Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you sitting in judgment are pathetic.

Unless you are there to raise those children, provide for them, and support policies that provide the things you aren't willing to do (parental leave, healthcare for children, reasonably priced health care, etc.) you have no right -NONE- to sit in judgment of someone else who has chosen a path you would not. There are LOADS of kids languishing in foster care. Put your money where your vicious mouths are and get involved with those kids who are here and who have no consistent source of love and little advantages.

Is a heartbeat alone life? Maybe. But, it's not a human viable of living outside the womb at 6 weeks. And, that life is second to the woman. Period. It it regrettable, yes. But, again, you folks are generally the ones who also object to free and ready access to health care b/c it offends your delicate sensitivities. You're hypocrites. You're sanctimonious. You're judgmental. You're disgusting.

this doesn't make any sense. It is like saying the lives of the poor are worthless. If you are not middle class, then your life isn't worth living? You can not believe this. It is not better to not have lived at all than to have lived hungry and poor.

And what you seem to be saying is that the lives of women are worth less than the lives of the embryos in their uterus and that the state gets to force them to be hostages to those embryos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you sitting in judgment are pathetic.

Unless you are there to raise those children, provide for them, and support policies that provide the things you aren't willing to do (parental leave, healthcare for children, reasonably priced health care, etc.) you have no right -NONE- to sit in judgment of someone else who has chosen a path you would not. There are LOADS of kids languishing in foster care. Put your money where your vicious mouths are and get involved with those kids who are here and who have no consistent source of love and little advantages.

Is a heartbeat alone life? Maybe. But, it's not a human viable of living outside the womb at 6 weeks. And, that life is second to the woman. Period. It it regrettable, yes. But, again, you folks are generally the ones who also object to free and ready access to health care b/c it offends your delicate sensitivities. You're hypocrites. You're sanctimonious. You're judgmental. You're disgusting.

this doesn't make any sense. It is like saying the lives of the poor are worthless. If you are not middle class, then your life isn't worth living? You can not believe this. It is not better to not have lived at all than to have lived hungry and poor.

And what you seem to be saying is that the lives of women are worth less than the lives of the embryos in their uterus and that the state gets to force them to be hostages to those embryos.

This is the crux of the matter, right? This is why it is a very hard issue. Either way, people suffer. It is hard to see anyway out of this where somebody doesn't suffer, and different reasonable people can make different decisions on this. I think we have to respect this. For me, this means it should not be illegal, but we should respect the right of people to urge women not to choose this option, and who make it easier for women who do choose life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you sitting in judgment are pathetic.

Unless you are there to raise those children, provide for them, and support policies that provide the things you aren't willing to do (parental leave, healthcare for children, reasonably priced health care, etc.) you have no right -NONE- to sit in judgment of someone else who has chosen a path you would not. There are LOADS of kids languishing in foster care. Put your money where your vicious mouths are and get involved with those kids who are here and who have no consistent source of love and little advantages.

Is a heartbeat alone life? Maybe. But, it's not a human viable of living outside the womb at 6 weeks. And, that life is second to the woman. Period. It it regrettable, yes. But, again, you folks are generally the ones who also object to free and ready access to health care b/c it offends your delicate sensitivities. You're hypocrites. You're sanctimonious. You're judgmental. You're disgusting.

this doesn't make any sense. It is like saying the lives of the poor are worthless. If you are not middle class, then your life isn't worth living? You can not believe this. It is not better to not have lived at all than to have lived hungry and poor.

And what you seem to be saying is that the lives of women are worth less than the lives of the embryos in their uterus and that the state gets to force them to be hostages to those embryos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

What is the difference? That one is caused by man (or woman) and one is caused by God?

For many of us it is insignificant, irrelevant or incorrect to say abortion and miscarriage are different.

In both instances the life of a fetus is terminated. But to equate the body rejecting a fetus for whatever reason with someone surgically ending the life of a fetus seems incongruous.

Not the best analogy but a person who is terminally ill dying of natural causes cannot be equated with same individual whose life is terminated by a physician or a relative or even by the individual's own action.

We can disagree in both instances whether the affected individual has that right but there is a difference between something happening naturally and through external intervention.

The point is that anti-choice fanatics fetishize the embryo by stating a that baby begins at conception, whereas to point out how utterly precarious and even toss-away life is at that early stage is to show that nature/God has no such qualities qualms about the sanctity of a zygote and its supposed equivalence to the life of a human being who is already in the world.

