home
RSS
'Choose Life' license plates ruled unconstitutional in North Carolina
December 11th, 2012
01:13 AM ET

'Choose Life' license plates ruled unconstitutional in North Carolina

By Joe Sutton, CNN

(CNN) - A federal judge ruled that North Carolina's new "Choose Life" license plates are unconstitutional because the state does not offer a pro-choice alternative.

"The State's offering a Choose Life license plate in the absence of a pro-choice alternative constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment," U.S. District Court Judge James Fox wrote in the ruling Friday.

The ruling was praised by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed a lawsuit in 2011 to stop the specialty plates.

"This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom," said Chris Brook of the ACLU. "The government cannot create an avenue of expression for one side of a contentious political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with the opposite view."

Republican state Rep. Mitch Gillespie, who sponsored the bill for the "Choose Life" plates, said he would push for an appeal of the judge's decision, CNN affiliate WRAL reported.

The bill for the license plates passed in 2011, and the legislation also mandated that money raised from the sale of the specialty plates would go to a nonprofit that supports crisis pregnancy centers, WRAL reported.

During the fight to get the bill passed, North Carolina lawmakers voted down amendments that would have created pro-choice alternatives such as "Trust Women. Respect Choice," the affiliate reported.

The "Choose Life" plates are available in 29 states, according to Choose Life Inc., a nonprofit that helps states that want to sell these specialty plates.

- A. Hawkins

Filed under: Abortion • Courts • North Carolina

soundoff (3,213 Responses)
  1. Richard

    I wonder how much they paid the eight year old who came up with the design for that plate?

    December 11, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Nietodarwin

      I wonder how much psychological and intellectual damage that 8 year old will have to suffer before they throw off the lies of religion.

      "Mom and Dad, I'm failing biology because I was taught evolution is not true, but the teacher says it is the foundation of all modern biology. I guess Bill Nye was right, you really did me harm academically by shoving all that religion down my throat when I was too young to even realize the lies I was being told."

      December 11, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Bob

      Actually, they hired an aborted baby to design it.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Bob, Finally, someone willing to tell me what God has all those aborted embryo souls doing. Apparently it's slave labor in a licesne plate factory. Well if god's that much of an a$$, maybe I'm starting to see their point.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
  2. jenn

    I doubt that a bumper sticker or personalized plate has ever changed a persons thinking on an issue. In my opinion, it just increased the chances that your car will get keyed.

    December 11, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • Bob

      That's not true. I have often seen the Jesus fish on a persons car and changed my opinion about them:

      "Wow, I was wrong. They must be really stupid."

      December 11, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • Saraswati

      I want one of those Legal Seafoods fish. Except I don't eat seafood. :(

      December 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Bob...I think the same thing when I see an "Obama/Biden 2012" sticker. I'm willing to give those people with the "Obama/Biden 2008" stickers a pass...but to vote for that ticket twice? On purpose? LOL!!!

      December 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • LeeCMH

      Hey Jeff. Regardless the number of bumper stickers, Obama/Biden WON the election.

      HA HA HA HA HA.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Jeff

      @LeeCMH...yep...which is your most compelling argument to convince me that maybe abortion IS a good idea...

      December 11, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • LeeCMH

      Jeff, you are the one who decided to use the Obama/Biden argument. I am only gloating not attempting to convince.

      I learned over 50 years ago not to argue with hateful Christian.

      Now I just poke fun and laugh.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
  3. Rant

    It has been proven that abortion reduces crime by ridding society of children that, had they been born, would be neglected, abused, and not given opportunities at education. These children would be born to unwed drug-addicted mothers and without a father to guide them. By aborting the children, they are spared a life of poverty and want. So abortion is the best thing that could happen to them. Abortion is the also the best thing to happen to the American taxpayer.

    December 11, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • seriously?

      What is wrong with you?? If you seriously believe in what you have written, then you need help. What an evil, evil thing you just posted. (...and you know it...deep down, you know it)

      December 11, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Ztom

      Freakonomics! My conservative friends hate that part about how Roe v. Wade improved violent crime hugely.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • JDD

      "It has been proven that abortion reduces crime ... "

      Boy, you can say anything you want today on the internet. No need to provide facts, anything. Just an argument like, "Those children would have commited crime."

      "they are spared a life of poverty and want. So abortion is the best thing that could happen to them."

      "they are spared a life" must be one of the most unfilfilling phrases ever created. Of course, by this reasoning and standard of living that is being applied, roughly 80-90% of the world should be so spared.

      Abortion is the also the best thing to happen to the American taxpayer.

      The tax base of the U.S. has been demolished by the removal of a significant percentage of its citizens through "difficult life-sparing" abortion.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Ztom...FREAKONOMICS???? LOL! That's your source?

      Let me enlighten you skippy...

      Freakonomics commented on the effects of an abortion ban in Romania, stating that "Compared to Romanian children born just a year earlier, the cohort of children born after the abortion ban would do worse in every measurable way: they would test lower in school, they would have less success in the labor market, and they would also prove much more likely to become criminals. (p. 118)". John DiNardo, a professor at the University of Michigan, retorts that the paper cited by Freakonomics states "virtually the opposite of what is actually claimed":

      On average, children born in 1967 just after abortions became illegal display better educational and labor market achievements than children born prior to the change. This outcome can be explained by a change in the composition of women having children: urban, educated women were more likely to have abortions prior to the policy change, so a higher proportion of children were born into urban, educated households. (Pop-Eleches, 2002, p.34).
      —John DiNardo, Freakonomics: Scholarship in the Service of Storytelling

      December 11, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Michelle

      Jeff, without a bit of historical context regarding the Romania data, it is difficult to interpret the result. Specifically, I wonder how the effect of the fall of communism factors in?

      December 11, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Michelle...great call! I cannot disagree with that at all...though I would certainly contest any factual data one gleans from a book like Freakonomics.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • pattyo27

      JDD: He's actually right. Children who grow up in extreme poverty and dysfunction don't usually end up as functioning adults. It is statistically proven that after the legalization of abortion in this country, the crime rate dropped. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not really too keen on handing my tax dollars over to a useless mother who never really wanted or could afford her kid.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
  4. Ztom

    How about having the plate say "Choose Life, but then don't complain about higher taxes caring for unwanted kids and paying for the average net drag on the economy they cause".

    Hmm. Probably wouldn't fit.

    December 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Jeff

      Nah...just stick with your "If it feels good, do it!" plates...

      Consequences, smashuquences....

      December 11, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • seriously?

