Posted on February 9 at 8:32 a.m.Suggest removal

Way to go and take an extremist stance on abolition of rape while lives are at stake every day. I guess it's all or nothing with you. Too bad. Every single rapist's life is important, and if even one can be saved through teaching how to protect oneself from police retaliation it's worth it.

See how you sound?
It all starts with a very, very reasonable position - the unborn child is a human being from the moment of his conception. Start there, be consistent, and what I'm saying is not "extremist" at all.

On

Posted on February 8 at 12:42 p.m.Suggest removal

--"women still had abortions and some would even if it were illegal again"

True, but many fewer.
And one could prosecute abortuaries and put them out of business. Cut down on supply and you cut down on the act.

--"I'd also like to add that sex education also goes a long way toward preventing abortion. Abstinence-only sex-ed is absurd (this coming from a person who was abstinent from 6+ years by choice)."

Are you in favor of teaching 11 year olds to put condoms on bananas/cucumbers like they're doing all over the place?
Why doesn't abstinence-only ed work? B/c people don't follow it? What in the world is the reasoning behind that?
"We teach our children about economics and proper finance and it doesn't work b/c all our kids bought BMWs using credit cards and are now deep in debt!"
So, the education didn't work b/c people didn't follow it?
Imagine the same reasoning for condom education. People don't use them. Ie, they don't follow the education. Now we fault condom education b/c people didn't follow it.
See how ludicrous that is?

That said, yes, let's teach ppl about pregnancy, that life begins at conception, that abortion is murder. Liberals and pro-choicers don't want that, though - they prefer a strong abortion industry in place, for God knows what reasons.

On

Posted on February 8 at 10:17 a.m.Suggest removal

--" If abortion was made illegal, women would still have abortions."

1) Is that like if slavery were made illegal, people would still have slaves? Really?
It just sort of depends on enforcement, you know?
2) Since rape is illegal and people still commit rape, would you thus be in favor of legalising rape?

Other than that, I agree.

On

Posted on February 8 at 7:33 a.m.Suggest removal

An amendment is needed b/c of activist judges, if nothing else.

On

Posted on February 7 at 2:32 p.m.Suggest removal

Doh. I meant <2% of all pregnancies, not >2%. Sorry.

On

Posted on February 7 at 12:38 p.m.Suggest removal

--" I can honestly speak for many pro-choice people (including myself) that we don't "like" abortion"

I'm glad to hear it.
I myself can honestly tell you that I've met numerous pro-choicers who did like it.
But let me ask you - why don't you like it? What's wrong with it, if the "product of conception" is just a blob of cells, just a part of the woman's body? What's the big deal? You don't cry over a tonsillectomy, do you?

On

Posted on February 7 at 10:38 a.m.Suggest removal

--"would these embryos be entitled to all the usual rights, such as inheritance?"

Don't people generally have to have a birth certificate before they can claim an inheritance?
And wouldn't the author of the will and testament name his inheritors? This is not a worthwhile objection.

--"there is the obvious fact that a zygote or an embryo is clearly not a person."

Prove it.
Anyone can write anyone else out of personhood for any reason. Hitler did it to Jews, handicapped, and Gypsies. 18th century slaveowners did it to "Negros".

--"They are both simply kinds of cell matter inside the woman’s body. "

Just like you're just another blob of protoplasm and mostly water walking around. By this logic, I presume you won't mind if I disorganise it a bit more than it is now. You know, since you're just "cell matter".

--"This bill is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade without directly confronting the law."

This from someone who apparently hasn't even studied enough pro-life arguments to get past the first level of pro-life discourse.
All the stuff you've said has been answered thousands of times. When will pro-choicers actually start advancing the conversation?
We HAVE confronted Roe v Wade, many times. Just b/c the entrenched elitist left in the judiciary shoots us down doesn't mean we're in the wrong, that we haven't tried, that we'll stop trying, or that we'll ultimately be unsuccessful.
No, rather, we will fight, and Roe v Wade will fall. It's only a matter of time, since pro-lifers have many more (alive) children than pro-choicers do, if for no other reason than that pro-choicers can't bring themselves to stop killing their own.
Was Martin Luther King Jr a "coward" for trying to circumvent the unjust Jim Crow laws while ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY fighting to overturn them in Congress? By your logic (not mine), he was.

