world

Obama storms into abortion debate in Notre Dame speech

110 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

110 Comments
Login to comment

28% said abortion should be legal in most cases"

That means 72% think it should be illegal, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "That means 72% think it should be illegal, right?"

Wrong. Try reading the article.

"Pew said its latest polling found that 28% said abortion should be legal in most cases while 18% said all cases. Forty-four percent of those surveyed were opposed to abortion in most or all cases."

So there you go, 46% said it should be legal at least in certain conditions (of course 18% saying ALL conditions), while only 44% were against it (and not in all cases).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a country we have. We lambaste the Taliban for their views, but 48% of us deny the right of free choice to women.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought O stood up pretty well on this. I also praise the protesters of ND, who were mild for the most part, unlike those at Columbia and NYU.

however: “So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.”" Well, there are really only two ways to do this, abstinence, which the left doesn't like to hear about and protection, which the right doesn't seem to like to hear about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Abortion is THE Civil Rights Movement of the 21st century. Murder is not a "free choice". If it were, I could murder anyone I wanted (in private of course) and claim it was my free choice. Apparently, the twisted rational behind Roe. vs. Wade is the same as that behind the Dredd Scott decision. So, neither slaves nor unborn are human. A majority osf Americans are against abortion. We will see Roe vs. Wade overturned; the only question is when.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a country we have. We lambaste the Taliban for their views, but 48% of us deny the right of free choice to women." And yet, people like you prefer to welcome people with such right wing view to our nation's campus to give speeches.

A majority osf Americans are against abortion" I'm against it if it solely out of convenience. Far too many dude are in support of it just to get off the hook.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is a special place in Hell set aside for "people" like Obama and all those who support infantcide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

American conservative Christianity seems to care more about imposing their will on abortion while the same community advocates gun rights. They are happy to send armies off to kill foreigners, especially non-Christian foreigners. But will give their last breath trying to prevent a woman making a decision about having a baby or not.

Religious conservatism in the black plague of the 21st century. It does harm and damage, no matter what brand of superstition it is based upon, and keeps humanity backwards, afraid and incapable of taking responsiblity. Too much attention to the will of imaginary gods and not enough attention to the very real problems and very real needs of living tangible people and the REAL world they live in.

America, is as lost to religious hysteria as the nations they demonize in the press. Just a little less violent in their excessive belief.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TexasAggie

How do you know about a special place in hell? You speak for God, do you? You hear messages from him, do you? Abortion is a complicated issue. There is no room for extremist points of view on either side.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the anti-abortion fanatics were as fanatically anti-war and anti-gun, they'd have a lot more credibility.

As it is, they're as far extreme one way as the 'abortion on demand up to the third trimester' folk are the other way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anti-choice fanatics only care about fetuses, they hate people after they are born. It is anti-christian when you think about it, which they do not. They would rather have women go back to coat hangers in back rooms when they are not ready to be moms than accept a womans fundamental right to her own body and her life. It is a moral sickness they have, it comes I think from being robbed of their own humanity by the church or schools or whatever.

You wingers can try to forget you lost the election last year, Obama is appointing a woman to the SC who will protect Roe. Get over it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TexasAggie - By "people" do u mean all African Americans have that special place in Hell?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is pro-infanticide and also pro-euthanasia. His plans for a greatly expanded government via socialized medicine will severely limit choices for the elderly;the State and bureaucrats will play God, which is how Lefties always like it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter. Did you read the article? Have you read anything about our new president? He is clearly not pro-infanticide. That is a ridiculous accusation that rings more of sensationalism than anything else.

Obama has clearly stated that the issue is complex and personal. He is clearly respecting the opinions of both sides while arguing that solutions must be balanced in favor of both. This is a pretty rational approach.

As for socialized medicine. If you bother to look around the world, you will find that nations with national health care programs care better for their citizens than our profit driven system. Likewise these systems provide a RIGHT to healthcare that we do not provide. And it ensures that all people have access to the care they need.

You have clearly bought into the propaganda by the American medical world that is no better than any other corporate advertising. They want you to stay in their pockets as paying customers. And they want to bleed you dry for health care, medicine and more.

The fact is high quality health care is possible on a socialized platform. That is what is needed, that is what people should have and that is what will eventually replace the current insanely priced US system.

As for lefties playing God. For a lot of us god has nothing to do with it. Rational humanitarian thinking and a distaste for greed profiteers has a lot more to do with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

when they are not ready to be moms than accept a womans fundamental right to her own body and her life." So, why can't a guy get out of it?

The fact is high quality health care is possible on a socialized platform." Yes, if the government stays clear of it. But they won't.

Abortion is THE Civil Rights Movement of the 21st century." That only depends on how the media wants to play it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Skipthesong

two ways to do this, abstinence, ... and protection

,

And a third - the morning after pill, which too prevents implantation - i.e. pregnancy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TexasAggie: There is a special place in Hell set aside for "people" like Obama and all those who support infantcide.

This is quite a good opinion actually. If only the Christian right would keep it at that, and stop meddling with this issue in the legal sense. I prefer the fire and brimstone preaching by far. Let God sort it out.

And if certain groups, such as religious ones, want to forbade abortion among themselves, I say, have at it. Fine with me. My trouble is when they foist their beliefs on everyone NOT in their group. They are welcome to debate though.

One yelled, “Stop killing our children.”

A good example of the senseless emotionalism of many on the anti-abortion side. Nobody is killing this fool's fetus's, unless this fool is a he who is impregnating women who don't want to bear his children. Can't see the problem there?

These people are so often opposed to abortion, opposed to condoms, opposed to sex education... they won't be happy until sex just disappears and baby's come out of test tubes I suppose. Or until sex is just no fun at all. We can have sex in a controlled environment and be very certain of near zero bad effects, even pregnancy. But these people just want to rob us of every option for some reason. Why? So they can have more reasons for outrage to fuel their emotionalism? Bizarre people really. Its like they are opposed to traffic signals, and because of all the accidents without them, they are also opposed to cars. Well, cars are not going to disappear and neither is sex. So better do something to guide the situation rather than think the solution is widespread roadblocks.