      You have reduced a life to a "net drag." What a disgusting thing to say about a human person.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @seriously?, you're the one calling something a "person" from a point when it doesn't even have a single neuron. That argument makes no sense to those of us who think the cow you had for dinner is as much a "person" as the zygotes you folks are worshiping.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Saraswati...then why does it need to be aborted in the first place? It's an argument you cannot win...if the fetus was not alive, you wouldn't need to do anything. It is life, it will grow, and is no different than you or I...it's just in an earlier stage. Same as my 7 year old son is in a different place than my 16 year old. One post-puberty, one pre-puberty. A different stage...while unrecognizable to you...is no less alive than you or I...

      December 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • SImran

      Jeff,
      25% of pregnancies undergo spontaneous abortions. So, by that standard, God would be the greatest murderer of all! Yeah, you can always make up an excuse for him and say "God's will"!!! And unlike abortions which a family may opt for bcoz it is not possible for them to raise a child or bcoz the child may have a serious birth defect etc, most of these abortions that "God" causes are babies who are desparately wanted by their parents!
      A fetus will not survive outside the uterine environment, unlike a 7 yrs old.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • Jeff

      @SImran...LOL...ok, so I'll let my 7 year old fend for himself then. I'm sure he can "survive" out there!

      ...God as the biggest murderer? How does that make sense? There are medical conditions that exits that can prevent any species from carrying a child full term. What's the point? Are you telling me that if a child is going to have a defect that it would be completely justifiable for the parents to just "put "it" down" then? Come on now...

      December 11, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • SImran

      @ Jeff,
      I did not say "Your 7 year old". You did. All I said was a 7 year old can survive without parents, in fact, many do! Ever visited an orphanage?
      Now try raising a fetus outside the uterus!!! And see if it survives?

      Yes Jeff, God (if there is one) is the biggest murderer, otherwise, why do 1/4 th of pregnancies keep getting aborted? Ever seen the trauma parents undergo when they keep losing fetuses year after year with doctors unable to find a way to find solutions???

      Oh, you want to know about birth defects? Have you ever heard of the term Anencephaly? Google it, see some photos of how the baby looks like (without a brain) and maybe you will have an idea – you suggest that the mother should have to go through an entire 9 months of torture to deliver a baby who will die within hours of birth? When science can actually diagnose the condition and terminate the pregnancy! Read more :
      http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/Anencephaly.html

      December 11, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Jen

      So Jeff, you are the ONLY person who could care for your seven year old? No one else in the entire world can? Your wife can not? An uncle? An aunt?

      I had my third baby a month ago. My husband is very proficient at caring for him. Please give me an example of another person who could have cared for my baby when I was two months pregnant.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Jeff

      @SImran

      @ Jeff,
      I did not say "Your 7 year old". You did. All I said was a 7 year old can survive without parents, in fact, many do! Ever visited an orphanage?
      Now try raising a fetus outside the uterus!!! And see if it survives?

      ...an orphanage is a place that provides the necessities for a 7 year old...what's your point? As to the fetus, so the mom is the "orphanage" if you will. So what? If she does not want to run the risk of having a child, SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE S.E.X!

      Yes Jeff, God (if there is one) is the biggest murderer, otherwise, why do 1/4 th of pregnancies keep getting aborted? Ever seen the trauma parents undergo when they keep losing fetuses year after year with doctors unable to find a way to find solutions???

      ...so your point is that life is tough sometimes? Ok...I'll make a note...

      Oh, you want to know about birth defects? Have you ever heard of the term Anencephaly? Google it, see some photos of how the baby looks like (without a brain) and maybe you will have an idea – you suggest that the mother should have to go through an entire 9 months of torture to deliver a baby who will die within hours of birth? When science can actually diagnose the condition and terminate the pregnancy! Read more :
      http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/Anencephaly.html

      This is a medical condition that I have already talked about here. If this type of life is what you're talking about, you need to read my earlier posts. I will NEVER stand between a woman's right to choose as it relates to violent crime and medical issues. That is solely between that woman and whomever she deems necessary to make her decision. I have been very clear on this.

      @Jen

      So Jeff, you are the ONLY person who could care for your seven year old? No one else in the entire world can? Your wife can not? An uncle? An aunt?

      ...missing your point here...my point is that my 7 year old would not make it on his own out there.

      I had my third baby a month ago. My husband is very proficient at caring for him. Please give me an example of another person who could have cared for my baby when I was two months pregnant.

      ...congrats! You are the only one that could have cared for your baby when you were 2 months pregnant. What's your point? You chose to have s.e.x with your husband with the knowledge that you *could* get pregnant. You did what you needed to do after you became pregnant. You could have given your child up for adoption to one of the families that Slmran is referring to. You made the choice to keep you child...your CHOICE. Just like it was your CHOICE to have s.e.x in the first place...

      December 11, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • SImran

      @ Jeff,
      Wow, how soon you retreat from your stand? Just a minute ago you said that it is not justified that someone aborts a baby bcoz it is born with a birth defect! And now, you make a complete U-turn and say it is okay to abort a child with anencephaly! Now what birth defect did u think I was referring to in my previous post Mr Genius??? A child with 6 fingers!!!

      Now, your excuse for recurrent spontaneous miscarriages is that life is difficult sometimes!!! Come on – say it "It is God's will, his punishment for your sins!"
      Oh, BTW – uterus is orphanage for the fetus???? really? How?

      December 11, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Jen

      You missed my point Jeff. My point was that you can take away a baby that isn't being cared for. You can't take away a blastocyst. As for medical issues, I was hospitalized twice while I was pregnant. Don't tell me I made that choice when I decided to have s-x. I developed a painful condition that could not be treated while I was pregnant. It was not immediately life threatening, but will likely shorten my life. Who gets to make the decision about whether I had to continue to carry the baby? After all, it is a grey area. Not immediately life threatening and may or may not shorten my life. Do you get to decide that I have to continue my pregnancy, or do I?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • Jeff

      @SImran

      Wow, how soon you retreat from your stand? Just a minute ago you said that it is not justified that someone aborts a baby bcoz it is born with a birth defect! And now, you make a complete U-turn and say it is okay to abort a child with anencephaly! Now what birth defect did u think I was referring to in my previous post Mr Genius??? A child with 6 fingers!!!

      ...never have said that a medical condition would not be exempt from my stance...never. You can read whatever you like...there are birth defects like ADD and there are birth defects like anencephaly. Obviously there is a difference there...

      Now, your excuse for recurrent spontaneous miscarriages is that life is difficult sometimes!!! Come on – say it "It is God's will, his punishment for your sins!"

      ...I have no desire to label anything as God's will. Miscarriages happen in every species...why would human beings be exempt?