On

Posted on February 7 at 10:38 a.m.Suggest removal

--"Birth control is essential not only to women’s prosperity — giving them control over their lives and careers — but, in many cases, to their health as well."

Is the bill outlawing "birth control"? Or is it just certain kinds of birth control?
This is carelessly worded. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

--"It also would severely limit in-vitro fertilization"

Good.
1) In vitro fertilisation generally results in the deaths of numerous fertilised human embryos. You and I are also fertilised human embryos, did you know that?
2) There are plenty of children to adopt.

--"under this law, even defective embryos could not be disposed of after treatment."

"Defective"? According to whom? You?
Maybe I can decide YOU'RE defective. Thus by YOUR reasoning (not mine), if I have power over you, I can kill you and it's 100% fine.

--"And even accidental harm to embryos in the laboratory may be considered murder"

All the more reason not to create human beings like that, any more than you'd want to practice your firearm skills at a local playground during lunchtime.

--"This could quickly become an impossible burden on the medical and laboratory facilities and limit the options for in-vitro treatment."

And they'd have to go out of business. That's hardly the end of the world, but it would be the end of systematic destruction of human lives.

--"Ultimately, this bill is anti-life and anti-family."

Simply an absurd and ridiculous thing to say.

--"this law provides no exceptions for rape or incest"

So it would be better if the law allowed people to punish children for the crimes of their fathers? How does that work?

--"It would force women to have children"

1) Rape and incest are responsible for >2% of all pregnancies, even abortions.
2) It "forces" women not to murder their children in the same way the law forces me not to drive my car 65 mph into the Sooner Mall. The law protects human life.

--"could be a “person” who must be counted in the 10-year Census under the current law. "

Hopefully the provisions of the law could be amended to take that into account. This is a good, but hardly important, point.

On

Posted on February 1 at 10:39 a.m.Suggest removal

kagou said:
--"most people who are supposedly "pro-life" are proponents of the death penalty"

1) I'd like to see some polling data on that, to substantiate your characterisation of "most".
2) Are you saying it's inconsistent to think that it should be illegal to dismember a baby in the womb without anesthesia while supporting the gov't's putting convicted capital criminals to death with an OD of happy sleepy juice?
3) God decries abortion in numerous places in the Bible but actually Himself actively institutes capital punishment in numerous places.

--"support the wars"

1) Many of the abolitionists I know are actually pretty fond of Ron Paul, not least because he represents a less aggressive, more isolationist approach to foreign entanglements.
2) Saying "the wars" is far too simplistic. Which ones do you mean?
3) What does it mean to "support" a war? Don't overgeneralise.
4) Are you saying it's inconsistent to think that it should be illegal to dismember a baby in the womb without anesthesia while supporting the gov't's attack on a country that (in many people's eyes) is hostile to the USA?

--"dislike social welfare programs"

Be specific. Which ones?
And why do many pro-lifers dislike them? Is it because they reinforce indolence and laziness while enforcing redistribution of wealth by force?

--"The Bible, which was written by man and translated many times over."

No Christian denies that the BIble was written by man. It was also inspired by God - that's the kicker.
And of course it was translated many times. The OT was written in Hebrew and has been translated in to 1000s of languages from the Hebrew.
The NT, in Greek, and translated from the Greek into 1000s of languages. What is "translated many times over" supposed to mean, other than an expression of your ignorance of biblical history?

--"Using a religious justification to criminalize abortion"

Abolitionists use all kinds of arguments to criminalise abortion. Check it out if your mind is open enough - << www.abolishhumanabortion.com >>

--"Using a religious justification to criminalize abortion (which coincidentally is protected under an umbrella of rights which forms our right to privacy, but I digress) is a violation of the 1st amendment."

Ironically, the Constitution does not mention anything remotely like a "right to privacy", especially when one's "right to privacy" entails privately removing another citizen's life from him.

On

Posted on January 30 at 10:49 a.m.Suggest removal

LEGAL abortion also caused, and causes, undeniable suffering. In fact, it has resulted in 53 million dead children and a serious reduction in the African-American community.

Yes, evil and suffering exist in this world. No, more murder is not the answer.

On