I have to agree with tkoind2 that so many of them are all upset about fetuses, but the bombs dropped on civilians in war? Unavoidable collateral damage! Upside-down, inside-out and backwards too! Many bizarre people over there, really.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many bizarre people over there, really.

It's a Catholic university, the most famous in the country. Most Americans know that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And a third - the morning after pill, which too prevents implantation - i.e. pregnancy." forgot about that. Thanks!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Christian right in the US has practiced a nonstop agenda to impose their religious based morality on the rest of us through legislation. They have done this with everything from marriage issues to abortion.

Look. I don't come to your church and try to force you and your family to comply with my belief that religion is a complete waste of time. Further I don't go out to legally fight for the cause that I believe demonstrates that religion has been the root cause of more murder, torture and suffering in the world than any other singular catalyst. Or to impose my belief that the world would be better off without these ancient belief systems.

On the contrary, most of us "lefties" would be the first in the streets to support your right to practice your faith. Now why is it that we can be supportive of your rights, but you cannot allow the rest of us to have ours? The answer is sadly backed by thousands of years of history. Religion must, by its nature, impose its will on others. If persuasion fails, religion resorts to coersion. If that fails, it results to war and violence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Christian right in the US has practiced a nonstop agenda to impose their religious based morality on the rest of us through legislation. They have done this with everything from marriage issues to abortion."

You have never been anywhere have you? You are here, right now, trying to change the beliefs of a school that has been in place for 50+ years.. Why the Christian right, why are you afraid of using Muslim or Jewish right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Religion must, by its nature, impose its will on others. If persuasion fails, religion resorts to coersion. If that fails, it results to war and violence."

That is an understatement!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are here, right now, trying to change the beliefs of a school that has been in place for 50+ years..

The day a post on JT directly affects the way legislation is enacted in the United States is the day I pour Daddy's Sauce on the dog and eat her.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Why the Christian right, why are you afraid of using Muslim or Jewish right?"

Pretty stupid question, given that anti-abortion deals with a largely Christian right point of view. When you go on one of your anti-Muslim rants on a thread on Islam, should we start asking you why you're not talking about the Christian right?

teleprompter: "None of those took place in America."

Nor did the US exist in many of those cases. But Christianity did, and that's what the person you quoted was talking about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pretty stupid question, given that anti-abortion deals with a largely Christian right point of view." please provide me info on a religion that supports abortion? and when i see you start stepping up your calls that covers all religions i'll respect u more, right now ,you are a fierce supporter/defender of islam, which is a lot more right than left!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is pro-infanticide

Just stating the obvious here but abortion is not infanticide. I would love to know though when he came out in favor of murdering infants.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Considering the Catholic church's view on abortion, it is a pretty safe bet to say that the President won't be invited back again to Notre Dame. Not only has this speech probably pxssed off the Christian fundamentalists, it has probably caused some in the Catholic church to choke on their weaties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its funny. The same people here upset at a "few" protesters and calling them all sorts of names, are the same ones and claiming his freedom of speech is being violated are the same ones who are all for banning any type of speech not in favor with other religions. I for one am pro-choice, however, since this school is basically a church, I wouldn't step in there and protest a belief they have had since the idea of abortion has been around. I would however prefer that the church itself, and that includes all religions and especially one we are not allowed to offend, stay the heck out of politics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2:

" The Christian right in the US has practiced a nonstop agenda to impose their religious based morality on the rest of us through legislation. They have done this with everything from marriage issues to abortion. "

Nonsense. You don´t have to be a Christian rightist to have a problem with the concept of abortion. The idea of killing a human-to-be is naturally abhorrent to any human, including the woman who bears it, regardless of religion. Japan is not a Christian country, but I am sure you have noticed the Jizo figures decorating many temples.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter: It's a Catholic university, the most famous in the country. Most Americans know that.

I was talking about some people on the anti-side of the abortion debate. Most posters know that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this debate today proves to me that the US is coming to a breaking point and I firmly believe its going to split up along political lines. What's scary about that is where the heck of those of us in the middle going to sit?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Our new president with his ultra liberal views agains upsets the moral majority.

Just think, we now have a president who believes in legalised child murder, it deries all logic and belief. How many innocent will be killed?

Bush left a legacy of destroying terror, Obama will leave a terible legacy that shames all of is moral traditional folk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "please provide me info on a religion that supports abortion? and when i see you start stepping up your calls that covers all religions i'll respect u more, right now ,you are a fierce supporter/defender of islam, which is a lot more right than left!"

Amazing that my topic gets deleted as being 'off-topic' while this doesn't have even the most remote connection to the thread.

But since skip has made the comment, I'll just point out a couple of facts:

1) you asked why people were addressing 'the Christian right' on this subject, and while I agree with you that law should not have anything to do with religion, if you think that people talking about protest on this issue have no right to bring in religion, I think you're being both naive and foolish. Look at pretty much any comment on here, and read the article about the CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, and you'll see that any opposition to Obama's speech was made by people who are Christian, and pro-life.

2) Show me ONE thread where I say I support Islam. I can show you plenty where you go off-topic and bring Islam into the argument because you just absolutely hate Muslims (and have said Islam should be eliminated), which I have fought against because people have a right to choose their beliefs without being persecuted by those who disagree with it. THAT is what I defended against -- bigots who believe the things they like and believe in (even if they almost religiously believe in NO religion) should be imposed on others.

I'm not against Christianity in the least, but as has been said and voiced by many their beliefs should not have anything to do with making up the law, and that is the case here as well. I'm pro-choice, and I'm glad Obama made a good speech to these people. I also respect the fact that there were no out of control protests.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Just think, we now have a president who believes in legalised child murder..."

A fetus is neither an infant or child.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2: The Christian right in the US has practiced a nonstop agenda to impose their religious based morality on the rest of us through legislation.