      Oh, BTW – uterus is orphanage for the fetus???? really? How?

      ...provides the necessities for the fetus...like an orphanage provides the necessities for a child...

      December 11, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Jen

      You missed my point Jeff. My point was that you can take away a baby that isn't being cared for. You can't take away a blastocyst.

      ...I get this point...I still think that the only argument I need is this...if you have s.e.x, you might get pregnant. If you don't want that, rethink your decision to have s.e.x.

      As for medical issues, I was hospitalized twice while I was pregnant. Don't tell me I made that choice when I decided to have s-x. I developed a painful condition that could not be treated while I was pregnant. It was not immediately life threatening, but will likely shorten my life. Who gets to make the decision about whether I had to continue to carry the baby? After all, it is a grey area. Not immediately life threatening and may or may not shorten my life. Do you get to decide that I have to continue my pregnancy, or do I?

      Hard to say here...I would defer to the medical community which...of course...should absolutely take into account your condition. We are advanced enough to make determinations about quality of life...immediate or long term.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • SImran

      "Are you telling me that if a child is going to have a defect that it would be completely justifiable for the parents to just "put "it" down" then?" – Did some other Jeff make this statement???

      Jeff, ADD (or is it ADHD you talk of?) is not a genetic defect. It may have polygenetic inheritance, but it is not a birth defect! And there is no prenatal way of diagnosing it. It is also easily manageable by behavioral and medical therapy. At least get that straight. The birth defects for which abortions are advised are very clear cut, easily diagnosed antenatally and MTP offered to family if they cannot be fixed.

      So uterus provides necessities, hence it is an orphanage? Ever took a science class? Now, you can take a child out of one orphanage and put in another. The child will survive. Can u take a fetus out of a uterus and put in another???

      December 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Jen

      You mean like the medical community that just killed that woman in Ireland by making her carry a fetus until it died and gave her blood poisoning? Comforting. Hopefully I'm never having pregnancy complications with a pro life zealot for a doctor or I'm screwed.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • SImran

      @Jeff,
      Oh, and I missed one point – so you think SE>X is only about having babies??? Nothing to do with buiding a healthy relationship among 2 adults??? So, did you stop having se.x with your wife after your child was born? Or did she ligate her tubes behind ur back?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • SImran

      @ Jen,
      I completely agree. The Ireland thing is a painful reality. And it has happened before.
      Though I was amazed at how the public came out in protest, what saddened me was that still no one was saying abortion should be made legal. What they were saying was that abortion laws should be clearer. Amazing what centuries of religious indoctrination can do to your brains!
      The Irish women do go to UK to get abortions any way. And many are Catholic! Why do people fear to state the obvious?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Jeff

      @SImran

      "Are you telling me that if a child is going to have a defect that it would be completely justifiable for the parents to just "put "it" down" then?" – Did some other Jeff make this statement???

      Nope...this is me. Point? Defect that is going to render someone brain dead is a different kind of defect and between the parents and the doctor. I don't get why you're going down this rabbit hole. I never said anything about a sweeping "NO ABORTION" policy. Criminal and medical exceptions can absolutely be made. Defects are wide ranging though...if the medical community deems certain defects as justifiable for abortion, I would support that 100%. The bottom line for me on this is that I am not at that table and am unqualified to make any recommendation as to what should or should not qualify.

      Jeff, ADD (or is it ADHD you talk of?) is not a genetic defect. It may have polygenetic inheritance, but it is not a birth defect! And there is no prenatal way of diagnosing it. It is also easily manageable by behavioral and medical therapy. At least get that straight. The birth defects for which abortions are advised are very clear cut, easily diagnosed antenatally and MTP offered to family if they cannot be fixed.

      ...see above...

      So uterus provides necessities, hence it is an orphanage? Ever took a science class? Now, you can take a child out of one orphanage and put in another. The child will survive. Can u take a fetus out of a uterus and put in another???

      @Jen

      You mean like the medical community that just killed that woman in Ireland by making her carry a fetus until it died and gave her blood poisoning? Comforting. Hopefully I'm never having pregnancy complications with a pro life zealot for a doctor or I'm screwed.

      ...my suggestion to you is to not move to Ireland. You're asking me to be a doctor here...I'm not qualified to make any kind of recommendations. If you don't trust the medical community, I don't know what to tell you...

      December 11, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Slmran...sorry...hit "reply" before I addressed this:

      So uterus provides necessities, hence it is an orphanage? Ever took a science class? Now, you can take a child out of one orphanage and put in another. The child will survive. Can u take a fetus out of a uterus and put in another???

      ...of course not, but I don't see the point there. A woman provides the fetus the environment needed to develop. This is no different than in any species on the planet. If the woman gives up the child after the fact, so be it.

      You also added this:

      Oh, and I missed one point – so you think SE>X is only about having babies??? Nothing to do with buiding a healthy relationship among 2 adults??? So, did you stop having se.x with your wife after your child was born? Or did she ligate her tubes behind ur back?

      ...we did not stop having s.e.x, but so what? Would I be surprised if my wife showed up pregnant tomorrow? YEP! Still though, I'd have to say, I was the one that had s.e.x and that I knew the possibilities that came with it...no matter how unlikely.

      ...and come on...does that line work for you? Come on sweetheart, I want to build our relationship...let's have s.e.x! LOL!

      December 11, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • SImran

      " The bottom line for me on this is that I am not at that table and am unqualified to make any recommendation as to what should or should not qualify." – Exactly our point Jeff! Thanks for coming around to that... You are not at that table, never will be. Unless you get reborn as a woman (as per Hindu beliefs or rebirth) and are actually in the shoes of the woman who has to take that decision!

      December 11, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • SImran

      Jeff, the lack of se.xual intimacy in a relationship is one of the prime reasons for divorce!

      December 11, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Jeff

      @SImran

      " The bottom line for me on this is that I am not at that table and am unqualified to make any recommendation as to what should or should not qualify." – Exactly our point Jeff! Thanks for coming around to that... You are not at that table, never will be. Unless you get reborn as a woman (as per Hindu beliefs or rebirth) and are actually in the shoes of the woman who has to take that decision!

      Missed it Slmran...you were close though! A decision about a medical condition should be between a woman, the father of the unborn child, and the doctor. In the end, the woman should make the call based on what the doctor has to say. This is not a whimsical, 'oh I think I'll have an abortion today!' type of thing though. An abortion should be approved only in the event of a serious medical condition.

      Jeff, the lack of se.xual intimacy in a relationship is one of the prime reasons for divorce!

