > Actually David, in many states if a person kills a woman who is pregnant then then he or she is charged with two counts of murder. So, if a pregnant lady walks down a street and is killed in a robbery. The police catch the murderer and it is found that the woman was also pregnant, the law in those states say that the man or woman who killed the mother also killed the child.

      Actually the law was enacted to prevent boyfriends who wanted an abortion to beat the woman badly, thereby killing the fetus/baby and getting only an assault rap.

      > The same street a woman walks into an abortion clinic, who is also just as pregnant as the woman who was gunned down, ...and she terminates her baby. Why is the one now being charged for killing an additional human and the other killed and called it a "choice"?

      Because your comparison is flawed. In one instance there is no choice being made and rights are being violated. In the ohter, there is a choice and rights are being enacted. If you're going to quote the law for your argument at least try to be somewhat knowledgeable in it.

      > In those instances the counts recognizes the baby as a human life, should not Abortion also be illegal in those same states?

      Covered in the above.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      When will you get help for your reading comprehension problem?

      Really, Mark, what part of my post did you fail to understand?

      And why would you bring up a woman who murdered her children?

      January 23, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • BRC

      @Mark,
      and in other places the law is the complete opposite. A person who kills a pregnant woman and causes the subsequent death of the fetus can only be charged with 2 counts of murder if it is proved that the fetus was alive or could have survived without the support of the mother (soemtimes this is tested by whether or not the fetus (then baby) was capable of breathing).

      January 23, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • fred

      David Johnson
      Under what circu-mstance would God be justified to give the mother that put babies into the red hot bronze arms of Baal a pass. What does the scream of the baby sound like to God while the mother cheers Baal. Your atheist logic allows you to approve of Mother Teressa and Hitler getting the same peacefull rest of eternal nothingness upon death.
      What is wrong with you ?

      January 23, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • Mark From Middle River

      >>>"Oh, look, Mark uses the same nonsensical argument yet again, in an attempt to prove that a fetus has the same rights as a person."

      My friend... I do not have to attempt to argue it, the courts have made that conflicting argument already. Say if the woman were having triplets .... the criminal then has four counts of murder... but if a woman terminates four babies by having multiple abortions.... its not the same.

      I mean, you might be pro-choice but at the same time this is not fair to hang one person for an unborn death and not hang another.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > My friend... I do not have to attempt to argue it, the courts have made that conflicting argument already. Say if the woman were having triplets .... the criminal then has four counts of murder... but if a woman terminates four babies by having multiple abortions.... its not the same.

      Why is reading so difficult for you? Two different people explained it to you. If you have an issue with the explanation, talk to that, don't just restate what you originally said. It kinda makes you look like a knob when you do. Let me help you out.

      ** HERE COMES THE PRE READING WARNING THAT REQUIRES READING ***

      ** IMPORTANT READ THIS **

      Again, you're comparing a situation where there is no choice made and rights are violated to a sitaution where a choice is made and rights are enacted. As such, your comparison fails.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      They aren't being hanged for an unborn death, Mark, as you'd know if you understood the law. They're being punished for infringing on the rights of a woman to carry a fetus she wants. If you don't understand it, it's not my problem.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Mark From Middle River

      The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal. It has allowed states to set the max weeks that an abortion can occur. So, as long as Roe V. Wade stands, states cannot declare abortion illegal.

      Murder is illegal in every state. No ruling on this from the Supreme Court, so the state(s) would be able to define "moment of conception" for the purposes of assigning a murder charge.

      Sorry, but this has no effect until Roe V. Wade is overturned. Something that will probably happen, if the Dems don't win in 2012. So vote for the Dems!

      Cheers!

      Cheers!

      January 23, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • Mark From Middle River

      >>>”Actually the law was enacted to prevent boyfriends who wanted an abortion to beat the woman badly, thereby killing the fetus/baby and getting only an assault rap.”

      Then, should it be found that there is no knowledge and with that the lack of intent to kill the mother and baby... should that second charge be dropped in your view?