Wow, so over 50% of Americans are "Christian Right?"

The numbers are obviously pointing to a much larger number than what could be considered simply the Christian Right. That what concerns me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just think, we now have a president who believes in legalised child murder, it deries all logic and belief.

No, logic and belief would have you understand that "murder" is a legal term which should be treated accordingly. Most leglislatures have created an exception within the legal definition of "murder" to exclude the killing of a fetus when the mother consents. (i.e., California's definition states murder "is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought" but the statute does not apply when "the act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus." So no, Obama does not believe in "legalised child murder," because there is no such thing under the law. To the contrary, he appears to believe in upholding the law. Note the above statute was created by the legislature, who in turn was put into office via the democratic process - i.e., the PEOPLE. Don't like abortion? Go grab a clipboard and collect signatures, or take it out on the legislature, not the president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A fetus is neither an infant or child." Well, then that refutes you proof on an other issue, as you said its biological and happens in the womb. And, yes you have. You have voiced opinion against Christians. i don't know how to go back in the archives .... so you win be default.

Anyway, If the school was publicly owned, the protesters should have no right to protest the president, but the school is privately owned, so I feel they do have a right to protest someone who is against what their school believes in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President probably should have avoided the topic while at a major Catholic college.

A fetus is neither an infant or child.

True, they aren't technically an infant until they are 28 days old but the visual difference between the pre and the postnatal becomes a little sketchy around the second trimester when they have to decompress its skull before extraction. I don't particularly care about the moral aspect, lady can do whatever she wants for all I care, but the procedure itself sounds a bit grotesque.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But he still implored the University of Notre Dame’s graduating class and all in the U.S. to stop “reducing those with differing views to caricature.

I think I'll wait for a serious poster before I respond on this thread that actually heeds the words of our President on this topic, before they post the typical left-wing, right-wing garbarge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurc: Like those looking for WMD in Iraq still. Not many left.

I was thinking that, too. In reality one can't really discuss abortion without mentioning Iraq and WMDs in some way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sex crazed society. Hey it is dynamite. One can create children! Surprise! The choice is between two to give themselves to each other lovingly. Yes life results. It is not the fault of the new life. Why destroy it? Reproductive health?

Human life should be protected. That is why one cannot go back to coat hangers, for the mothers life is important as well. Respect for life should be one of the basic virtues a society is raised with. Responsibility for ones actions is also a virtue. It seems as though many wish to back pedal from consequences from choices they have made. They can, but boy the undoing is tragic especially for children.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no perfect answer to the abortion dilemma. Nobody with a conscience can find something positive to see in cutting up a fetus while still in the womb. On the other hand, nobody wants to send women who for whatever reason want to do this back to some illegal shack with coathangers. Bill Clinton nailed it when he said that abortion should be safe, legal, and should never happen.

Now, one prediction is for sure: There will be one moment in time when you see a 180 degree shift of position on the current pro-abortion side, when research becomes able to predict sexual orientation before birth.

Whiplash! Look forward to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: Anyway, If the school was publicly owned, the protesters should have no right to protest the president

Everybody has a right to protest skip, they even have a right to make fools of themselves while doing it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There will be one moment in time when you see a 180 degree shift of position on the current pro-abortion side, when research becomes able to predict sexual orientation before birth.

WilliB, I do believe you meant to say predict the "sex" before birth, not "sexual orientation". Anyways, sex selection abortion is already happening and has real consequences for the human race. There is a lot more reason than just a "religious" or "moral" reason to oppose it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB: There is no perfect answer to the abortion dilemma.

True, but among responses to it, there are good and bad ones. In my humble opinion, opponents need to attack abortion from the other end of the stick rather than this head on approach. And Obama suggested as much:

“So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.”

But that takes work. And the anti-abortion crowd seem to want a neat package and a fast-food approach to this, rather than the work and drudgery it will take to do it as best as can be done. There are not nearly enough of these anti-abortion people adopting. They seem to think that just by banning abortion, all will be well with the world. Hardly.

But if they lightened up on their anti-sex stance, and started teaching sex ed as a class where you learn how to have safe sex properly (rather than a class where you are made to fear sex), then the number of unwanted pregnancies could get reduced by a wide margin. Also, easy access to condoms and the morning after pill should be implemented in schools.

Meanwhile, the anti-sex people can still preaching their anti-sex slogans and morality. But if ripping out the seatbelts of the car does not prevent your teen from "borrowing" it in the middle of the night, then you have just put him/her in grave danger as much as they have themselves. This is what so many in the anti-abortion crowd are doing.

And those lessons learned as a teen carry into adulthood, just like lessons NOT learned in one's teens carry into adulthood. It is simply amazing how many adults are confused about proper condom usage, and those ignorant adults also have unwanted pregnancies. And we have these irrational fundie style people to blame for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bill Clinton nailed it when he said that abortion should be safe, legal, and should never happen."

That is the answer! I would never let my daughter have an abortion, but hopefully, I can help her make the right decisions to prevent her from ever being in that situation. If she doesn't want the kid, I'll take care of it. Funny/odd thing, is my wife is a doctor (Japan) and she told me she's done dozens abortions in just a few short years. I ask her what does she think about the issue on NotraD today, and she said that if a woman has the support base to help take care of that kid, then no, abortion should not be a choice, but in her mind!

There is more to her view, but it would go off topic. Clinton had the right words. Where I think the prolifers get it wrong is that they feel that prochoice people are jumping for joy, partying, when in fact, I can say they are not, but they are mimicking Clinton's words.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GJDailleult

" WilliB, I do believe you meant to say predict the "sex" before birth, not "sexual orientation". "

Why do you assume that I write something different from what I want to write?

So slowly again: I did mean sexual orientation. Sex selective abortion is already happening, and it is a problem, but it is not an issue for the current pro-abortion crowd.

This will change dramatically when it becomes possible to detect sexual orientation before birth, e.g. when it becomes possiblt to determine if a child will be gay.

