Abortion

[jravnsbo]

bejkuy-we need your support buddy.  We need you to go to the "Atlas fantasy Elections" and then the "Important thread- Registration" and simply post  "I register"  That will allow you to vote in the Atlas elections we are having.  Its kind of fun, you should check it out and our great candidate Supersoulty!  Thanks for your time.

[jravnsbo]

ok still never had anybody explaint o me how late term abortion or partial birth abortion is legal anyway?  What about the trimeste thoughts discussed in Roe?  and Casey?  

It is my understanding that this procedure happens right near full term, if so how can that be justified?

[bejkuy]

<<<ok still never had anybody explaint o me how late term abortion or partial birth abortion is legal anyway?  What about the trimeste thoughts discussed in Roe?  and Casey?  

It is my understanding that this procedure happens right near full term, if so how can that be justified?>>>

Will anyone on this forum defend this nefarious act?

[Gustaf]

<<<ok still never had anybody explaint o me how late term abortion or partial birth abortion is legal anyway?  What about the trimeste thoughts discussed in Roe?  and Casey?  

It is my understanding that this procedure happens right near full term, if so how can that be justified?>>>

Will anyone on this forum defend this nefarious act?

I am not that familiar with abortion terms...is that when the infant is killed on the way out, with a needle in the head or something, like they do in China?

[© tweed]

<<<ok still never had anybody explaint o me how late term abortion or partial birth abortion is legal anyway?  What about the trimeste thoughts discussed in Roe?  and Casey?  

It is my understanding that this procedure happens right near full term, if so how can that be justified?>>>

Will anyone on this forum defend this nefarious act?

I stand against partial-birth abortion unless it is necessary to save the health of the mother.

[bejkuy]

Partial birth abortion is when the infant is partially delivered before he or she is destroyed.

This is the preferred method of abortion after the third trimester begins.

Any many cases the aborted baby could have survived outside of the mother's womb.

ALL of the democratic nominees stood firmly in support of legalized partial birth abortion.

 

[bejkuy]

For a "civilized" county, we sure tolerate some wretched things to occur.

[© tweed]

For a "civilized" county, we sure tolerate some wretched things to occur.

Country, you mean?

[Gustaf]

Partial birth abortion is when the infant is partially delivered before he or she is destroyed.

This is the preferred method of abortion after the third trimester begins.

Any many cases the aborted baby could have survived outside of the mother's womb.

ALL of the democratic nominees stood firmly in support of legalized partial birth abortion.

 

OK, then I am against it. I have shudders every time I think of that happening...has anyone else read "The Bear and teh Dragon" by Tom Clancy?

[migrendel]

I will defend third-trimester abortion, because I believe it to be a component of liberty that cannot be renounced.
I will begin by contradicting the reasoning of Roe and Casey. They seem to show little understanding of Constitutional principle and are primarily a reflection of what the Supreme Court wanted in the way of policy. The Constitution's text has a fairly absolute mandate as to abortion: Legal at all points before birth. Section 1 of Amendment XIV settles the question of fetal standing before the law. It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Fetuses are thus not citizens as defined by the Constitution that the state has a compelling interest in defending. It never fails to amuse me that the same Conservatives who deny rights to illegal immigrants because of their lack of citizenship will twist the meaning of this clause to accomodate fetuses. Amendment IX states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed so to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I find this to be a perfect example of legal language which protects the rights of women from an overzealous legislature intent upon hallowing fetuses at everyone's expense. Also, the Equal Protection Clause seems to protect abortion because criminalizing it would be tantamount to sex discrimination. It would seem apparent that the consequences of bearing children are very different for men and women. Study after study shows that women bear a much greater economic hardship as a result of reproducing. With this empirical evidence firmly in mind, the failure of the government to provide for relief in the form of abortion to pregnant women would result in a disparate impact, and thus a violation of equal protection. So, to mandate that abortion be a right throughout the pregnancy would merely be abiding by the pure dictates of the law.
Abortion can also be conceptualized from a philosophical perspective. Utilitarians, in the line of Jeremy Bentham, can argue that the happiness of the mother outweighs the rights of the prospective person. Libertarians, in the line of John Stuart Mill, can say that a woman's self determination is a fundamental right. A Kantian definition of Categorical Rights would say that the right to an abortion is an inviolable principle. Even Catholic philosophers, such as St. Augustine, who said fetuses had rights after hominization, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who felt female fetuses were persons after 40 days and males after 80, defended some vestiges of a concept denying fetuses full rights. Of course such a decision might grow in complexity as a fetus ages in gestation, but that is precisely why it should be left to the individual who knows their circumstances.
Personally, I feel that defending a woman's physical autonomy is a moral duty of government. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. I can see no justification for allowing an unwanted pregnancy to obstruct something so innately personal and so circumstancially imperative.
In closing, abortion would rightfully be included in the pantheon of rights considered fundamental to humanity. However, some wish to fob it off like a poor relation. I fear for the future. I fear for the day when humanity's flickering candle of personal dignity goes out. That is why this right must be defended so vigilantly, and gestation should not take priority over all that is so important.