      >>>>”Because your comparison is flawed. In one instance there is no choice being made and rights are being violated. In the ohter, there is a choice and rights are being enacted. If you're going to quote the law for your argument at least try to be somewhat knowledgeable in it.”

      Ahh, no problem Bob, trust me I did not believe that the pro-choice would think of my argument as anything but flawed just as the pro-life side would think of any of the pro-choice arguments as anything but flawed. :)

      In one instance unless the woman is noticeably showing maybe, the criminal did not know that there was a second or more life within the woman. The woman how goes to have the abortion knows that she is with child. Why should a criminal be charged for two or more counts if of murder, in those jurisdictions, for taking the additional lives when at the same time it says that it is ok for a woman to take the same life of the unborn baby?

      >>>”and in other places the law is the complete opposite. “

      Yes, which is why I wanted to focus on those states with that law.

      Grrr... why did I agree to work overtime today.... Would love to continue this into the evening but, no way in heck am I going to respond/post to this thread on my PDA late into the night. I could feel my fingers cramping up just thinking of it. :)

      January 23, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Mark From Middle River

      >>>”Why is reading so difficult for you? Two different people explained it to you.”

      Bob, calm down and chill out. The arguments...the many arguments pro-choice and pro-life are many and the ti'tle of this article sorta is how both sides get here. I could have thousands explain to you why abortion is wrong and then go on a tirade questioning why you did not bend or change your views. Do you think that a thousand pro-choice arguments would change mine? Be grown up about it at least Bob. If you do not like my argument and point, then its cool, I do not accept yours either.

      For that, the question still is, that if the count recognizes the death of the baby when sentencing the criminal then, in those states how can it not recognize the death of the baby in the abortion?

      >>>”They aren't being hanged for an unborn death, Mark, as you'd know if you understood the law. They're being punished for infringing on the rights of a woman to carry a fetus she wants.”

      TomTom, the sentencing is for the death of the mother and the unborn child. Not the denial of.

      “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Ho'mo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

      Good greif... I thought it was only in certain states...

      >>>”The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal. …...Sorry, but this has no effect until Roe V. Wade is overturned.”

      Very well said and I agree with these parts, as us on the pro-Life side work towards ending this ….

      Ok, folks I gotta go. Much respect on the post guys and girls. Didn't devolve into name calling spree.

      L'Chaim

      January 23, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > Bob, calm down and chill out.

      I'm upset now? ROFL. Someone's projecting.

      > The arguments...the many arguments pro-choice and pro-life are many and the ti'tle of this article sorta is how both sides get here. I could have thousands explain to you why abortion is wrong and then go on a tirade questioning why you did not bend or change your views. Do you think that a thousand pro-choice arguments would change mine? Be grown up about it at least Bob. If you do not like my argument and point, then its cool, I do not accept yours either.

      No, that's not how my brain operates. If I'm presented with an argument that is valid and makes sense then I will change my mind. You admit that you won't change your mind however. I'm embarrassed for you, cause that's the mindset of a child.

      > For that, the question still is, that if the count recognizes the death of the baby when sentencing the criminal then, in those states how can it not recognize the death of the baby in the abortion?

      > “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Ho'mo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

      The mistake you make again is assuming too much in the law. In cases of animal cruelty a chicken can in fact be the victim, but it's still perfectly legal to kill and eat it. You are equating victim with rights. This is not the case as these are two legally different things. Organizations are also considered victims in the case of crimes committed against them. Should we press charges when a CEO dissolves his company?

      > Very well said and I agree with these parts, as us on the pro-Life side work towards ending this ….

      And you will fail because this is a human rights issue, not a morality issue. For example, there are some who would think touching yourself is wrong. However, human rights would trump that. You could point to all the ills touching yourself leads to, but it doesn't matter, it's a matter of rights.

      > Ok, folks I gotta go. Much respect on the post guys and girls. Didn't devolve into name calling spree.

      Well, for my part it did. Although I think you deserved it.