THEN you will see a 180-degree shift of position with a speed like you wouldn´t believe. All the current pro-choicers will turn into vehement opponents of abortion on demand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Skipthesong

two ways to do this, abstinence, ... and protection

,

And a third - the morning after pill, which too prevents implantation - >i.e. pregnancy.

and sex education so they know what causes pregnancy

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "please provide me info on a religion that supports abortion?

maybe eugenics?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This will change dramatically when it becomes possible to detect sexual orientation before birth"

Well wait a second. We were just told by several posters that a fetus is not a person yet, so now you are telling me this "thing" can decide how he/she is gonna get it on?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and sex education so they know what causes pregnancy" Yeah, the stork brings the baby! Oh, wait, for the XTREEM left, it would be wrong to shoot the stork delivering the baby, because you know its wrong to hurt animals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

please provide me info on a religion that supports abortion?

Not sure that I would approach it that way. I would first want to learn why religion should have any bearing on laws related to medical care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "Well, then that refutes you proof on an other issue, as you said its biological and happens in the womb. And, yes you have."

What?? I said a fetus is not a child, and NEVER have a said anything to the country. As to 'it's biological and happens in the womb', what on earth are you talking about? CONCEPTION? I don't think I know anyone who has NOT said conception is biological, and outside of test tubes where else would it happen but in the womb? I think you once again have me confused with someone else (wouldn't be the first time, and I doubt it'll be the last). If you're suggesting that I have in the past said that life begins in the womb and have argued anti-abortion, you're wrong -- I never have, once.

"You have voiced opinion against Christians. i don't know how to go back in the archives .... so you win be default."

It depends on the issue, and don't confuse voicing opinion against an issue with simply voicing opinion against Christians. If I have ever done the latter, it's been in reply, to individual Christians or to some doctrine, to a belief they were trying to shove down others' throats, or to make law. Hell, you can probably find me arguing against people on the gay marriage issue who have 'Christian views' on the topic, but then, as I said, I am arguing against them, not the religion itself.

"Anyway, If the school was publicly owned, the protesters should have no right to protest the president, but the school is privately owned, so I feel they do have a right to protest someone who is against what their school believes in."

I never said they don't have the right. In fact, I said more than once that I respect the fact that non of the protesting got out of hand (as it has in other places). I very much support people's right to debate and/or show their opinion on something -- and that includes voicing opinion against those on this site who suddenly say things like 'you are American so you cannot have an opinion', etc. What I don't respect are people who start saying your president is for the killing of infants if he supports another human's right to choose abortion, and that the law should limit people's rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Yeah, the stork brings the baby! Oh, wait, for the XTREEM left, it would be wrong to shoot the stork delivering the baby, because you know its wrong to hurt animals."

Just bizarre how you jump from one thing to something completely off the wall.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing illogical about opposing abortion when it is used for what is basically selective breeding of humans, and opposing the imposition of laws which for religious reasons prohibit abortion. One has nothing to do with each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you truly want to take the moral ground and reduce abortion, then try some of the following.

Stop resisting sex education so that young people are empowered with the knowledge they need to avoid pregnancy. Stop imagining a world where abstinance is a viable solution. It isn't and it never will be. Make adoption easier, more open and better supported by funding so that people who want kids can get them from people who don't. A lot of women may choose to take to term if this is better managed and promoted. Provide more resources for single mothers. Often women are stuck alone and pregnant with a life of hardship to look forward to. If you offer real solutions to their problems (free education, employment, social welfare)maybe more will keep the child. The religious crowd need to realize that this is a social issue for many of us and not a religious one. Stop trying to shove your faith down our throats and realize that only tangible steps will solve this problem and they must include access to abortion for those who can reach no other decision. We cannot go back to the days of back alley abortions. Women must have the right to choose.

As for Willib's big reversal. Doubtful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Irony is that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an avowed "eugenicist" - i.e. racist - who would have forced a young woman like Obama's teenaged mother to undergo an abortion and after that sterilization, if Sanger could have had her radical way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am Pro-Choice but I'm not real happy about that. I fall Pro-Choice for maybe an entirely different reason than many would think. I fall Pro-Choice only because I am a male. As disgusting as abortion is to me and it is, I cannot go so far as force a woman to do what she doesn't want with her body. But, I'm no cheerleader for Pro-Choice that is for sure. I have had this debate with many fine folks over the years through both sides of the spectrum, left and right. Most of those conversations were with fellow males. Some actually having to actually go through the experience of having their girlfriends get an abortion. I'll let the elephant out that is sitting in this room. Most and this is just my personal experience, most of the males that were really 'Pro-Choice' the ones that screamed the loudest for a womans right to abort a potential life, did it not out of some abstract concept called personal freedom, though they claimed it was, it was out of pure damn selfishness. They didn't want to get stuck with the responsibility of taking care of a child or the child support payments. Obama says this is a complex issue he is right. The pure unadularated MALE bull that I found over the years by the most fervent male 'Pro-Lifers' can usually be boiled down to this, from my experience. The want that get out responsibility option and they want it bad. They also know that it is really wrong on some moral level but balance that out by trying to tie it into some higher moral plane, such as freedom.

I hate this issue and for me personally this should be decided by the Female of the species as to the ultimate decision, whether to abort or not and keep the males out of it totally. One other thought. Many males I've talked to over the years have now problem with having their girlfriends having an abortion. Once they are married and the wife gets pregnant......The topic never comes up, they are happy as hell that they are going to be Daddy, for the males posting here think deeply about that when you slam the Pro-Life crowd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One other thought. Many males I've talked to over the years have now problem with having their girlfriends having an abortion.

Typo 'now' should be 'no' in my above sentence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tko: YOu make some sense, but...

Stop resisting sex education so that young people are empowered with the knowledge they need to avoid pregnancy." Ok, but how about let parents decide when it is a good time and to let us know what is being taught. In some states, parents are not getting that right.