[NHPolitico]

I will defend third-trimester abortion, because I believe it to be a component of liberty that cannot be renounced.
I will begin by contradicting the reasoning of Roe and Casey. They seem to show little understanding of Constitutional principle and are primarily a reflection of what the Supreme Court wanted in the way of policy. The Constitution's text has a fairly absolute mandate as to abortion: Legal at all points before birth. Section 1 of Amendment XIV settles the question of fetal standing before the law. It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Fetuses are thus not citizens as defined by the Constitution that the state has a compelling interest in defending. It never fails to amuse me that the same Conservatives who deny rights to illegal immigrants because of their lack of citizenship will twist the meaning of this clause to accomodate fetuses. Amendment IX states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed so to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I find this to be a perfect example of legal language which protects the rights of women from an overzealous legislature intent upon hallowing fetuses at everyone's expense. Also, the Equal Protection Clause seems to protect abortion because criminalizing it would be tantamount to sex discrimination. It would seem apparent that the consequences of bearing children are very different for men and women. Study after study shows that women bear a much greater economic hardship as a result of reproducing. With this empirical evidence firmly in mind, the failure of the government to provide for relief in the form of abortion to pregnant women would result in a disparate impact, and thus a violation of equal protection. So, to mandate that abortion be a right throughout the pregnancy would merely be abiding by the pure dictates of the law.
Abortion can also be conceptualized from a philosophical perspective. Utilitarians, in the line of Jeremy Bentham, can argue that the happiness of the mother outweighs the rights of the prospective person. Libertarians, in the line of John Stuart Mill, can say that a woman's self determination is a fundamental right. A Kantian definition of Categorical Rights would say that the right to an abortion is an inviolable principle. Even Catholic philosophers, such as St. Augustine, who said fetuses had rights after hominization, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who felt female fetuses were persons after 40 days and males after 80, defended some vestiges of a concept denying fetuses full rights. Of course such a decision might grow in complexity as a fetus ages in gestation, but that is precisely why it should be left to the individual who knows their circumstances.
Personally, I feel that defending a woman's physical autonomy is a moral duty of government. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. I can see no justification for allowing an unwanted pregnancy to obstruct something so innately personal and so circumstancially imperative.
In closing, abortion would rightfully be included in the pantheon of rights considered fundamental to humanity. However, some wish to fob it off like a poor relation. I fear for the future. I fear for the day when humanity's flickering candle of personal dignity goes out. That is why this right must be defended so vigilantly, and gestation should not take priority over all that is so important.

We keep humanity's flickering candle of personal dignity burning brightly by allowing the slaughter of a baby 1 second shy of birth?