      ...yep, so? Those couples need counseling I guess. If you don't want to get pregnant...don't have s.e.x! If you're telling me that there's nothing else that a couple can do, you may want to Google that. There are many things a consenting couple can do to deepen their s.e.x.u.a.l relationship without the risk of pregnancy...

      December 11, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • SImran

      @ Jeff,
      What makes you think that women just get up one fine morning and decide "Oh, I am going to get an abortion today!" ? Like I said, you have to be in a person's shoes to know why they decide to do what they do! Otherwise, you are just being a bigoted judgemental person.

      So, you think you can increase se.xual intimacy without actually having se.x! What is wrong with having conventional se.x in the first place? By the look of it, you don't even seem to be supportive of contraception (but I can't be sure, since u didn't state that clearly).
      Which guide book tells you that you should not have se.x if u don't want to get pregnant? I say, I will use a pill if I don't want to get pregnant, and still enjoy wonderful se.x!

      December 11, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • Jen

      So you think that your doctor should have the final say in your medical decisions then. So you should be okay with a doctor telling a patient with stage 4 cancer that they don't get to have chemo (no matter how much they want it) because it is pointless.

      My friend was told by a doctor at a clinic that he would not give her the morning after pill after she was r-ped because he was against it for religious reasons (this was not in Ireland). And it's not like you can go to another doctor just like that (you have very little time to get that pill). So if you think that doctors make decisions from unbiased professional viewpoints in this country you would be incorrect.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Jen, I'm just waiting for the vegan pharmasists to start telling people they won't hand out any drug tested on animals. They are allowed to wrok by Texas law and the "ethics" rules pushed by all the pro-lifers. They're just so narrow minded they don't see the implications.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • Jen

      I know. People just don't get it. Abortion sucks. We should be aiming to reduce the number of them. But how people think they should get to push their morals on others...wow.

      And as for jeff's reply to simran. Wow. So i should not have s-x with my husband anymore because we are done having kids? Really? That's realistic. And I did have my tubes tied – but guess what? There is a small chance I could get pregnant. I guess I should have a miserable abstinent life from now on. Right......

      December 11, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • Jeff

      @SImran

      What makes you think that women just get up one fine morning and decide "Oh, I am going to get an abortion today!" ? Like I said, you have to be in a person's shoes to know why they decide to do what they do! Otherwise, you are just being a bigoted judgemental person.

      ...you're just arguing to argue now. I'm not a bigot or being judgmental...abortion should only be allowed in certain cases, that's it. Medical and criminal. That's my opinion. You talk all about choice or whatever but miss the point that it is the woman's choice to have s.e.x in the first place.

      So, you think you can increase se.xual intimacy without actually having se.x! What is wrong with having conventional se.x in the first place? By the look of it, you don't even seem to be supportive of contraception (but I can't be sure, since u didn't state that clearly).
      Which guide book tells you that you should not have se.x if u don't want to get pregnant? I say, I will use a pill if I don't want to get pregnant, and still enjoy wonderful se.x!

      ...as will I...but if my wife gets pregnant, then we will welcome another child into the world. What is your issue here? Use protection, but understand it is not 100%. If you don't like the fact that you *may* get pregnant, I suggest you find another way to be intimate with your spouse.

      @Jen

      So you think that your doctor should have the final say in your medical decisions then. So you should be okay with a doctor telling a patient with stage 4 cancer that they don't get to have chemo (no matter how much they want it) because it is pointless.

      ...no, you're missing what I'm saying. A doctor doesn't make the choice, but is there for consultation as to the extent of medical risk is involved for the patient and...in my case...the unborn child. The mother then consults with the father and then the mother makes the call, simple as that. That said, if a woman claims she needs a medical abortion because she has a stubbed toe, I would fully expect a doctor to put the kibosh on that.

      My friend was told by a doctor at a clinic that he would not give her the morning after pill after she was r-ped because he was against it for religious reasons (this was not in Ireland). And it's not like you can go to another doctor just like that (you have very little time to get that pill). So if you think that doctors make decisions from unbiased professional viewpoints in this country you would be incorrect.

      ...I don't have a response to that except to say that I believe that doctor should be charged with a crime. Withholding medical treatment in the case of a violent crime is detestable.

      @Saraswati

      @Jen, I'm just waiting for the vegan pharmasists to start telling people they won't hand out any drug tested on animals. They are allowed to wrok by Texas law and the "ethics" rules pushed by all the pro-lifers. They're just so narrow minded they don't see the implications.

      ...narrow-mindedness is not exclusive to pro-life individuals.

      @Jen

      I know. People just don't get it. Abortion sucks. We should be aiming to reduce the number of them. But how people think they should get to push their morals on others...wow.

      ...who is pushing morals at all? How is extinguishing life a solution to anything? I have stated...repeatedly...that medical and criminal situations be absolutely eligible for abortions. A woman that made a regrettable decision after clubbing though does not qualify to me. At all. You want to talk about morals behind the killing of life? Sorry... I find that hard to get my mind around...

      And as for jeff's reply to simran. Wow. So i should not have s-x with my husband anymore because we are done having kids? Really? That's realistic. And I did have my tubes tied – but guess what? There is a small chance I could get pregnant. I guess I should have a miserable abstinent life from now on. Right......

      ...never said you should not have s.e.x with your husband. You should be aware of what *could* happen though...regardless of how unlikely it may be. My wife and I are aware of that fact and we're not slowing down our s.e.x life one bit. It's a decision we make, plain and simple. We have taken the steps to not have any more children, but we are also very aware that nothing but abstinence is 100%. We're not good with abstinence, so we have s.e.x with the understanding that anything *could* happen...

      December 11, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Simran

      @ Jeff,
      Still didnot get an answer to my question – which rule book says that one should not have se.x if one doesnot want to get pregnant? And that one shouldnot terminate a pegnancy if one has medical, social, economic, or other reasons to do so...
      You willingly concede to the medical reasons, what about the other reasons? – A teenager has se.x, is immature and gets pregnant. So, she should carry forward her pregnancy, maybe drop out from school, go live in oblivion and deliver her baby and then, of course – there are adoption agencies!!! Cool! Or maybe, she is doomed for the rest of her life coz she did something (wrong as per ur standards) on day.

      Yeah, have se.x with the understanding that anything could happen! Have you ever looked beyond the world u live in – ever seen a so called 3rd world country! Ever actually seen what population explosion is! – Well then, I would say, welcome to my country. See the laborer who earns less than enough to feed a family of 3, and ends up giving birth to a progeny of 7-8, and all of these loved children end up begging on the streets in my town. Some end up in mafia groups, who amputate these little ones, so that they can generate more sympathy! All bcoz the parents were so aware that anything can happen when he has se.x with his wife and his birth control measure fails, which it often does! Oh, and he can't google other means to prep up his married life, he can simply have se.x!