Stop imagining a world where abstinance is a viable solution. It isn't and it never will be."

No, there is room for abstinence, but teach it like they teach "Scared Straight".

Make adoption easier, more open and better supported by funding so that people who want kids can get them from people who don't. A lot of women may choose to take to term if this is better managed and promoted." That is a true want.

Provide more resources for single mothers. Often women are stuck alone and pregnant with a life of hardship to look forward to. If you offer real solutions to their problems (free education, employment, social welfare)maybe more will keep the child." Well, this is where, as much as you don't like to hear it, abstinence does work. I think if you have a daughter, you are more inclined to teach her to refrain from having sex or wait. Teach our kids what the pitfalls are. You are talking about a culture change.

The religious crowd need to realize that this is a social issue for many of us and not a religious one. Stop trying to shove your faith down our throats and realize that only tangible steps will solve this problem and they must include access to abortion for those who can reach no other decision. We cannot go back to the days of back alley abortions. Women must have the right to choose." And they are saying the same in reverse. How many people like you would force a religion to change its ways?
0 ( +0 / -0 )

! I would never let my daughter have an abortion, but hopefully, I can help her make the right decisions to prevent her from ever being in that situation.

Skip, there is not much a girl can do but "try" to not choose a fool. And most guys ARE fools because they were not properly educated on preventing pregnancy.

Its the guy you have to educate the most and instill rigid discipline in. (Pun was not intended.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and sex education so they know what causes pregnancy

More like so that they know how to prevent pregnancy, in all its many methods. They should also be told how to masterbate properly and do it with a mind on CONTROL. Also, it would be nice if they were given a handbook with steps to go through with a partner before actual sex. Something that encourages them to take their time and get it right; a guidebook to not screwing up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2: Stop imagining a world where abstinance is a viable solution. It isn't and it never will be.

I believe you meant "abstinence ONLY", and I cannot emphasize how much the word only changes the whole deal. The people preaching that are complete morons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip, there is not much a girl can do but "try" to not choose a fool. And most guys ARE fools because they were not properly educated on preventing pregnancy."

likeitis: I'm not sure how many times you've been in a Latino's household, but, and with the exception of Mexico, we don't hve much of these issues! When she is ready to date, she'll have a cousin or a brother to watch her. Oh, and for those guys who ditch the girls in that position, let it be said now that what ever guy dates my daughter better watch the Godfather 1 and Scarface a few times! In fact, if more of you followed my lead, we wouldn't be talking about this and the need for abortion wouldn't be there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip -

Sorry, but the figures don't back you up.

A nation-wide population study, released by the U.S. Census Bureau late last year based on an analysis of 2000 Census figures shows Hispanic women had a high rate of out-of wedlock births: 36 percent.

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=bf2c2e2b3aba1272637eb3bc9edb1c0a

Your family may not have any issues, but it seems a lot of cousins and brothers in other families are not playing the part of chaperone to good effect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong, I guess you never considered that in the situation you propose, you would need to lock her up in the house, like they used to in the old days. Your way insures you never meet the guy, because he rapes her and takes off. Or, he she sneaks around, he finally gets to do the deed, and then he takes off.

For the life of me, I do not know why people are so adverse about others having sex if they are given the power and sense to do it right. Surely there are things in the world you would do better to worry about? Welcome to the 21st century, where ape-like emotions about "my territory" are no longer required. We got condoms now, and the morning after pill, and the birth control pill. What we lack is education. The reason: ape-like emotions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Abortion-on-demand, which is currently so politically correct, will hit the wall once modern science makes it possible to determine characteristics of the unborn, which are very un-PC to criticise.

That is when the current pro-abortion crowd will change their mind by 180 degrees, and quicker than you can say "oops".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB: do you mean these people will opt for an abortion if it is proven that their soon to be kid will be gay and they'll kill it/him/her/them?

I have a question to all out there in JT post land: are there any posters here that are women? What are you thoughts? I think a great many men are pro-abortion to get them off the hook. I ask this as how should one view the plaintiff who was at the protest that was the roe vs wade? I mean, she fights to have an abortion, then after the fact, fights for the right to be taken away and is accepted by those who are against abortion... I don't get it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, some of us are women.

I'm not anti-abortion. I don't believe a tiny cluster of cells is a person. But a foetus that looks even vaguely like a baby has the right to be considered a person, I think. I'm very anti-partial-birth abortions.

I am not happy with abortion being used as simply another method of birth control. If you don't want a baby then it's better not to make one in the first place. But if you find you are pregnant and you don't want to be, then have the abortion at once, before the cells grow into a baby.

Every abortion represents a failure; but if there's going to be an abortion, it's better for it to be in a clinic with proper medical care, than in a back street with a dirty coat-hanger.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man, is this guy toxic.

Obama delivered a 3,545 word address at Notre Dame.

Alumni and donors have pledged to withhold at least 14 million dollars in future donations.

[http://www.replacejenkins.com/references.html]

$3,949 per word.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If these "cluster of cells" were dolphins some would have a fit. Some fight more for the protection of whales then their own species. What is the cause of this blindness? Is that the freedom we are asking for? "...Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected..." I would be very careful advocating abortion to anyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Abortion-on-demand, which is currently so politically correct,

Did you just time-warp from the 1980s? Nothing about the so-called abortion debate has be PC for a very long time.

As for science proving when live begins, it could happen but I doubt it would change much. Many pro-lifers have no problems with war, the death penalty, poverty and other such scourges of life, some have even killed in order to force change. On the flip side, many of those who protest war and the like support choice. This is not a science debate, therefore science will not end it.

If you are pro-life, then be pro-life from conception to the grave. And if you are pro-choice, then respect the fact that a zygote at the very least is a symbol of life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm impressed that the Secret Service or any other federal policing group didn't have the protesters caged in some area 5 miles away. When george bush was president he never saw a protester, except for the "shoe thrower."

If we were to ban abortion, then we're shoving women into back alleys again and having abortions with coat hangers or other probes.