      > L'Chaim

      Ciao.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Cate

      "Statistically atheists are 7 times more likely to subject non atheist people to mass extermination. "

      Fred it might help if you look at other resources than Conservapedia that is a very bias and prejudice website.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @fred: You said, "Statistically atheists are 7 times more likely to subject non atheist people to mass extermination. "

      Well, I have a question for you then. How is it possible for atheists to be responsible for the mass slaughter of people while being, by many religious apologists estimations, an extremely small percentage of the population? Take the holocaust for example. Do you have any idea how much effort it takes and the number of people that have to be involved in order to effectively murder six million people?

      Either atheists makes up a much larger percentage of the population than you want to let on, or most of these people that actually committed the atrocities were religious.

      So which is it?

      January 23, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @fred

      You asked: "Under what circu-mstance would God be justified to give the mother that put babies into the red hot bronze arms of Baal a pass."

      If we looked, we could probably find many instances where someone "deserved" hell. These are the outliers. The points on a graph, that greatly exceed the average.

      Most people are not deserving of this hell. Yet, they will be subjected to this hideous penalty.

      But, hell is forever. I don't know of an instance where anyone... No Matter the crime, that deserved to be burned for eternity.

      You talk about women sacrificing their babies to Baal. Guess what Sparky... Baal was just another of the "gods" man has created. Just like the Christian god.

      If your god did watch the women sacrifice their children, why didn't He stop them? If you saw someone harming a child and you were all powerful, wouldn't you stop them?

      Can you think of a reason your Christian god did not stop the babies from being tortured and killed? I can. It is the same reason 6 million of god's chosen people perished at the hands of a madman. It is because the Judeo Christian god does not exist.

      John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

      If the Christian god so loves the world, why does He allow / cause so much suffering? Disease, famine, floods, earthquakes etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. ?

      I can explain the existence of these horrors as being due to natural causes and evolution, but my explanation fails when I include an all loving Creator in the equation. I keep getting a "Can't divide by zero" error.

      Christians say their god is omnibenevolent (all good); omnipotent (all powerful); omniscient ( all knowing)

      1. If the Christian god is all knowing, He would be AWARE of all the suffering on earth.

      2. If the Christian god is all good, He would WANT to rid the world of suffering / evil.

      3. If the Christian god is all powerful, He would be ABLE to rid the world of suffering / evil.

      4. Yet, evil persists.

      Therefore, The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      All you did fred, was to give me yet another example of your god's poor morals. Further "proof", that your god is a product of man's overactive imagination.

      Cheers!

      January 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • Mark From Middle River

      >>>”No, that's not how my brain operates. If I'm presented with an argument that is valid and makes sense then I will change my mind. You admit that you won't change your mind however.”

      Hey Bob. Ok, just getting ready to run out the door for the drive to work. Just wanted to share. There was this girl named Robin and she changed my view on a subject and it was simple. I have been pro-life all of my life but until I met Robin I was also Pro-Capital punishment. Her argument of how I could be pro-Life but still approve of the use of killing a person already in custody changed my mind on Capital Punishment. At one time I was also anti-gay and lesbian, that changed when I met a Gay father who adopted his partners son. Just seeing another form of a Family values, caused me to change.

      Abortion, I do not know. I am in my 30s and while I will say that I have not every single argument from the pro-choice side, I will say that the variations really have not changed that much. In other words, in 15 to 20 years that I have more identified with the pro-life side and debated, discussed and exchanged views with the other side, I have not heard really anything new. I am not disrespecting their views but think about it, have you heard anything … I mean anything new from the pro-life side lately?

      New generations come and then we have folks firmly ingrained in their belief that they think that they and they alone have the winning argument that the other side has never ever heard. The same as the arguments over Faith and Non-Faith.... after a while the arguments are just copied statements of belief that many of us have heard last year, the year before, a decade or more before.

      >>>”The mistake you make again is assuming too much in the law.”

      Wow, tell me.... isn't that argument just what folks do with laws? One side declares that the law means one thing and the opposing side believes that it means something else? It

      >>>”And you will fail because this is a human rights issue, not a morality issue.”

      ..and since we consider babies in the womb to be human babies. Since the State considers them human babies as well... it is a human rights issue for the right for the baby to live.