The difference is not in how the baby is affected. The difference is the hardening of the person who does the act. The damage is done to anybody who kills. In one case, no adult person is harderning themselves. In the other case, both the doctor, the mother, and any nurses involved are.

Do you eat animals?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you sitting in judgment are pathetic.

Unless you are there to raise those children, provide for them, and support policies that provide the things you aren't willing to do (parental leave, healthcare for children, reasonably priced health care, etc.) you have no right -NONE- to sit in judgment of someone else who has chosen a path you would not. There are LOADS of kids languishing in foster care. Put your money where your vicious mouths are and get involved with those kids who are here and who have no consistent source of love and little advantages.

Is a heartbeat alone life? Maybe. But, it's not a human viable of living outside the womb at 6 weeks. And, that life is second to the woman. Period. It it regrettable, yes. But, again, you folks are generally the ones who also object to free and ready access to health care b/c it offends your delicate sensitivities. You're hypocrites. You're sanctimonious. You're judgmental. You're disgusting.

this doesn't make any sense. It is like saying the lives of the poor are worthless. If you are not middle class, then your life isn't worth living? You can not believe this. It is not better to not have lived at all than to have lived hungry and poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Cite please for the pope saying that!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/europe/pope-francis-abortion-priests.html?_r=0

While firmly restating his opposition to abortion as “a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life,” the pope affirmed that “there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father.” The document, an apostolic letter, was signed on Sunday after a Mass denoting the end of the jubilee year. It was made public on Monday.
. . .

Under canon law, abortion brings automatic excommunication unless the person receiving or performing it confesses and receives absolution. Abortion is considered a “reserved sin,” meaning that permission to grant forgiveness usually must come from a bishop.

Thus, abortion itself brings about excommunication UNLESS absolution is given. Support for abortion does not.

+1,000,000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

What is the difference? That one is caused by man (or woman) and one is caused by God?

For many of us it is insignificant, irrelevant or incorrect to say abortion and miscarriage are different.

In both instances the life of a fetus is terminated. But to equate the body rejecting a fetus for whatever reason with someone surgically ending the life of a fetus seems incongruous.

Not the best analogy but a person who is terminally ill dying of natural causes cannot be equated with same individual whose life is terminated by a physician or a relative or even by the individual's own action.

We can disagree in both instances whether the affected individual has that right but there is a difference between something happening naturally and through external intervention.

The point is that anti-choice fanatics fetishize the embryo by stating a that baby begins at conception, whereas to point out how utterly precarious and even toss-away life is at that early stage is to show that nature/God has no such qualities qualms about the sanctity of a zygote and its supposed equivalence to the life of a human being who is already in the world.

The difference is not in how the baby is affected. The difference is the hardening of the person who does the act. The damage is done to anybody who kills. In one case, no adult person is harderning themselves. In the other case, both the doctor, the mother, and any nurses involved are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

What is the difference? That one is caused by man (or woman) and one is caused by God?

For many of us it is insignificant, irrelevant or incorrect to say abortion and miscarriage are different.

In both instances the life of a fetus is terminated. But to equate the body rejecting a fetus for whatever reason with someone surgically ending the life of a fetus seems incongruous.

Not the best analogy but a person who is terminally ill dying of natural causes cannot be equated with same individual whose life is terminated by a physician or a relative or even by the individual's own action.

We can disagree in both instances whether the affected individual has that right but there is a difference between something happening naturally and through external intervention.

The point is that anti-choice fanatics fetishize the embryo by stating a that baby begins at conception, whereas to point out how utterly precarious and even toss-away life is at that early stage is to show that nature/God has no such qualities qualms about the sanctity of a zygote and its supposed equivalence to the life of a human being who is already in the world.

The difference is not in how the baby is affected. The difference is the hardening of the person who does the act. The damage is done to anybody who kills. In one case, no adult person is harderning themselves. In the other case, both the doctor, the mother, and any nurses involved are.

Anonymous wrote:Those of you sitting in judgment are pathetic.

Unless you are there to raise those children, provide for them, and support policies that provide the things you aren't willing to do (parental leave, healthcare for children, reasonably priced health care, etc.) you have no right -NONE- to sit in judgment of someone else who has chosen a path you would not. There are LOADS of kids languishing in foster care. Put your money where your vicious mouths are and get involved with those kids who are here and who have no consistent source of love and little advantages.