Barack Obama again stood up to the test of speaking without caging his anti-Obama crowd somewhere out of sight. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hoserfella, come on big boy, criticize my points instead of me. I dare you. I double dare you!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh - the radical right never cease to amaze me with the froth and bile they vomit up. Like with the gay marriage issue when their so-called arguments are spent they begin stangely shrieking about polagamy, here we have them shrieking about "infantacide" when talking about abortion.

Heh, I agree with likeitis - let the fire and brimstone flat-earhters believe their god is going to sort it all out at a later date and leave the rest of us to make our own choices.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't believe a tiny cluster of cells is a person. But a foetus that looks even vaguely like a baby has the right to be considered a person

Whats the difference? From an objective standpoint 'pro-choice' appears to deem the unborn as an extension of the mother therefore she may, in all legality, abort at any time for any reason. In the future, with gene testing, that may include on the basis of IQ, physical features, or, indeed, sexual orientation.

On the flipside 'pro-life' advocates would force victims of rape and incest to deal with the gestation of a child that was most definitely not their choice. There's also the chance of having a child with a crippling physical or mental disability which some parents may not want to be burdened with.

Issues like these make me glad I'm not in politics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh - the radical right never cease to amaze me with the froth and bile they vomit up.

Yeah - administration at one of the most famous Catholic universities in America allows a pro-infanticide politician/pop star address its students. What a bunch of radicals....

I look forward to Berkeley hosting Sarah Palin.

(Oh, wait, that ain't gonna happen...)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This kind of polarization is what happens when the courts decide an issue rather than public debate over time. Rather like the Dred Scott decision polarized the abolitionists in the 1850s.

If there had been debate and a reasoned resolution to the issue then there would be some common ground for the majority to work from. Instead you can't even talk about the topic without being labeled and deamonized. Nothing good can come of that.

So while I agree that ND having Obama speak is a abdication of their ideals I also agree with Obama that a rational discourse is required.

But like Berkely hosting Palin, ain't gonna happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On the flipside 'pro-life' advocates would force victims of rape and incest to deal with the gestation of a child that was most definitely not their choice.

Says who? Most pro-life people would support exceptions for rape, incest, or if the mothers life was in danger. I know I would. What I take issue to, is abortion when the woman knowingly and willfully engaged in behavior that could and did end up with her pregnant, and then using abortion as a way to escape taking responsibility for her actions. Thats the real difference here. Abortion on demand, versus responsibility for your own actions. Yes, I grant there are extremists on both sides. There are those who have killed, to show their hatred of abortion. But don't kid yourself, there have been deaths on the other side too.

But like Berkely hosting Palin, ain't gonna happen.

That would make sense actually. Never happen of course, but it would be fun to see all the loonies screaming their hatred at this woman. Really would emphasize the level of debate and reason in the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For me, this issue comes down to whether or not you kill a living human-being. From there, you must define what a living human-being is. For me, it is a baby/fetus that has a heart beat and has some level of brain function. If a woman or couple wait to abort the child after this point, then you are killing a human-being; there is no other way to look at it. The thing about President Obama is that in his Notre Dame speech, he seems to be speaking as if he has no track record on this issue. He is for abortion on demand at any time - even if a failed abortion winds up with a living child outside of the womans body. That's sick - but that is also Obama's view record on abortion. He is really an extremist acting as if he were a moderate. Of course, the press has bought this act hook line and sinker.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I take issue to, is abortion when the woman knowingly and willfully engaged in behavior that could and did end up with her pregnant, and then using abortion as a way to escape taking responsibility for her actions.

This assumes that there is some "responsibility" to bear a child. In my opinion, there is no such responsibility. It is very clear that the conversation about the responsibility to raise a child gets short shrift in comparison to the conversation about bearing one.

Quite simply, those who are unable or unwilling to assume the responsibilities of raising children should not be forced to bear them. Those who insist that they should be so forced must be willing to provide the guarantee of a loving home to protect the life which they say they value. Unfortunately, they are not willing to do so. Forcing a woman to have a child is, then, about punishment and not about responsibility.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This assumes that there is some "responsibility" to bear a child.

Responsibility? Did you deliberately misunderstand what I was saying? Its not a responsibility to bear a child, but a matter of taking responsibility for your own actions. If you knowingly and willfully engage in unprotected sex, then in all probability, eventually you'll get pregnant. If you know this, then don't do it. If you know you can't raise a child, then don't have unprotected sex! Again, its different if a woman is raped. But if it is her choice to do so, then it falls upon her, as well as her partner, to use protection. Go on the pill, use a condom or refrain from sex. Doing otherwise is nothing less then willful negligence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong:

" do you mean these people will opt for an abortion if it is proven that their soon to be kid will be gay and they'll kill it/him/her/them? "

I think that obviously some will, and the easier abortion is made, the more will. And that prospect will cause havoc among the abortion-on-demand side. Remember, if any reason is good enough to have an abortion, then this one is too. I thought the point was quite obvious; I wonder what is so controversial about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Yeah - administration at one of the most famous Catholic universities in America allows a pro-infanticide politician"

"Infantacide" is up there with thinking the earth is flat.

"I look forward to Berkeley hosting Sarah Palin."

Who?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Infantacide" is up there with thinking the earth is flat.

As a state senator, Obama voted against the Born Alive Act, legislation which made it illegal to terminate the life of a child that had survived an abortion.

Listen to Obama, sole opponent, argue in favor of infanticide

at YouTube

Obama and Live Birth Abortion Induced Labor Abortions Infanticide Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

Creepy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's creepy is attempting to call abortion "infantacide".

I know you don't believe in personal freedom and believe the government should make your decisions for you, but I prefer personal choice.

Now you be careful over there in Japan, old bud - that's right near where the flat earth ends....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB: Remember, if any reason is good enough to have an abortion, then this one is too. I thought the point was quite obvious; I wonder what is so controversial about it.