      >>>”Well, for my part it did. Although I think you deserved it.”

      ..and the guy who walked into the church to kill the abortion doctor thought he “deserved it” as well. I guess yall both. Since finding that respectful dialogue was beyond your abilities and had to resort to other means...You both were wrong.

      L'Chaim.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      @David Johnson, perhaps you would feel different if it were you suffering the physical, emotional and spiritual consequences of an abortion instead of women. It's easy to sit on the sideline, offer your opinions about when life begins and call babies fetuses but in the end it doesn't affect you personally unless you are the father of this child. Any man who allows women and children continue to suffer at the hands of the abortion industry is unworthy to be called a man at all.

      @Damian Knight, stop hiding behind definitions of words such as murder. Man's law and definitions is not God's law. If you are not willing to fight for the protection of innocent humann life, than please don't call yourself a knight.

      January 25, 2012 at 11:32 am |
  16. hippypoet

    my take : why the abortion issue won't go away... because 1) once you allow people to act without consequence thee is no going back.
    2) people are going to fuk, sometimes when one of the two doing the deed doesn't want to – lets try to keep options open for the end result.
    3) would it be better if this was ancient greece where we can just throw them off a cliff if unwanted or undesired...

    January 23, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Puzzled

      3 was acceptable to the Greeks. What has changed to make us any different.

      January 23, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • SeanNJ

      @hippypoet: You said, "1) once you allow people to act without consequence thee is no going back."

      Not sure I understand where you're going with this. Are you implying that having an abortion isn't a "consequence?" Granted, its likely less of a consequence than enduring 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth and then 18 years of indentured servitude to the product of your loins; but, there's a pretty wide gap between abortion and "no consequences."

      January 23, 2012 at 10:51 am |
    • hippypoet

      @PUZZLED – well see my issus lies with the fact of how women were treated in ancient times – they were property and so allowing them to go thru all the emotionals and physicals of carrying and then giving birth only to toss it off a cliff isn't what i'd call good parenting – having an abortion for many people who should NEVER have kids is (in my opinion) good parenting!

      @sean – you are right, having the only choices of carry to keep, carry to give away, or abort are very real consequences of having the naughty... but being giving the option of abortion is to many a "get-outta-jail-free" card and so in my mind falls into the catagory of lack of consequences – sure you pay to have it done, but compare that to the bill of 18 years of food, housing, clothing, and many many other unforseen things.... it is when weighed out not a true consequence in the sense that you only have to live with the memory.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:08 am |
    • SeanNJ

      @hippypoet: I can speak from experience that the emotional and physical trauma that a woman can experience, even when having a legal abortion, can be overwhelming.

      To think that everyone just brushes the procedure aside as inconsequential is naive.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • hippypoet

      i just lived thru an abortion, granted i am a dude so it was my wife that had the truma... i don't mean to make it sound like nothing but i have a 10 month old and a 6 yr old... the abortion was nothing WHEN compared to raising them or even carring them to term.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You aren't the one who HAD the procedure, hp. Your view of the procedure is hardly evidence of anything.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @hippypoet: I don't have the requisite equipment either, but I've also been a party to one and I never sought to presume the impact such a decision has on the woman.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • hippypoet

      i'm not trying to say this IS THE WAY IT IS i am only speaking from my understanding and since my wife and i discuss EVERYTHING down to the nitty gritty i can't imagine there is much from the experience i am lacking – but again, this was only one persons opinion of something that effects many. perhaps i shouldn't have posted anything on this blog... but whatever.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @hippypoet: You said, "since my wife and i discuss EVERYTHING down to the nitty gritty i can't imagine there is much from the experience i am lacking"

      Well, not to beat a dead horse deader, but let me draw you a parallel. My nephew is in the Marine Corps and served a couple tours of duty in Iraq. He's told me stories about his time over there.

