such huge suckers for babies when they don't give a rat's ass what happens to them after they are no longer cute?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pro-choicers treat abortion as a form of contraception. Anti-choicers treat contraception as a form of abortion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It just prevents the conceptus from implanting in a uterus where it unwelcome. If it can find another way to survive, go for it. It has no claim to another person's uterus. This is America, and no Mucus-speck-American has the right to impose its will on any other type of American.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These are also the same people who refuse to support universal healthcare and don't want their money to be used to help families because they complain about welfare. Way to have a Christian outlook!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If ever anyone needed proof that the "pro-lifers" were dishonest about their agenda; this should do it.

They're not against abortion, they're against ess - ee - ex. Sex should have consequences, and they can't stand the idea that someone could "sin" without being punished.

Of course, that philosophy equates parenthood and punishment, but don't go looking for logic out of this crowd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Birth control is the best way to lower the abortion rate. So why are anti-choicers rallying against it and claiming that "the pill kills babies"?
Well, duh. Because lack of access to contraception and/or abortion is the best way to keep women in their place, which is bed or kitchen. Sex should have consequences, to be sure-but only for women, coz God made it so. And who are we to question God? Let me rephrase that. Who are we to question these demented delusional individuals who think they have privileged access to God's will?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People who find the right-wing so-called “pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-contraception” movement somewhat contradictory fail to understand the undying motivation of such people (as one might validly question an ethos that celebrates, nay demands, unwanted children to be born into poverty-stricken, disease-ridden, violence-prone environments where they’re actually “luckier” to die near childbirth rather than to survive a few years and die of disease, malnutrition, neglect, or violence once they’re fully cognizant rational personalities able to comprehend the horror that’s been visited upon them).

Their concerns have nothing to do with the welfare of living humans.

Their entire worldview is dominated by the belief in an eternal “life” after death in which the only important criterion is whether one meets death having been “saved” (by whatever criterion the particular cult considers relevant - they can‘t actually agree among themselves and spend an inordinate amount of time assuring each other that they will be damned for eternity if the “real“ criteria aren‘t met) and will, therefore, “live” at the right hand of god or be doomed to an eternity of suffering and damnation in hell with satan. As such, they have less concern for the quality of life people may experience during their brief sojourn on Earth (this “vale of tears”) since it pales into insignificance compared to the “eternity” that waits beyond the grave. Such “values” gave rise to the oh so christian practice of Spanish conquistador priests baptizing Aztec babies prior to bashing their brains out to insure the ‘heathen’ babies souls would go to heaven.

Any conversation such folks may engage in, regarding the conditions of life as rational beings experience it, is aimed solely at gaining supporters in order to pass legislation (or souls for christ).

It’s important to fully understand this mind-set since, otherwise, you’ll continue to attempt rational arguments and be consistently flummoxed when the ‘other side’ just doesn’t get it… it’s you that isn’t getting it.

Their position isn’t rational. It’s religious and, as such, attempting rational discourse with it, or expecting rational behavior, is akin to expecting your dog to engage you in a discussion of celestial astrophysics after dinner. It’s unrealistic, probably delusional, and in the case of religious fanatics, palpably dangerous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a sick need for some people to have authority over others. Usually those weaker than themselves. It's not complicated. No woman who can afford an abortion will be turned down, she can also afford birth control. no questions asked. The poor woman is, another story. She has to be harassed, degraded, refused a prescription all in the name of someone's idea of being moral. Most do gooders are women. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That day, take it outside and wave it in the faces of those protesting. If you're a guy and over 18, buy a dose of emergency contraception (Plan B), take it outside and wave it in their faces and laugh at them.

I'll be buying mine that day and taking it out in front of them and laughing at them. I may even take one in front of them just for good measure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

let's see, ---what other ways can we keep those loose 'ribs' under control --how about pregnant, and in the kitchen ---you know, in a biblical sort of way --domination, ....always acceding to her master's will ....we can even bill it as a women's rights issue!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The world is underpopulated, by the way it is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. God created it in seven days a and George Walker Bushit is the most intelligent president ther center of the world has ever had. RIGHT ON !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

..........now, how can we rescind women's right to vote, and sell it as 'protecting women' from that nasty unbiblical world out there?? --i mean it's distorting their natural sweetness, and goodness ...yeah, that's the ticket!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real question in the abortion debate is not the seemingly absurd scenario of giving full human rights to human zygotes, but rather the thorny question of how to protect those rights without violating a new mother's privacy and civil liberties.