[12th Doctor]

I will defend third-trimester abortion, because I believe it to be a component of liberty that cannot be renounced.
I will begin by contradicting the reasoning of Roe and Casey. They seem to show little understanding of Constitutional principle and are primarily a reflection of what the Supreme Court wanted in the way of policy. The Constitution's text has a fairly absolute mandate as to abortion: Legal at all points before birth. Section 1 of Amendment XIV settles the question of fetal standing before the law. It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Fetuses are thus not citizens as defined by the Constitution that the state has a compelling interest in defending. It never fails to amuse me that the same Conservatives who deny rights to illegal immigrants because of their lack of citizenship will twist the meaning of this clause to accomodate fetuses. Amendment IX states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed so to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I find this to be a perfect example of legal language which protects the rights of women from an overzealous legislature intent upon hallowing fetuses at everyone's expense. Also, the Equal Protection Clause seems to protect abortion because criminalizing it would be tantamount to sex discrimination. It would seem apparent that the consequences of bearing children are very different for men and women. Study after study shows that women bear a much greater economic hardship as a result of reproducing. With this empirical evidence firmly in mind, the failure of the government to provide for relief in the form of abortion to pregnant women would result in a disparate impact, and thus a violation of equal protection. So, to mandate that abortion be a right throughout the pregnancy would merely be abiding by the pure dictates of the law.
Abortion can also be conceptualized from a philosophical perspective. Utilitarians, in the line of Jeremy Bentham, can argue that the happiness of the mother outweighs the rights of the prospective person. Libertarians, in the line of John Stuart Mill, can say that a woman's self determination is a fundamental right. A Kantian definition of Categorical Rights would say that the right to an abortion is an inviolable principle. Even Catholic philosophers, such as St. Augustine, who said fetuses had rights after hominization, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who felt female fetuses were persons after 40 days and males after 80, defended some vestiges of a concept denying fetuses full rights. Of course such a decision might grow in complexity as a fetus ages in gestation, but that is precisely why it should be left to the individual who knows their circumstances.
Personally, I feel that defending a woman's physical autonomy is a moral duty of government. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. I can see no justification for allowing an unwanted pregnancy to obstruct something so innately personal and so circumstancially imperative.
In closing, abortion would rightfully be included in the pantheon of rights considered fundamental to humanity. However, some wish to fob it off like a poor relation. I fear for the future. I fear for the day when humanity's flickering candle of personal dignity goes out. That is why this right must be defended so vigilantly, and gestation should not take priority over all that is so important.

My God, he's quoting Kant!

[NHPolitico]

good for him, many pro choice politicans are even aginst partial birth abortion.

I'm sure you know even many democrats were for the partial birth abortion ban.

I will re-affirm my stance I have taken on prior occassions. I believe a woman possesses the fundamental right to end her pregnancy, at all stages of fetal gestation, pursuant to Constitutional rules on liberty, equal protection, and citizenship. I believe that the government, under the same equal protection logic, is obligated to fund elective and therapeutic abortions. I believe the recently passed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is ill-conceived, because I believe that those procedures should be legal under all circumstances, and they show an inimical bias against womankind. I think that is a fairly comprehensive overview of my view on abortion, and I suppose you all knew all of this before I wrote it down.

Dick Gephardt voted for the ban 7 times.

Gephardt was pro-life until about 15 years ago.

Norm Coleman was pro-choice until the deaths of two children. Adam, at age 6 weeks, and Grace, age 3 months, both died of a genetic ailment that affected their ability to metabolize food.  It made him appreciate human life more.

[NHPolitico]

wow courts that don't legislate that would be great!

Yes.
The legislature is far stronger than the courts(which can interpret law but cannot make law)

Don't worry Jravnsbo, with four more years of Bush43 you will be able to push through your pro-life justices and turn the clock back on women's rights 30 years.

We don't want judicial activism. Ask any pro-life conservative if turning the issue back to the states would be acceptable as US policy going forward. My bet is that more than half would support that. Let pro-life states make a statement on the issue and prohibit it.  We like our odds of limiting abortion in almost every state if it was up to voters.