      I can guarantee that there's a SHITLOAD of stuff from the experience that I'm lacking.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • hippypoet

      thats an exact parallel....marines are not allowed to tell all...they do and they face a court marshall. while wives just normally don't give all the info but expect it of you... happily my wife isn't like that – we discuss everything....nothing is taboo. so when i say that i don't think theres much to havnig an abortion that i'm missing i mean it. But one can easily say that the way the abortion was done makes all the difference, which is pretty much what the doc told us. Just for the ease of this convo, she got the shot that flushes your system – it takes a day to 2 weeks for the entire effect, and there is a great deal of pain involved so its most definitely not without its horrors. I am just comparing the carry to term and having the child to getting prego and having it aborted.

      January 23, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, brother. Hippy, if you have a root canal and you describe it to me, do you think I will grasp what the experience was like for you?

      January 23, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
  17. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    January 23, 2012 at 10:21 am |
    • Nope

      We've been praying you would stop trolling, so obviously it doesn't work.

      January 23, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • Rebecca M

      I'm not sure I understand a) why atheism is mentioned in response to an article on abortion (since atheists also take both sides on this issue), and b) why there is so much fear and stereotyping about atheism in general. I am an atheist, and I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that if you were talking to me and I didn't openly tell you I didn't believe you wouldn't know the difference.

      January 23, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • bringoutyourdead

      your dead demonized soul would give you away

      January 23, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • Rebecca M

      ROFL, and here I thought it would be the horns and the tail. I'm hoping you are joking. I think you might be...

      January 23, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Atheism is not healthy...

      You said, "Prayer changes things."

      Jesus speaking:
      "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." –Matthew 21:22 (NIV)

      "I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." –Matthew 17:20 (NIV)

      "Ask and it will be given to you.... For everyone who asks receives." –Luke 11:9-10 (NIV)

      "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven." –Matthew 18:19 (NIV)

      James 5:15 – And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

      Let's be honest. Don't be afraid to use critical thinking. Jesus said the above, about prayer. Is it true? Can you post back to me and claim what Jesus said is true?

      Why has there never been a doc_umented case of an amputated limb being restored? Do you think an amputee never prayed or had faith?

      Double blind experiments, have all shown that prayer has no effect on illness.

      Because people have believed the promises of the bible, they have withheld medical care for their children. They prayed instead. Evidently, god was not moved by their faith. Their children died. Modern medicine could have saved them. OOoopsie!

      Why aren't Jesus' words true? Can you think of any possibilities? If Jesus' words aren't true about prayer, then how can we depend on anything else Jesus said? Maybe if we could "test" the afterlife claims, they would be no more real than the claims about prayer.

      An Evangelical once told me, that god always answers prayers in one of three ways:
      1) God says, "yes". You get what you asked for immediately.
      2) God says, "to wait". You will get what you asked for at some future date.
      3) God says, "no". You will not get what you asked for.

      Hmmm.... But I can get the same success from the carton of milk I have sitting on the breakfast table.

      1) If I pray to my magic carton, some things will come true immediately, just by chance and coincidence.
      2) Some things will come true at some future date, for the same reasons.
      3) If I don't get what I want, then my magic carton said, "no".

      I think there is a problem, when there is no difference between praying to a god and praying to a milk carton.

      Having a prayer answered, appears to require only 3 things: Belief, Faith and to be totally sure, you need Others to Pray with you.

      Hmm...

      Remember the Gulf oil spill?

      Remember how a ton of people prayed for god to stop the gushing?

      I was spellbound! My daughter climbed on my lap and said: "That is what Jesus said to do. He will stop that ugly mess!" We watched the real time video of the oil spill. We expected to see the Hand of Almighty god reach down and repair the rip in the earth. Jesus had promised! It did not. My daughter climbed off my lap in silence. Human technology eventually capped the well.

      Remember when Rick Perry rallied his state to pray for rain? He issued a proclamation that for 72 hours, the citizens of Texas would all pray for rain. I thought, surely god would hear their prayers and open the windows of Heaven!

      The "days of prayer" ended Sunday, April 24, 2011. Texas is still experiencing exceptional drought.