Well, there is a bit of difference between an accidental unwanted pregnancy and an intentional pregnancy that gets unwanted for not liking the DNA.

Pro-choicers favor people having a choice. But I think most will object to going nuts with your choices, and abusing your ability to choose.

I am not sure how many pro-choicers would seek to block such abortions though. I am sure most would at least scream, stammer, and call names, but actually seek to block? Well, the smart ones wouldn't. If its just a bunch of cells in one case, it is in another too. But the designer baby thing has serious implications if controls are not put on it, like China has a girl shortage now for example.

But I would not want a bunch of cells to grow into a gay human who is hated by his own parents. Better to get rid of those cells if they don't want to even go the adoption route. But I will call them A-holes just the same. That is my take on that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's creepy is attempting to call abortion "infantacide".

Can you read?

Obama opposed a bill in the Illinois State Legislature which made it legally binding upon doctors and medical facilities to do everything in their power to keep alive infants that survive botched late-term or even ordinary abortions. Abortion itself was not the issue. The issue was the treatment of a live human being which, in the languauge of the bill in question, had achieved "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother."

Obama argued for infanticide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Abortion itself was not the issue"

If you believe that then you have no grip on reality. How can abortion not be the issue when you're talking about the product of an abortion?

Calling abortion "infantacide" for a bit of cheap sensationalism, shows how truly bad your argument is. It's the same as the gay marriage "hey look...polygamy" silliness from the frothy right.

Us Europeans believe in leaving the freedom of choice to the people themselves, not the government or fundie religious types....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Calling abortion "infanticide" for a bit of cheap sensationalism"

Sometimes the truth hurts. Calling killing someone "murder" is also a bit of "cheap sensationalism," eh, Madverts?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Calling killing someone "murder" is also a bit of "cheap sensationalism," "

Infanticide means killing an infant.

If you have to label to make you point, at least call it faetusacide, if the word even exists, or something that is at least credible. Making it sound like "President Obama supports murdering infants", as our boy has above, is purely ridiculous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts

Serious question. Your Girlfriend gets pregnant by you. You don't want the kid and encourage her to get an abortion. Did you do that for her right to choose or for for your selfish reasons?

That is the question no male here has answered yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - if you're asking me directly, then if I didn't want the child no doubt I'd discuss abortion. If the alleged girlfriend refused, I don't see what choice I personally would actually have other than to accept it.

I presume the point you wish to make is that some women may feel coerced or even forced by either the father or members of either family to abort in the case of accidental pregnancy, and I don't deny this point is valid - simply said, the personal choice should be left on the table for all the other cases. I thought you Americans were hot on the freedom thing?

There's enough teenage pregnancies as it is without outlawing abortion. Imagine being forced to have a child you absolutely don't want by law....is that child going to loved? Is it going to have a family, or would that force people foced into parent-hood to abandon the child or put them up for adoption?

What if it is an economic decision, insomuch as you know you simply can't afford to have a child? Should people be forced into bringing children up in penuary, which will adversly affect the child more than the impoverished parents?

There are arguments that are coherent. Sadly for the resident right-wing extremists, "infantacide", and I hope you'll agree with me here, is not one of them.

My opinion is that people should have the freedom of choice, and that stopping the birth of un-wanted children before they are born is better than letting them grow up without what many of us shave taken for granted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought you Americans were hot on the freedom thing?

Some of us are also big on the responsibility thing.

There's enough teenage pregnancies as it is without outlawing abortion. Imagine being forced to have a child you absolutely don't want by law....is that child going to loved? Is it going to have a family, or would that force people foced into parent-hood to abandon the child or put them up for adoption?

By all means, put the child up for adoption. There are lots of couples out there who cannot have children, who would love to have a child of their own.

There are arguments that are coherent. Sadly for the resident right-wing extremists, "infantacide", and I hope you'll agree with me here, is not one of them.

Infantacide as you termed it, is accurate. It means the murder of an infant. By the very definition, a child that has survived the abortion procedure, and has been born, is now an infant, thus efforts to murder that infant can be termed, infantacide. That you don't like it does not change the facts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is what happens in a pro-life world. The baby is carried through all 3 trimesters and comes out healthy. The baby then gets put in a dumpster by the scared teen. Or the baby gets left at doorsteps of orphanages. Now which is the more likely outcome? I'd put my money on the former.

But in any case I think the mother should have the right to choose to abort, only before the first trimester. Any later then it would be consider a murder.

On a side note, I find it amusing that pro-life voices have no real reasons for being pro-life, other than the fact of course my thousand year old teaching says so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB

I think that obviously some will, and the easier abortion is made, the more will.

It's never been easier to get an abortion then now. It would be hard to make it any easier. Except maybe a drive through window.

In your arguement if the parents find out that their child might be gay.... Then when and if they get to that level of determination of qualities of children in the womb, then we will have to make that technology available, we'll have to make it illegal to give out this information to the parents because of the ramifications of increased abortions. Hmmmmmmm...... let me think about this. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know you don't believe in personal freedom and believe the government should make your decisions for you, but I prefer personal choice.

No, you don't believe in choice either - because you deny choice for the aborted baby. It seems that too many people seem to forget that a baby in the womb is human. If it has a beating heart and an active brain - then it is a living human being that has emotions and can experience pleasure and pain. At this point in a childs development it becomes an issue of ethics, moraolity, and compassion for a defenseless living human being. I understand that this could be a difficult dilemma for a woman that becomes pregnant unintentionally. But if the pregnant person doesn't do something about it before it becomes a sentient being, then it cannot be logically called anything other than infanticide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On a side note, I find it amusing that pro-life voices have no real reasons for being pro-life, other than the fact of course my thousand year old teaching says so.

For many it is not just the Bible or the Judeo-Christian ethic that informs their position.

The US Constitution speaks of inalienable rights and the equality of all men.

Viewed in this light some believe the unborn wait, as slaves once did, for us to make good on the promise of the Republic's ideals.

"It's never been easier to get an abortion then [than] now."