[12th Doctor]

I will defend third-trimester abortion, because I believe it to be a component of liberty that cannot be renounced.
I will begin by contradicting the reasoning of Roe and Casey. They seem to show little understanding of Constitutional principle and are primarily a reflection of what the Supreme Court wanted in the way of policy. The Constitution's text has a fairly absolute mandate as to abortion: Legal at all points before birth. Section 1 of Amendment XIV settles the question of fetal standing before the law. It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Fetuses are thus not citizens as defined by the Constitution that the state has a compelling interest in defending. It never fails to amuse me that the same Conservatives who deny rights to illegal immigrants because of their lack of citizenship will twist the meaning of this clause to accomodate fetuses. Amendment IX states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed so to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I find this to be a perfect example of legal language which protects the rights of women from an overzealous legislature intent upon hallowing fetuses at everyone's expense. Also, the Equal Protection Clause seems to protect abortion because criminalizing it would be tantamount to sex discrimination. It would seem apparent that the consequences of bearing children are very different for men and women. Study after study shows that women bear a much greater economic hardship as a result of reproducing. With this empirical evidence firmly in mind, the failure of the government to provide for relief in the form of abortion to pregnant women would result in a disparate impact, and thus a violation of equal protection. So, to mandate that abortion be a right throughout the pregnancy would merely be abiding by the pure dictates of the law.
Abortion can also be conceptualized from a philosophical perspective. Utilitarians, in the line of Jeremy Bentham, can argue that the happiness of the mother outweighs the rights of the prospective person. Libertarians, in the line of John Stuart Mill, can say that a woman's self determination is a fundamental right. A Kantian definition of Categorical Rights would say that the right to an abortion is an inviolable principle. Even Catholic philosophers, such as St. Augustine, who said fetuses had rights after hominization, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who felt female fetuses were persons after 40 days and males after 80, defended some vestiges of a concept denying fetuses full rights. Of course such a decision might grow in complexity as a fetus ages in gestation, but that is precisely why it should be left to the individual who knows their circumstances.
Personally, I feel that defending a woman's physical autonomy is a moral duty of government. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. I can see no justification for allowing an unwanted pregnancy to obstruct something so innately personal and so circumstancially imperative.
In closing, abortion would rightfully be included in the pantheon of rights considered fundamental to humanity. However, some wish to fob it off like a poor relation. I fear for the future. I fear for the day when humanity's flickering candle of personal dignity goes out. That is why this right must be defended so vigilantly, and gestation should not take priority over all that is so important.

My God, he's quoting Kant!

We are living in a different time.  I'm sure that St. Augustine would not have approved of abortion on demand.

[NHPolitico]

first word-- spaces please, to break up your arguments, just helps to read thanks

Next, I'll tackle teh 10 commandments /abortion/death penalty   one even though CM I'm sure will weigh in.

Ok as you said the killing of INNOCENT babies.  The unborn have not lied or done anything sinful, except original sin maybe (not going there for now).  

Murders have broken the commandment by killing.  They had a choice to do that.  They had to have acted premeditately (sp) and usually with aggravating factors to get the death penalty so there was some actions and thoughts behind their actions.

That said the Bible does say an eye for an eye and allows for the punishment of evil men.  God even punished man with death in some instances.  

So the big difference is int he choice.  The killer forfeited his life the moment he killed.  Whereas the baby has done nothing to warrant death, but be an "inconvience" to a mother so she chooses to stop its life.

To dazzleman:
I fail to see the apparent and vested liberty interest in taking aspirin. After all, no one ruled aspirin consumption part of the right to privacy.
To Christopher Michael:
My graces, you have a fetish for these unicellular organisms. I'll have to just address your ideas, one by one, onerous as that task might be. I'd like to contest your idea that a zygote is a viable organism and a person. First of all, a person isn't even technically pregnant at the point because the zygote or blastocyst hasn't implanted itself in the uterine lining. That's why pharmaceuticals like Birth Control Pills and Post-Coitial Contraception are called contraception and not abortives. But getting back to the issue of viability, it cannot be considered viable because if it was removed from the fallopian tube or uterus, it would not survive. As you know, viability is the point at which something can survive independently. Also, you said you would restrict funding to any state that allows abortion. Is it really that important that many states would enter into fiscal crises over arcane debates over the point of the beginning of personhood? Now for your downright scary idea about the allocation of Medicaid funding. I don't see how the death of a fetus, assuming it was alive in the first place with a life to take, would justify the death of another person. As for disallowing private insurance companies from doing that, I daresay that the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee could tell you why that is at odds with free enterprise and a free market. I now have the distinct displeasure of addressing the statement that just won the Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy for this year. You emblazoned upon your post, in bold letters, one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not kill. While in Cambridge we refer to them as the three suggestions, I will accept their validity for the sake of argument because you say you do. If you honestly believe in those words, how can you justify your stand in favor of capital punishment? Someone is being killed, and it does say kill. I know you Christians do try to run circles around the wording of that commandment, by saying it only refers to murder, but that just amounts to second guessing what it says. What I think is that you will bang that commandment over our heads whenever it is convenient to you, but whenever it isn't quite suitable to your reactionary agenda, you disown it like some poor relative. I cannot stand such wishy-washiness, and I'm eager to see you defend it, while you say I am complicit in the murder of innocent babies. Now I'm going to do something I haven't done in a while. I'm going to get down on my knees and pray. My prayer will be that the revealed intentions of God that Christopher Michael will be President, disclosed in His lengthy conversations with him, will never come true, because if it does, we'll be screwed six times over.