      Studies have shown prayer does not work. Any miracles or answered prayers are the result of random chance, coincidence and selective observation. Believers tend to remember the perceived positive outcome of prayers and forget the failed.

      If the drought in Texas had ended you would have seen the Evangelicals hooping and hollering, about there indeed being a god in Texas! The story would have been on every believer's tongue.

      Christians MUST contest the fact that their Jesus lied. They must rent their clothes and Shout: "Do not put the lord your god to the test!" LOL!

      God, either does not care or does not exist. Personally, I'm checking the second box. LOL.

      Cheers!

      January 23, 2012 at 11:33 am |
  18. Jonathan

    All that evil needs to thrive is a good 'man' (or woman) to do nothing. Taking an innocent life is never acceptable and we can NOT overlook it. There is no middle ground to meet on or way to compromise here.

    January 23, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • nimo

      Now we just need to define "innocent life."
      I'll propose the age of reason, around 7, is where life begins.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Jonathan

      Look up the scientific definition of life. The unborn child meets this definition at the moment of fertilization and its humanity can not be argued. It has a unique strand of human DNA able to replicate itself over and over again until it is a fully formed humanoid creature. It will continue to replicate its cells until it dies and maybe even be involved in the creation of several more unique strands of human DNA. Even parasites meet the definition of having life.

      And the common definition for innocence is 'without blame'. Sort of fits for a tiny human cell with no choice in its existence save for the actions of fully developed and 'responsible' adult humans. One that is programmed to love you unconditionally from the moment of its conception.

      January 23, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @Jonathan – I hope you don't use hand sanitizer or anti-macrobial hand wash. Bacteria meets the definition of life too.

      Think before you type.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Jonathan

      @Facepalm.

      Bacteria does not equate to human life. Stop using nonsensical arguements.

      January 24, 2012 at 11:59 am |
  19. tallulah13

    This from the article:
    "Fourth, abortion has proved to be exactly what pro-lifers warned it would be: a deadly threat to human dignity that would target specific populations."

    The fight to destroy abortion rights clearly threatens a specific population: women. Denial of abortion could very well turn deadly for some. But women don't deserve the same consideration as fetuses in the eyes of religion.

    January 23, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • Concerned

      We all hope for the best outcome: a healthy mother and child.

      January 23, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • Russ

      @ tallulah13: for those of us who believe abortion is terminating a human life, it is women's rights that are equally a concern. Half of those roughly 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade have been women. That's 20 million deaths. That's deadly for women.

      January 23, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • Kenny

      You are raising a good point. I don't have children, but I know some who do, who had serious complications during pregnancy, and I know others who have had abortions. We know that there can be serious complications during pregnancy that can threaten the life of the mother or the child, or both. Considering the pro-life POV, we are fighting for the well-being of either person to be left ultimately in God's hands. This doesn't mean medicine or healthcare should in any way be denied or refused. It simply means that instead of actively choosing to end the life of one individual, one can choose to let the result of the pregnancy rest in God's capable hands. Left up to Him, both individuals have the opportunity for survival.

      January 23, 2012 at 10:35 am |
    • Denise

      If female fetuses were targeted selectively what implication could that have for the rights of women if a fetus is just a fetus, to be disposed of for any reason the mother might choose.

      January 23, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • TCS

      Getting an abortion is evil. I'm assuming that the "deadly for some" comment is for forcing a woman to put her life on the line for the child. If a woman is diagnosed with cancer while pregnant, you treat the cancer, and try to destroy it, not the child. Get the chemo and radiation therapy and try to do your best to bring the baby to the point to where it can be delivered. If the child dies due to the cancer treatment, that is NOT an abortion. It is all about intent. "I intend to kill the cancer, not the child" It would be unfortunate if the child died, but having an abortion to rid your body of the child is not called choice, it is called murder.

      January 23, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Kenny

      Left in the hands of god, both mother and fetus will be in jeopardy. Google "Idiot believers who have let their children die, because they relied on the promises of the bible".

      Prayer does not work. Study after study has found there is no benefit to the sick, who are prayed for, without their knowledge.

      The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      Cheers!