      December 11, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
  5. Jeff

    I'm against abortion, and I completely agree. Very few groups should have the opportunity to have special plates, i.e. places such as universities, and certainly they should not be issued for hot button topics.

    In fact, I'd be fine with license plates going back to one standardized design...

    December 11, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Yep, this should be a position all sides can agree on. I support a number of environmental issues, but I don't have the plates and don't support their existence. If I want to support an organization, I give them money and buy a bumper sticker.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • Martha

      You are not pro-life. If having the choice of a license plate is more important to you than murdering babies, you should be embarrassed to say you are pro-life.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • SImran

      @ Martha,
      How exactly is choosing for an abortion equal to murdering babies? Which law?

      December 11, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • sam stone

      martha: abortion is not considered murder by the law of the land

      perhaps you missed that because of the noise of our "jeebus take me" marital aid squishing in and out of your rotted garden

      December 11, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
  6. Nietodarwin

    Nothing like the bible and a bit of humanity and reason, (and grabbing your sack in fear of xstians) to turn a man into an atheist.

    It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.
    Mark Twain

    What personal sacrifice for "the kingdom of heaven" was Jesus talking about when he told his disciples, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"? CASTRATE YOURSELF (Matthew 19:11-12) "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs from the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:11-12) The Scholar's Version has: "There are castrated men who castrated themselves because of Heaven's imperial rule. If you are able to accept this (advice), do so."

    December 11, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Martha

      Most people that read the Bible are not "turned into atheists." You are exactly what the Bible calls you, a fool.

      "A fool says in his heart, there is no God."

      December 11, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • SImran

      Well, Martha, not many, in fact most people have not read the Bible. What do you call them?

      December 11, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • A Frayed Knot

      Martha,
      ""A fool says in his heart, there is no God."

      A quite old and sometimes effective tactic – declaring that those who do not believe your story are 'fools'. Nobody wants to be considered 'dumb' for not seeing the Emperor's new clothes, or a 'bas.tard' for not seeing the Sultan's new turban, or a 'cuckold' for not being able to see the Miller's gold thumb.

      Even Joseph Smith used it when he gathered his 'witnesses' to his golden plates. He told them that those without "true faith" would be unable to see them.

      The ancient, primitive Hebrews who originated those Bible stories were quite adept at manipulative mind-games.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • sam stone

      Martha: No, the fool is the one who claims to speak for god. Pull the bible out of your cavity

      December 11, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
  7. Jon

    How about an alternative plate that reads, "Her choice, not mine"? Or replace all those "Choose Life" plates with ones reading, "Will Adopt"?

    December 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • Nietodarwin

      VERY VALID POINTS (However, you are trying to use reason with people of "faith" , which by definition is "belief" without logic or reason.) The East German judge gives you a "9" for effort.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Make sure the plate says "Will adopt even if your baby is born addicted to crack and unable to talk, and I'll keep adopting until I'm bakrupt." Unless you've a) actually adopted an unwanted severly mentally diabled child and b) are a vegetaria, shut up about your supposed respect for life.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Martha

      Saraswati, telling someone to shut up online, not face-to-face is cowardly, just as your stance is. A very small percentage of aborted babies have health problems. You'd know that if you weren't such a cowardly idiot.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Saraswati

      I'm sorry Martha, calling someone a cowardly idiot online is so much braver. Btw, I wasn't telling the original poster to shut up, I was agreeing with him.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • George Marshall

      My, my what a "Christian" person Martha is, calling people stupid and cowardly idiots. She sounds like a Torquemada (the Grand Inquisitor) for our time.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Saraswati, telling someone to shut up online, not face-to-face is cowardly, just as your stance is. A very small percentage of aborted babies have health problems. You'd know that if you weren't such a cowardly idiot.

      Can you cite your source for your statement about the percentage of aborted fetuses that have health problems?

      How many unwanted children have you//are you willing to adopt? Our foster care system and orphanages are over run with children needing a good home. Surely if you believe so strongly, you're willing to adopt two or three of them?

      December 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Saraswati, telling someone to shut up online, not face-to-face is cowardly, just as your stance is."

      As is calling people fools

      December 11, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
  8. cre

    1 down

    27 to go.

    December 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
  9. Bob

    I will give a million dollars to the first person that can prove two simple things:

    1. There is a god
    2. Their religion is the correct one for that god

    Shouldn't be too hard huh? Actually, you would think they could prove 1 & 2 before they started advocating for prolife and other foolish religious causes.

    December 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • hoppypoppy

      Prove there is no God. Shouldnt be that hard right?

      December 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • Ztom

      I am a Pastafarian. I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I will give you $1,000,000 if you can definitively prove FSM does not exist.

      RAmen

      December 11, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • scott

      You just proved it by your post... Send me the money!!!

      December 11, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • dudeuloose

      prove there was a big bang and no theories do not qualify as proof!

      December 11, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Bob

      It is easy proving there is no god. There has never been any evidence suggesting any supernatural have ever occurred on earth. So why even entertain the idea of gods? You might as well believe in trolls that grant wishes. It is an equally valid idea.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Bob

      @dudeuloose

      We can see the big bang with our telescopes.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • seriously?

      Bob,

      God can not be "proven" because he is not bound by the same laws of the universe, he created them. Therefore we rely on EVIDENCE for his existence. It is plain COMMON SENSE that something does not come from nothing. It is obvious to every thinking human being that God created the universe. If you don't believe that, then you are deceiving yourself. (this is all true, and quite obvious and you know it, as well as every other atheist, you are just denying reality something that is PLAINLY OBVIOUS) When someone says, prove to me there is a God, show me him, i have to laugh, because they are showing a toddler's level understanding of God. And by the way, the Catholic Church is the correct and true church, founded by Jesus Christ. No debate, again – logic – it's the church dating back to Christ himself. End of discussion.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • jimbo913

      "prove there was a big bang and no theories do not qualify as proof!"

      Ever hear that the universe is expanding and that all galaxies (minus those that have a gravitational attraction to another neighboring galaxy) are moving apart from one another. Play it backwards.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • Damocles

      @seriously

      Riiiiight, the old 'something can't come from nothing but my deity can come from nothing because he's a magical being that exists outside of the laws he created and he even though he would have had to ake something from nothing when he created matter we give him a pass on that because it doesn't make any sense when you really think about it' argument. Priceless.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • sam stone

      hoppy: prove there are no leprechauns

      December 11, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • sam stone

      Seroiusly: The catholic church is a haven for pedophiles.

      Also, how do you equate a creator with a god?

      December 11, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
  10. hoppypoppy

    So you can only have free speech if the other side is represented?

    December 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • Richard

      Free speech is not the issue – the government expressing a bias by repressing an opposing viewpoint is the issue.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • caw

      You can only have GOVERNMENT sponsored free speech when both sides is represented.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • hoppypoppy

      Just like the government supresses NAMBLA? Are you pro NAMBLA Richard?

      December 11, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • Mike

      You could say both sides our be represented. Choose life means to make a choice and isn't that what the pro-choice side is about? They do not advocate mandatory abortion, only a woman's right to choose. Choose life also means to make the choice to not have an abortion. I don't where the problem is here.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • George

      I guess the M.A.D.D. plates will be next.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
  11. Richard

    I wouldn't care what the plate said. I still wouldn't want that goofy looking thing on my car.

    December 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
  12. Nietodarwin

    Throwing children against rocks as that book commands would probably result in fatalities. Why are the xstians so against choice. More religious hypocrisy. Here's the chapter and verse, that's what religious folks do right? Chapter and verse.

    How should you feel when you dash "little ones" against the stones
    Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137:8-9)

    December 11, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • Martha

      My God, it is amazing how stupidly you interpreted that. That's why you need to go to church. That verse refers to God taking vengence on anyone who loves Him. Wow, do you look stupid.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • Damocles

      @martha

      So I was reading your post and this part made me chuckle a bit: That verse refers to God taking vengence on anyone who loves Him. Wow, do you look stupid.

      So your deity takes vengence on even those that love him? Wow!

      December 11, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Martha, you just called somebody stupid online. Twice. By your judement again this must be "cowardly" of you. Hmm...do you know what "hypocrite" means...do they teach that at church?

      December 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • sam stone

      Martha: Do you want God to take vengence on you? Have you been a bad, bad girl?

      December 11, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
  13. Nietodarwin

    Patriotism is making a comeback!!! (I agree with those that say plates should have nothing but numbers, but the mentally ill xstian "wrong" wing started this.) We ARE NOT a xstian nation. Freedom to practice mentally ill, anti-women,anti-science "faith" exists. Practice it behind closed doors.

    The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus…will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
    Thomas Jefferson
    “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.”
    _ Thomas Jefferson

    December 11, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
  14. Richard

    Go figure that it would be because lawmakers refused to allow an opposing view to be expressed that their own would be repressed. Maybe, that will teach them a lesson – but, maybe not.

    December 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
  15. MatarLaRaza

    So this means that we can't have "save the endangered animals" plates unless we can have the "KILL the endangered animals" plates?

    December 11, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • mama k

      I don't think that issue is as closely related to religion (as in people constantly trying to establish one in the government) as this one.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Ron

      Essentially, if anyone wanted to make a fuss over it. They shouldn't be putting view points of state licence plates anyhow.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • aatdb

      Downright silly. I am very pro-choice, but if someone wants to have a "choose life" on the their licensce plate, have at it.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
  16. LeeCMH

    Hateful Christians love to inject their mean hate in the form of outrage. Then they scream, you are persecuting us. They carry their nails in their pockets ready to nail themselves up at any moment.

    Interestingly with abortion Christians are in favor of "life", but while talking about gays they want to kill them. Take a look at the hateful Christian posts on the Supreme Court article about taking up marriage.

    December 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • James

      I believe your opinion that christianswant to kill gays is quite extreme and bigoted, I assume you must be gay yourself by your comments, which in no way makes me want to kill you, even though I am a christian.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • TheZel

      don't lump us all in one basket dear. Some of us respect all life: unborn, on death row, gay, poor.. all, even you. God Bless

      December 11, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • LeeCMH

      Jerry Falwell, a famous hateful Christian, said people with AIDS should be shot and buried like cattle with anthrax.

      Also, check-out the opinions on the Supreme Court taking marriage cases article. They are replete with references to kill them and death to them.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • Ron

      LeeCMH... some gay men think that you can "turn" straight men gay.... does this mean all gay men think this? No.... (because frankly if that were true then there'd be no marriage issue period... if you wanted to get married just turn straight again.. like changing your hair color).

      December 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • Chip K

      to be fair, he did specify "hateful christinans," of which there are many, just like there are many hateful individuals in just about any group, religious or otherwise. Pointing out that not all christians hate gays does nothing to further the discussion started by the original poster's accurate comment. We all know that not all christians hate gays (such as jesus christ for example), and some don't hate anyone for that matter. He was talking about a specific kind of christian, whose impostion of their beliefs on others is both hypocrtical and all too influential in American society.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • scott

      Guess what? Everybody's gay. And we're all born that way.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • seriously?

      The "hateful" Christians you speak of are not really Christians...obviously. With regards to abortion, obviously it is wrong. That should be plainly obvious to any rational human being. End of discussion, there is not even need for an argument, it's obviously wrong. If you DON"T think it's wrong. There IS something wrong with you, seek professional help.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • LeeCMH

      Thanks Chip. Additionally the hateful brand of Christian is active in trying to use the power of government to deny equality.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Martha

      You are a bigot, plain and simple.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • LeeCMH

      A pattern I've watched for the past 50 years. Christian spew hateful venom at people they hate. The vomit and vomit and vomit. When people rise up against their organized hatred and attempts to use government to enforce their meanness they scream, you bigots.

      Hope you also have your nails ready so you can scream you are persecuted and nail yourself on you cross.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • Heather

      James,

      Extreme? Really? One word for you: Uganda. Guess who is promoting those "death to gays" bills? American Chriatians.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • sam stone

      When someone follows up a supposed point with "end of discussion" or "end of story", it shows that they do not have a worthwhile argument.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
  17. TR in ATL

    Absurd. The ACLU has done more to destroy this country than any politician. They're not Civil nor are they for your Liberty.

    December 11, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
  18. Bob

    Where are my "God is a myth" or "Jesus is an a hole" plates?

    December 11, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Atheist Hunter

      nailed over your eyes

      December 11, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • LeeCMH

      Hey Hunter, a suggestion of violence here?

      December 11, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Satan put em there not me.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • dave

      Lol atheist hunter... god is not real i hate to break it to you... long live satan he is our lord.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • Heather

      Satan has got to be the greatest excuse for committing evil even invented. I didn't kill him! Satan made me do it!

      Like so many other aspects of organized religion, it's a con.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
  19. Latenite

    "This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom"
    In other news, day is now night, black is now white, and the Middle East is now at peace.