I don't think the bible ever says that the death penalty as the punishment for a crime is wrong-- and God had lots of opportunities to talk about it.  That's pretty interesting. Even when it's clear the person is innocent, there's no anti-death penalty editorializing.

[bejkuy]

<<<I will defend third-trimester abortion, because I believe it to be a component of liberty that cannot be renounced.
I will begin by contradicting the reasoning of Roe and Casey. They seem to show little understanding of Constitutional principle and are primarily a reflection of what the Supreme Court wanted in the way of policy. The Constitution's text has a fairly absolute mandate as to abortion: Legal at all points before birth. Section 1 of Amendment XIV settles the question of fetal standing before the law. It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Fetuses are thus not citizens as defined by the Constitution that the state has a compelling interest in defending. It never fails to amuse me that the same Conservatives who deny rights to illegal immigrants because of their lack of citizenship will twist the meaning of this clause to accomodate fetuses. Amendment IX states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed so to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I find this to be a perfect example of legal language which protects the rights of women from an overzealous legislature intent upon hallowing fetuses at everyone's expense. Also, the Equal Protection Clause seems to protect abortion because criminalizing it would be tantamount to sex discrimination. It would seem apparent that the consequences of bearing children are very different for men and women. Study after study shows that women bear a much greater economic hardship as a result of reproducing. With this empirical evidence firmly in mind, the failure of the government to provide for relief in the form of abortion to pregnant women would result in a disparate impact, and thus a violation of equal protection. So, to mandate that abortion be a right throughout the pregnancy would merely be abiding by the pure dictates of the law.
Abortion can also be conceptualized from a philosophical perspective. Utilitarians, in the line of Jeremy Bentham, can argue that the happiness of the mother outweighs the rights of the prospective person. Libertarians, in the line of John Stuart Mill, can say that a woman's self determination is a fundamental right. A Kantian definition of Categorical Rights would say that the right to an abortion is an inviolable principle. Even Catholic philosophers, such as St. Augustine, who said fetuses had rights after hominization, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who felt female fetuses were persons after 40 days and males after 80, defended some vestiges of a concept denying fetuses full rights. Of course such a decision might grow in complexity as a fetus ages in gestation, but that is precisely why it should be left to the individual who knows their circumstances.
Personally, I feel that defending a woman's physical autonomy is a moral duty of government. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. I can see no justification for allowing an unwanted pregnancy to obstruct something so innately personal and so circumstancially imperative.
In closing, abortion would rightfully be included in the pantheon of rights considered fundamental to humanity. However, some wish to fob it off like a poor relation. I fear for the future. I fear for the day when humanity's flickering candle of personal dignity goes out. That is why this right must be defended so vigilantly, and gestation should not take priority over all that is so important. >>>

Migrendel,
 
Your reasoning is scary.  I wont't respond to each of your premises, but will tell you that your line of thinking, when stretched even so slightly allows for sterilization of the mentally retarded, mercy killing of the elderly, and mandatory abortion of all "imperfect fetuses."
You appear to place a higher value on  convenience over life.