      January 23, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • tallulah13

      A pregnant woman knows the situation of her life far better than a preacher, a politician or a stranger on the internet. Absolutes don't work here, because ever circ.umstance is different. Must a ra.pe victim be further victimized by being forced to carry the child of the man who as.saulted her? Shameful! Should a teenage girl who made a mistake be forced to lose her future? Should a single mother who is working to support the children she already has be forced to shoulder the expense of bearing another, to the detriment of those already born? This is not a simple issue, yet you offer only one answer: Deny the woman her rights. It doesn't work. It has never worked.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm fed up with the stupid notion that abortion is 'taking the lives of women before they're born.' No "women" are being aborted. The stupidity of this argument is astounding.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • derf

      Tom, Tom the Piper's Son let's keep women plentiful and cheap. End abortion of female fetuses.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
  20. tallulah13

    Nine mentions of the "unborn life" and not a word about the already living woman. You can see the bias of the author without reading his "credentials."

    January 23, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Russ

      @ tallulah13:
      mother's life is at serious risk less than 1% of the time in abortions.
      Child's life is 100% at stake & has no one to speak on his/her behalf.

      Seems the greater need is to speak for the defenseless who are unable to speak for themselves.

      January 23, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • tallulah13

      A woman's life is ALWAYS effected by pregancy, Russ, and not always in a positive manner. It is not your place to decide what a woman can do with her body. It makes you little better than a ra.pist.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The rights of the woman are guaranteed by the Const itution. Even Scalia could see that the Consti tuition doesn't guarantee rights to fetuses. People like Russ don't care about a woman's health-if having a baby won't kill her, we should just force her to go through with it.

      Too bad for you, Russ, but it doesn't work that way. We don't get to force you to undergo any medical procedure against your will. You don't get to force others to undergo childbirth if they do not wish to do so.

      January 23, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • gerald

      Tally,

      The baby inside her is not her body. Pretty obvious. It has different DNA than hers, different blood, it's own heart and mind, it's own personality. It's not her body she chooses to kill.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • BRC

      @Gerald,
      It doesn't have any of those things (except for 50% different DNA), for several weeks.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      gerry, the fetus inside her is inside her body and therefore it is her decision. It is not your decision to make. It never will be. The fetus does not have the same rights as the woman; her rights trump.

      Under what conditions do you think you can force someone to continue a pregnancy against her will without abrogating her rights under the law? You're daft if you think that's going to happen in this country.

      Answer this gerry: Suppose we have the laws you want and a fetus has equal rights what happens if a woman is carrying a fetus and it's determined by her doctor that the fetus needs surgery before viability, but the woman does not want such surgery to be performed. Under your scenario, she could be forced to have this surgery against her will. Under what circa m stances are citizens of this country forced to give up their rights in that way? No one can be forced to donate a kidney, even in a matter of life and death, yet you have the gall to insist women be nothing but vessels for your seed? Get a clue, Cletus. Not going to happen.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Russ

      posted in wrong spot above...

      @ tallulah13: over 99% of abortions are belated birth control (not inc'est, r.ape, or mother's life at risk). in the vast majority of cases, the mother chose to put herself in this situation. the unborn child did not. shouldn't women's rights include the roughly 20 million unborn women who whose lives were ended without asking them since Roe v. Wade?

      @ tom tom: you are pitting 'forced childbirth' (as I said to tallulah, the vast majority chose to get pregnant) against murder. this whole issue comes down to when life begins.

      pro-choice is about the mother's quality of life.
      pro-life is about the child having a life at all.

      in any other case (e.g., a child outside the womb), this would be a given. the mother would go to jail for ending the child's life in order to preserve a higher quality of life for herself.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Tallulah13

      Of course an inviable fetus is a part of a woman's body. Remove the physical connections and see how long it lasts. Most abortions are performed before a fetus even has a nervous system. How can it have a mind of it's own when it doesn't even have a mind?