In his 1992 book, Visions of Liberty, former Executive Director of the ACLU, Ira Glasser writes:

"The use of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping emerged during the Prohibition era. Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger whom the government wished to search. It placed taps in the basement of his office building and on wires in the streets near his home. No physical entry into his office or home took place. Olmstead was convicted entirely on the basis of evidence from the wiretaps.

"In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Olmstead argued that the taps were a search conducted without a warrant and without probable cause, and that the evidence seized against him should have been excluded because it was illegally gathered. He also argued that his Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against himself was violated.

"By a 5-4 vote, the Court rejected his arguments and upheld the government's power to wiretap without limit and without any Fourth Amendment restrictions, on the grounds that no actual physical intrusion had taken place.

"Olmstead's Fifth Amendment claim was also dismissed on the grounds that he had not been compelled to talk on the telephone, but had done so voluntarily. Thus the Court upheld the government's power to do by trickery and surreptitious means what it was not permitted to do honestly and openly. It wasn't until 1967, in a similar case involving gambling, that the Court overruled the Olmstead decision by an 8-1 margin and recognized that the Fourth Amendment applied to wiretapping and electronic surveillance.

"Interestingly, these cases arose in the context of crimes like bootlegging and gambling. During the past twenty years, the majority of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping by both state and federal officials has been in cases involving drug dealing and gambling.

"Serious crimes of violence, such as homicide, assault, rape, robbery, and burglary, are rarely the target of electronic eavesdropping, which is not normally a useful tool in such cases.

"From the beginning, when wiretapping was virtually invented to enforce laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol, to the late 1960s, when gambling was a major target, to the present, when the use and sale of drugs other than alcohol are the main target, these intrusive devices have been used mostly to enforce laws aimed at punishing and proscribing personal conduct that society deems immoral.

"Because such conduct essentially involves private activities among consenting adults who are all likely to want to keep those activities secret, they are harder to investigate and prosecute than crimes like robbery or burglary, in which an unwilling victim will probably aid any investigation...the invasion of privacy inherent in wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping remains with us as part of the legacy of our attempts to criminalize personal conduct.

"The other major use of electronic eavesdropping has been to punish political dissent. For decades, former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover used wiretaps and other electronic devices to spy on political figures and citizens not yet suspected of having committed a crime. He built vast dossiers on their political activities and personal lives. Special units of local police called 'Red Squads' did the same."

The central issues in the abortion debate are thus the "personhood" or moral status of the unborn, and the extent of individual and marital privacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...since before it was even invented!! What I can never understand are that these foes are against Catholicism when Catholicism has more in common with them than they will ever admit (Oh, wait. most of these foes are FOR THE DEATH PENALTY, when the Catholic church has been opposed to it since life began. Oh, and many Catholics cannot marry if they are priests, nuns, bishops, cardinals, and the Pope when these foes literally force coupling and breeding among the over-populace). Hypocritical, self-serving bedfellows, like 'em or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we are talking the standard "no egg, no conception" pill then whoever said "the pill kills babies" is talking out of their hats. If the pill being referred to is the "morning after" pill, then that statement would be accurate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...At conception? Human life, that would be, right? Since there is no nervous system, no brain, no nothing except an undifferentiated zygote, this human life must perforce be defined by a soul. If the soul is genetic, it has no more or less significance than a nose or a fingernail, and hence no relevance, therefore, the "soul" must be instantaneously implanted by God. God, therefore, must be up there watching special celestial TVs tuned to every human on Earth who is fucking so that, at the moment of conception, Abracadabra and Pouf! A human life (pay no attention to those gills that later appear behind the curtain).

The only conclusion one may logically reach if one opposes all abortion then, is that God (and therefore Jesus for all you Christers) is into porn big time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guess it's Lysistrata time all over again. So, women, if your man doesn't want or allow you to use contraception, fine. Don't have sex. After all, it's you laying your life on the line every time you have unprotected sex. And don't the guys know it! It's their power over the resented female who must surely be closer to god since they are capable of bringing forth life. Males will never get over this until they grow up, and that's never going to happen. Especially in the good U S of A where neoteny and mindless religion rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.... dealt with this topic rather nicely. Siting that in impoverish communities that if women have access to low to no cost reproductive health care including access to birth control and abortion, the rate of children on welfare goes down, and amazingly the crime rate, specifically the violent crime rate....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You know.. there was a time a few years ago where I was still taking the pill as a hormonal treatment for a couple large ovarian cysts. And there were rumors of some insurance companies pulling their coverage of birth control pills because of the pro-life agenda and it really pissed me off. Who the F_ do these people think they are screwing with my access to much needed medical treatment which is safer and less invasive than surgery. Seriously. Who-the-F do they think they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]