[migrendel]

I'd like to know how the hell you came up with mandatory abortion for imperfect fetuses. It would help if you'd take the time to actually show your reasoning, but I'll work in the blind here. I believe that a right to life is established at birth, and that is what allows for abortion. I believe the right of liberty allows for an individual to make their own decisions regarding reproduction. The sterilization of the mentally retarded without consent would be impermissible because it would violate their right to make their own choice about future heredity. If one can show consent for a mercy killing, I believe that is totally permissible because the right to decide whether one wishes to continue their life, when ravaged by disease, should be fundamental. I don't believe abortion should be mandatory. I believe it should be a personal decision. If someone wishes to keep a defective fetus, that should be their right, but I would on the other hand allow for someone to voluntarily terminate that pregnancy. I don't know how you came up with those ideas. I personally feel you simply decided to put down a host of things that you think will either malign me or reflect a non-textual inference you made about my legal views. In any case, I hope your knowledge of my actual legal views on those topics assauges you.

[migrendel]

Also, if anyone could use my post from last night to support bejekuy's claims, please tell me. Perhaps I'm missing something I should see.

[Gustaf]

Also, if anyone could use my post from last night to support bejekuy's claims, please tell me. Perhaps I'm missing something I should see.

No, but I think that he might be making a point on what defines a living being, i.e. why is a fetus not counted as a human being. The arguments for not doing that can be used against demented or handicapped being human beings as well. I am just guessing, but that might be it. Otherwise, you're probably right in him simply meaning that you're against life, which would be unfair.

[PD]

I'd like to know how the hell you came up with mandatory abortion for imperfect fetuses. It would help if you'd take the time to actually show your reasoning, but I'll work in the blind here. I believe that a right to life is established at birth, and that is what allows for abortion. I believe the right of liberty allows for an individual to make their own decisions regarding reproduction. The sterilization of the mentally retarded without consent would be impermissible because it would violate their right to make their own choice about future heredity. If one can show consent for a mercy killing, I believe that is totally permissible because the right to decide whether one wishes to continue their life, when ravaged by disease, should be fundamental. I don't believe abortion should be mandatory. I believe it should be a personal decision. If someone wishes to keep a defective fetus, that should be their right, but I would on the other hand allow for someone to voluntarily terminate that pregnancy. I don't know how you came up with those ideas. I personally feel you simply decided to put down a host of things that you think will either malign me or reflect a non-textual inference you made about my legal views. In any case, I hope your knowledge of my actual legal views on those topics assauges you.

All abortion is murder. Partial-birth abortion is the worst, though. I do not know how the Hell you can support such a thing. I mean, supporting abortion is bad enough. But partial-birth abortion? That's just plain sickening.

[© tweed]

All abortion is murder. Partial-birth abortion is the worst, though. I do not know how the Hell you can support such a thing. I mean, supporting abortion is bad enough. But partial-birth abortion? That's just plain sickening.

I am against partial-birth abortion with the exception of the health of the mother.

[Vincent]

Titles:
I dont believe people should use the terms pro-life and pro-choice, seeing as reasonable people can hold differnt positions on abortion, these terms seem to me to exist in order to make the other side sound unreasonable.

Also, many "pro-choice"  activists say they support abortion rights because "a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body" yet at the same time believe it is okay to throw a woman in prison for drug use.
In other words they dont hold a consistant belief.

At the same time these people(pro-abortion rights) dont want to see more abortions happen so they are not pro-abortion. I believe the best term to use is PRO-ABORTION RIGHTS

To be fair a person who calls themselves "pro-life" may not support life in all circumstances(like for example the death penalty) so they should be called ANTI-ABORTION.

[migrendel]

I believe drugs should be decriminalized in keeping with bodily self-determination, if that's any consolation. I also don't see any point in this PD. You've decided to label abortion murder, and no force of nature, let alone logical argument, will sway you. I'll just let you keep those views. I see no reason to concern myself with fruitless debate.

[PD]

I believe drugs should be decriminalized in keeping with bodily self-determination, if that's any consolation. I also don't see any point in this PD. You've decided to label abortion murder, and no force of nature, let alone logical argument, will sway you. I'll just let you keep those views. I see no reason to concern myself with fruitless debate.

Well, I'm glad that you're LETTING me keep my views. (Sarcasm is emphasized, being that you take my views away.)