    December 11, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
  20. justbc

    I guess it is hard for me to understandy why anyone would want to subject themselves emotionally, mentally, or physically to an abortion. In this day and time there shouldn't be any abortions taking place with the except. of threat to life of the mother.
    So what if someone opposes the murder of baby and wants to put it on a license plate. They are paying for it. They are not asking YOU to buy it, unlike Obamacare asking me to pay for an abortion which I do not belive in! I would hope that all people would respect human life as much. We will spend our last dime to conserve the last white tiger, but show no thought at the murder of an innocent human who was not asked to be conceived in the first place.
    Women should have enough respect for themselves to get on some sort of birth control if they do not wish to conceive.

    December 11, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • chad

      seems so logical..

      what could possibly be the counter argument? "no!! we want to kill babies!!"

      December 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • Saraswati

      No, but they aren't giving people the option to buy plates representing any of the several hundred other opinions out there. It is preferring one moral opinion over another by the state. This is no hardship to those who want to express that message, just buy a bumper sticker or plate frame. If you're unwilling to do that you've just admitted that your point is in getting state recognition of your belief.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      During the fight to get the bill passed, North Carolina lawmakers voted down amendments that would have created pro-choice alternatives such as “Trust Women. Respect Choice,” the affiliate reported.

      This is why the license plates were ruled unconst ituional.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      justbc

      I guess it is hard for me to understandy why anyone would want to subject themselves emotionally, mentally, or physically to an abortion. In this day and time there shouldn't be any abortions taking place with the except. of threat to life of the mother.
      So what if someone opposes the murder of baby and wants to put it on a license plate.
      .
      .
      #1 Regardless of yoru perception of what an abortion might be like to go throguh, it has no bearign on someone elses choice
      .
      #2 Please note...."During the fight to get the bill passed, North Carolina lawmakers voted down amendments that would have created pro-choice alternatives such as "Trust Women. Respect Choice," the affiliate reported."
      ...
      One sided doesnt fly in freedom of speech. They wanted to cram their message through the government while restricting those who had a different point of view. The Christian taliban needs to be put in their place when they trample on other's views and rights.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      chad

      seems so logical..

      what could possibly be the counter argument? "no!! we want to kill babies!!"
      --
      It is a fetus, not a human with rights. It is not murder

      December 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • chad

      @Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT "It is a fetus, not a human with rights..."
      @Chad "how do you figure that?

      did you know that a babies heart starts beating in the 6th week?
      did you know that a baby struggles for it's life as the abortion doctor dismembers it with a vacuum?

      December 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • Damocles

      @justbc

      Stop acting like every woman that gets an abortion is doing it with a smile on their face and a bounce in their step. I rather imagine that it is the toughest, most painful choice they ever have to make. They have to live with the descision, not you, they have to spend a lifetime possibly second guessing themselves, not you. I can not force a woman to give birth any more than I can foce you to do something with your body. I am pro-allowing for abortions because I don't want women to have to deal with the possible complications that arise from going to a less than reputable doctor. This does not mean I'm a cold-hearted bast-ard gleefully rubbing my hands at the prospect of abortions. I certainly would love it if all kids were born or adopted into loving, caring families. Reality is different.

      Abortion is a complex, painful issue, do not sully the conversation by thinking everyone that is pro-choice is out for blood.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Jen

      Right, because contraception is 100 percent effective...oh wait...

      So you must be okay with an abortion before the sixth week then right Chad? No beating heart and an embryo is certainly not 'fighting for life', so you should have no issues with that.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • Ron

      Chad....

      If you don't agree that's fine, but don't try to rationalize shoving your views down someone elses throat... You actually think the fetus conprehends its death or knows its dying? Instrinctually every living thing fights for its life... so I don't know what you're proving... a fetus is living, but its not sentient.

      I think abortion is okay till whatever that point in time where we can prove sentience... (how? I don't know I'm not an OBGYN)

      December 11, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • chad

      @Ron "If you don't agree that's fine, but don't try to rationalize shoving your views down someone elses throat"
      @Chad "so, it's ok for me to kill my children? and if you object, you would just be shoving your views down my throat?
      your position is incoherent.

      @Ron "You actually think the fetus comprehends its death or knows its dying? Intrinsically every living thing fights for its life... so I don't know what you're proving... a fetus is living, but its not sentient."
      @Chad "?? another incoherent statement.
      Babies have brain waves at 4 weeks and experience pain at 8 weeks.

      December 11, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Guy

      chad
      Can you not admit that god allows abortion, remember, one of your statements....
      "The God of Isreal is real and nothing gets done wihout Him." would that not include the act of abortion?

      December 11, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • Jen

      Chad, I love how you avoid my post because you have ZERO to counter with. Hilarious.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • chad

      @Guy "Can you not admit that god allows abortion, remember, one of your statements....
      "The God of Isreal is real and nothing gets done wihout Him." would that not include the act of abortion?"

      =>God allows humans to do all kinds of horrible things that He does not approve of. If he didnt, humanity would have been smoked eons ago.
      what's your point? God clearly states that abortion is murder.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • chad

      Jen, life begins at conception. Pretty simple.
      If you want to claim otherwise, you'll need to change the definition.

      b>life /līf/ Noun
      A. The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional...
      B. Living things and their activity: "some sort of life existed on Mars".

      December 11, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Jen

      Again, avoiding my question. Hilarious. Actually, life does not begin at conception. There – how much easier does that get???

      The truth is, you have your opinions and I have mine. Neither is fact (you can try to present it as fact all you want but it doesn't make it fact). Now who's opinion is more valid? Me – who has been through three pregnancies and experienced each stage personally, or you – I'm sorry – how many times have you been pregnant?

      December 11, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • chad

      actually, as I said, according to the definition of the word "life", life begins at conception

      life /līf/ Noun
      A. The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional...
      --
      who's opinion is more valid?
      didnt realize that murder was up for debate? Are we allowed to have our own opinions on murdering children?
      if that's your case, then my opinion is the only worthwhile one, as it protects those that cant protect themselves.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • Jen

      Your definition could describe a single cell you realize? A cancerous tumor fits your definition. So let me get this straight – you believe killing a tumor is murder correct? It's your definition – don't be a hypocrite by trying to change the definition!

      Actually, my opinion is the only one that is worthwhile, because I am the only one of us that can grow a fetus inside me.

      Isn't this fun? You can call your opinion 'murder' all you want. Both the law and I say otherwise :)

      December 11, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • chad

      @Jen "you believe killing a tumor is murder correct?"
      @Chad "no, it is not against the law to kill all living things, otherwise I would be in jail for mowing my lawn.
      It IS against the law to kill a human being."

      sorry, you dont get to do anything you want to your unborn baby. that's reality. right?
      current law regulates abuse of the unborn baby, and murder of it (after ~28 weeks). Current law allows you to murder your child only if it is less than ~28 weeks old.

      December 11, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Guy

      My point is the god of Isreal allows people to do all sorts of terrible things including abortion because "nothing gets done without Him", that's all.
      The law of the land allows you to kill your child/fetus if it does not meet the legal definition of child, however, once they do meet the legal definition of child you will be charged with murder, quite simple. You seem to only want to see the law through your faith, let the rest of us see the law as we are allowed too. Can you do that, just butt out of our choices?

      December 11, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • chad

      @Guy "butt out of our choices"

      =>not a chance, regardless of the current legality, I have a right to express my opinion on the murder of an unborn child.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Jen

      Well actually I can do whatever I want until the fetus hits viability (which not so coincidentally is the point at which I believe it becomes human), which is WELL after conception (I mean really, why call conception the moment life begins – those eggs and sperm are alive before they meet each other you know). And it's not murder – law agrees with me there. Doesn't it suck that you cant force me to carry a pregnancy? Tough isn't it?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • chad

      hmm no..
      see "unborn victims of violence act", "Fetal Homicide Laws", "Criminal neglect of fetus" for examples

      your posts have been very helpful to the viewing audience in one huge respect, as they illustrate a central tenant that many people are willing to sacrifice the rights of the unborn child on the altar of "womens rights". Sacrificing children to satisfy an erroneous perception of inequality.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • Jen

      Nope. Nothing to do with women's rights. Has to do with when I believe the 'unborn' is a person. It is not a person at conception in my opinion (I don't try to pretend my opinions are facts like you do). I've given birth to three children. I've seen the blob at the 8 week ultrasound. The same thing as my newborn, 1 year old or 3 year old? Nope, not even close.

      Those laws you state talk about someone else interfering in a pregnancy (I don't believe anyone other than the mother gets the decision), or when the fetus is viable. So again, my decision before viability. Not yours. Tough break for you.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • chad

      @Chad "your posts have been very helpful to the viewing audience in one huge respect, as they illustrate a central tenant that many people are willing to sacrifice the rights of the unborn child on the altar of "womens rights". Sacrificing children to satisfy an erroneous perception of inequality"

      ==
      @Jen "how many times have you been pregnant?"
      @Jen "my opinion is the only one that is worthwhile, because I am the only one of us that can grow a fetus inside me"
      @Jen "Doesn't it suck that you cant force me to carry a pregnancy? Tough isn't it?"

      ==
      @Jen "Nope. Nothing to do with women's rights"

      @Chad "I'll just let your posts stand as my evidence, no argument needed from me :-)

      December 11, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • chad

      @Jen "Those laws you state talk about someone else interfering in a pregnancy (I don't believe anyone other than the mother gets the decision), or when the fetus is viable. So again, my decision before viability. Not yours. Tough break for you."

      =>LOL
      you really should do some reading before you respond :-)

      December 11, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • Jen

      Ummm...where did I discuss women's rights or equality? My whole point has been that the individual has the right to decide what happens to their own body. If you could get pregnant I would support your individual right as well. But you do not get decide what I get to do with my body. Neither does a pro life woman. Nor do I get to decide what you do with yours. So again, please tell me where I made this into a womens' rights issue???? Please, be specific.

      And as for your last post – what??? I'm stating you or society doesn't get to make the call before viability – only me. Tell me where I'm wrong there. Good luck!

      December 11, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • chad

      I'm happy to let your posts stand for themselves as evidence of the womens rights.

      @Jen "I'm stating you or society doesn't get to make the call before viability – only me. Tell me where I'm wrong there. Good luck!"
      @Chad "trying to think of how you could be more wrong on something, but I cant..

      when did you EVER get to decide when a baby is considered "viable". That is a decision that the court makes now.
      Dont believe me? just have one of your children killed in the third tri-mester and attempt to explain it away by "well, I didnt consider him/her viable"

      December 11, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Jen

      So when I tell you that as a man you get to have control over the medical decisions for your own body I'm arguing for women's rights??? How so? Please explain.

      Just can't admit when you are wrong. It is so hilarious!

      Well the courts have decided viability. Almost all babies will survive outside the womb at 28 weeks. Some at 24 weeks. My state doesn't allow abortions past 24 weeks. So I didn't make the decision. And I don't know what your point is. I already said I consider the law to be right so....I wouldn't be aborting a third trimester pregnancy. Can't you read?

      December 11, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • chad

      I'm happy to let your posts stand for themselves as evidence of the womens rights.

      --
      @Jen " I'm stating you or society doesn't get to make the call before viability – only me. Tell me where I'm wrong there. Good luck!"
      @Jen Well the courts have decided viability"

      @Chad "exactly, the courts have made that decision"

      December 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • Jen

      Your counter arguments are just sad. Ie, you don't have one so you just post the same thing over and over again (quotes where I never mentioned women's rights). You aren't even fun to debate with. I just mopped up the floor with you.

      December 11, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • chad

      :-)

      good arguments dont need to be updated.

      "you men, keep your hands off women's bodies" is very common and as I said is plainly evident in your posts.

      "viability" is determined by the courts, you dont get a say in it. It is currently legal for a woman to kill her child prior to the time of "viability". If that time changes, you would of course be facing legal action for not adhering to it.

      December 11, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • chad

      as well, the courts do recognize fetal rights before viability,
      Johnson v. State of Florida.
      State of Florida filed criminal charges against a woman who used drugs during pregnancy before the fetus was viable. Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

      Jennifer Johnson v. State of Florida: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsup...831amicus4.pdf

      December 11, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
    • Jen

      Right. And it is just as plainly evident in your posts that you never made it past the fifth grade in your education. Since you can infer from my posts, I have just as much right to make inferences from yours.

      I can't open your link, but the only case I found about Jennifer Johnson Vs. State of Florida charged her based on drug tests from her FULL TERM DELIVERED baby, and oh yes, that's right..., the SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED HER CONVICTION!! Looks like you have reverted to your dishonest ways.

      December 11, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • chad

      Well, I admit when I'm wrong, and I was wrong about the supreme court upholding the decision. I should have read the case itself instead of relying on a review..

      However, the issue of WHEN the drug was ingested for which she was convicted is a different matter. Is it legal to do cocaine up until the point where the child is considered "viable" but not after? That appears entirely nonsensical.
      I'll need to do more reading on that.

      December 11, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

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 and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.