Is a heartbeat alone life? Maybe. But, it's not a human viable of living outside the womb at 6 weeks. And, that life is second to the woman. Period. It it regrettable, yes. But, again, you folks are generally the ones who also object to free and ready access to health care b/c it offends your delicate sensitivities. You're hypocrites. You're sanctimonious. You're judgmental. You're disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

What is the difference? That one is caused by man (or woman) and one is caused by God?

For many of us it is insignificant, irrelevant or incorrect to say abortion and miscarriage are different.

In both instances the life of a fetus is terminated. But to equate the body rejecting a fetus for whatever reason with someone surgically ending the life of a fetus seems incongruous.

Not the best analogy but a person who is terminally ill dying of natural causes cannot be equated with same individual whose life is terminated by a physician or a relative or even by the individual's own action.

We can disagree in both instances whether the affected individual has that right but there is a difference between something happening naturally and through external intervention.

The point is that anti-choice fanatics fetishize the embryo by stating a that baby begins at conception, whereas to point out how utterly precarious and even toss-away life is at that early stage is to show that nature/God has no such qualities qualms about the sanctity of a zygote and its supposed equivalence to the life of a human being who is already in the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-choice is really anti-freedom of religion. It is one group of people with strong religious beliefs (and don't try to hide behind a concept of morals as under a true ethics system, abortion would be a different conversation) trying to force their beliefs on others.

Actually, anti-choice is anti women's sexuality. It's the incarnation of the scarlet letter and other punitive measures to limit women's sexual freedom and to make women "pay" for having sex and getting pregnant. If this were really and truly about preserving life and ensuring every conceived embryo makes it to full term babyhood, we would, as a society, insist upon:

- Ensure healthcare, and specifically prenatal care, for all women regardless of insurance coverage
- Healthcare benefits for every single child regardless of their parent's income
- Provide affordable childcare to every single family in this country
- Ensure parental leave for all parents
- Properly fund public education
- Hold fathers as accountable for child care and support as mothers
- Provide women with free access to contraception

But we don't. Because this really isn't about life. It's about controlling women - our version of Sharia law.

Whoa. You're pretty "out there."

Actually, PP is pretty accurate.

Regarding recommendations, yes; regarding Sharia law comparison, no.

Explain the difference. ... Because, really, there isn't a difference in the motivations behind these types of laws. They're about controlling women and making them culpable for their sexuality. But if you can draw the distinction, please go for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-choice is really anti-freedom of religion. It is one group of people with strong religious beliefs (and don't try to hide behind a concept of morals as under a true ethics system, abortion would be a different conversation) trying to force their beliefs on others.

Actually, anti-choice is anti women's sexuality. It's the incarnation of the scarlet letter and other punitive measures to limit women's sexual freedom and to make women "pay" for having sex and getting pregnant. If this were really and truly about preserving life and ensuring every conceived embryo makes it to full term babyhood, we would, as a society, insist upon:

- Ensure healthcare, and specifically prenatal care, for all women regardless of insurance coverage
- Healthcare benefits for every single child regardless of their parent's income
- Provide affordable childcare to every single family in this country
- Ensure parental leave for all parents
- Properly fund public education
- Hold fathers as accountable for child care and support as mothers
- Provide women with free access to contraception

But we don't. Because this really isn't about life. It's about controlling women - our version of Sharia law.

Whoa. You're pretty "out there."

Actually, PP is pretty accurate.

Regarding recommendations, yes; regarding Sharia law comparison, no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anyhow, a nice little Zika epidemic in the Red South should come in handy.

statements like this should automatically get you banned from this site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-choice is really anti-freedom of religion. It is one group of people with strong religious beliefs (and don't try to hide behind a concept of morals as under a true ethics system, abortion would be a different conversation) trying to force their beliefs on others.

Actually, anti-choice is anti women's sexuality. It's the incarnation of the scarlet letter and other punitive measures to limit women's sexual freedom and to make women "pay" for having sex and getting pregnant. If this were really and truly about preserving life and ensuring every conceived embryo makes it to full term babyhood, we would, as a society, insist upon:

- Ensure healthcare, and specifically prenatal care, for all women regardless of insurance coverage
- Healthcare benefits for every single child regardless of their parent's income
- Provide affordable childcare to every single family in this country
- Ensure parental leave for all parents
- Properly fund public education
- Hold fathers as accountable for child care and support as mothers
- Provide women with free access to contraception

But we don't. Because this really isn't about life. It's about controlling women - our version of Sharia law.

Whoa. You're pretty "out there."

Actually, PP is pretty accurate.

Anonymous wrote:
Anyhow, a nice little Zika epidemic in the Red South should come in handy.