      January 23, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The issue is not when life begins, Russ. Sperm is alive. So are eggs. The issue is whose rights are paramount. And that issue is decided. The woman's rights trump. Pro-choice is not about quality of life. It is about the preservation of the rights women have under the law. If you don't like it that they have a say, I suggest you move to a country where they're nothing but chattel.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • BRC

      @Russ,
      You said:
      pro-choice is about the mother's quality of life.
      pro-life is about the child having a life at all.

      I think you'll find that is where there is a disagreement. To many that are pro-choice (obviously it is impossible to know everyone's thoughts), it is not about a child having life, because there is no child involved. An embryo is not a zygote, a zygote is not a fetus, and a fetus is not an infant. These stages all have different names because they are different things, and one does not garauntee the other. Terminating the process early does not deprive the world of a child that deffinitely would have existed otherwise. It just ends THAT pregancy. Being pregnant isn't an IOU for a child, it isn't a sure thing, and whether or not someone else decides to go through the diffuclty process of hoping and making it through those steps is THEIR decision. Noone elses.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • Russ

      posts going to the wrong place...

      @ tallulah13: "how can it have a mind of its own when it doesn't even have a mind?"
      do you use that same argument for the mentally disabled? it is a denial of the dignity of human existence.

      if life only begins once a life is viable, by which you appear to mean can stand on its own, how does that not extend to an infant, which absolutely needs its mother's care in order to survive?

      @ tom tom: you're missing my point. you're pitting the rights of mothers as women against the rights of unborn daughters as women. if there was ever a case of treating women as chattel (personal property), it would be in killing them as if they were just "another part of my body". an abortion is not a haircut.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You are the one missing the point, Russ. Fetuses, regardless of gender, do not have the rights women have as born humans. Get it through your skull.

      You make the same stupid assumptions repeatedly. A fetus cannot survive outside the uterus until after at least 21 weeks, and even that is rare. One that's only a month old is not viable. Doesn't matter who attempts to feed it or shelter it. An infant can be cared for by someone other than its mother. A fetus before viability cannot.

      January 23, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • Russ

      @ tom tom:
      1) you are making an ethical assumption that life doesn't begin until viability. that is not a scientific statement (science can't even define life itself, much less when it begins). that is a faith claim. (it's a matter of your metaphysical presuppositions.)

      2) it is only a matter of time until we will have the scientific ability to do the kind of care you are talking about with the unborn (someone other than the mother caring & nurturing the child).

      January 23, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      1) I am not making an ethical assumption about life beginning at all. That's what you don't get. Life is not the issue. The issue is whose rights are paramount. I don't care when you or anyone else BELIEVES life begins because it doesn't matter.

      2) Fine. If you can carry a fetus for someone who doesn't want to remain pregnant, have at it. Let me know when that fairy tale comes true.

      January 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • Russ

      @ tom tom: i guess we're carrying on a double conversation now...
      1) if the unborn child is a living being, it's murder. if not, then it is a matter of the woman's personal property.
      it most certainly is a matter of when life begins.
      we would not allow a mother of a child outside the womb to do such a thing in advocating her "rights."

      2) it's not a fairy tale. 100 years ago no one could imagine we'd be doing such things (going to the moon, stem cell research, mapping DNA, cloning animals, etc.). remember when test tube babies were a fairy tale?

      this is the challenge of bioethics: not *can* we do but *should* we do it?

      January 23, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If it were a matter of when life begins, abortion would already be illegal. It is not. You can pretend all you want, Russ, but abortion has never been considered murder, not even when it was illegal. Women have rights. Children have rights. Fetuses do not have equal rights. When you can answer the question I posed as to how you are going to force a woman to give birth against her will without removing her rights guaranteed to her by law, please do so. You haven't been able to do it yet.

      As for your fairy tale, as I said, notify the media when it comes to pass. I'll be all for it. Go get busy working on it.

      January 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • Tallulah13

      Russ, (yes, this is a bit late), most abortions occur literally before the capability for a mind is developed in a fetus. Disabled people, even the most radically damaged ones, have developed to a point where they do have a mind, even if it is capable of only the most automatic functions. Can you understand that distinction?

      January 27, 2012 at 11:20 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.