And there have never been more couples turning to adoption...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kaoken: On a side note, I find it amusing that pro-life voices have no real reasons for being pro-life, other than the fact of course my thousand year old teaching says so.

Of course they do. You just don't agree with them so you discard their reasons out of hand. Interestingly, I pretty much agree with you that if a woman wants an abortion, it should be done very early. I am not religeous myself so my pro-life leanings are not inspired by God. However, those who state that their religion is the reason why they believe that abortion is wrong have a legitimate argument. A persons religion is their philosophy for life - and no one yet has been able to prove that a religious philosophy is any worse than a secular one (let's leave the crazy religeous folks like the jihadi's out of this please). Other than religion, there are perfectly logical reasons for not supporting abortion on the grounds that abortion actually does kill a living human being. Although I don't agree myself, but even very early on when the baby is just a cluster of millions of cells, there are legitimate reasons for wanting to protect these cells because they are human. These cells will not become a dog or a lizard - they are uniquely human. As science progresses, so does our understanding of how quickly babies develop in the womb and how quickly they take on human characteristics. People who are pro-life have a good argument on the issue of abortion, but closed minded people are unable to open their ears to hear it. Most pro-choice people have de-personalized babies as being just an object called a 'fetus' that is only important if the mother decides it should live.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

-teleprompter: I agree with you not all pro-lifes are religious. But the active ones are, the ones that are on the street corners everyday holding up signs. They are also the ones with the most power. I don't want some religion that actively fought against science and human progress to do the same now.

Your argument also ties in with stem-cell research. If they make pro-life law, stem-cell research is dead, kaput. Abortion should be okay, but should be based on individual cases. Just like our justice system. You wouldn't want to hand out the death sentence for all cases do you?

-Wolfpack: I'm not really dismissing it because they are on the other side. Read the 1st paragraph I wrote for 'telepromter' above.

A persons religion is their philosophy for life - and no one yet has been able to prove that a religious philosophy is any worse than a secular one (let's leave the crazy religeous folks like the jihadi's out of this please).

What do you mean secular philosophy exactly?

People who are pro-life have a good argument on the issue of abortion, but closed minded people are unable to open their ears to hear it. Most pro-choice people have de-personalized babies as being just an object called a 'fetus' that is only important if the mother decides it should live.

It is also some pro-lifes who are also closed minded. There are cases in which abortion is necessary, and yet these people will use fancy rhetoric to avoid these cases.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your argument also ties in with stem-cell research. If they make pro-life law, stem-cell research is dead, kaput.

Wow, talk about an uninformed statement. Since Bush essentially denied all Federal Funding for Fetal stem cells, there has been tremendous progress made in adult stem cell research. And don't kid yourself here. It is nothing more nor less then a line of inquiry. It doesn't mean it will lead to anything. Not cures for cancer or anything else. It could, but then it might not. The point being however that new lines of fetal stem cells, are less and less needed for the research you seem to be a proponent of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"That you don't like it does not change the facts."

I'm sorry but we're talking about abortion and not the odd times the process goes wrong so, no, I refuse to change my position and reiterate that calling abortion "infantacide" is cheap shock-horror sensationalsim.

If you're big on responsibility then you should allow people to make their own responsible choices.

And as for anything that becomes illegal, it always ends up underground. One of my best friends mother died at 27 through a back-street abortion. I'd like to see you make your case to her.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The irony of some of the more extreme religious stances;

It's not ok to kill a fetus and state should interfere with the parents choices.

but

It's ok to stop your child from getting chemotherapy(essential killing him) and the state shouldn't interfere with the parents choices.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The religious nutters are there to be laughed at. Fundie Christians have only one difference from the Taliban - they've evolved, slightly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you're big on responsibility then you should allow people to make their own responsible choices.

I don't think you understand what the term responsibility means. I'll take a moment here and just explain it, so you can see where I'm coming from on this. To put it simply, everything we do has consequences. Everything. Having unprotected sex is the action, the consequence is pregnancy. Taking responsibility for your actions, means owning the consequence. Realizing that its happening not because life is fair, but because of your own actions, and dealing with those consequences. Girls don't have to have unprotected sex. They can say no, they can insist on a condom, they can use the pill. There are ways around it. So, if they get pregnant despite all these options, then I have no problem with saying they ought to have the child. Thats the natural consequences of their actions. Its different of course if they didn't choose. If they were raped, or victims of incest. In those kind of cases, where they didn't make the choice, then they should have the choice about whether or not to keep the child. You see, when it comes right down to it. I'm all about choice. However I'm also in favor of responsibility. And therein lies the difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pregnancy can occur even using all means of contraception.

People should be allowed to choose what they want to do, without the government on religious nuts deciding for them. That's all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pregnancy can occur even using all means of contraception.

If thats the case, then the woman should definitely be having the child. I'm sorry, but if a girl gets pregnant despite being on the pill, and using a condom, then either she had placebo's and a scumbag boyfriend, or that child really needs to be born.

People should be allowed to choose what they want to do, without the government on religious nuts deciding for them. That's all.

They do that all the time. Everytime they decide to have sex. Wonderful world we live in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, talk about an uninformed statement. Since Bush essentially denied all Federal Funding for Fetal stem cells, there has been tremendous progress made in adult stem cell research.

Ok maybe to clarify, embryonic stem cell research would be dead. Even though tremendous progress has been made with adult stem cells it is nowhere promising as embryonic. Bush really has pushed back progress in stem cell research. Now scientists have to work the long way around for progress, which they may or may not reach.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The conservatives are all "Pro-Life" when it comes to the unborn but after you are born your "Pro-Life" rights end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey:

" The conservatives are all "Pro-Life" when it comes to the unborn but after you are born your "Pro-Life" rights end. "

Is that an obscure reference to the death penalty, which is generally a conservative position? In that case, I´d like to point out that I have not met any conservative who is for a death penalty without a preceding trial and guilty verdict. Have you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites