Just because some are encumbered by their religious beliefs does not mean that everyone else should have to bear and raise a child that they may not want, nor can support.

In 2009 alone, Americans adopted 12,000+ children from OTHER countries.

I guess American babies aren't good enough for Americans....maybe some church can pick up the slack.

>>Just because some are encumbered by their religious beliefs does not mean that everyone else should have to bear and raise a child that they may not want, nor can support.

No one is forced to "bear and raise a child that they do not want". There are ways to prevent that. The rape issue is a different matter.

Abortion is murder, it results in the death of a human. I know I can't change minds that are set, but then again do not tell me that in our society we hold life to be sacred because we end it so indiscriminately

"by this profit-driven abortion business"

The above sentence is just one of the reasons I tend to look with a great deal of mistrust at statements by think tanks with an ideological bent. Planned Parenthood is NOT a profit-driven organization - it is a non-profit organization. This little bit of dishonesty by the spokesperson is enough for me to discount pretty much everything she might have said on the issue.

Also, the attempt to link the abortion services with governmental funding is dishonest as well - anyone who hasn't learned already that governmental medical funding can never be used for abortion services needs to crawl out from behind their ideological rock and do some learning.

If you wish to oppose abortion and Planned Parenthood, I'll support your right to do so - if you need to use lies in order to make your case? Then I'll consider your case weak and won't take you seriously.

Hmm, probably why I don't take many politicians or media types seriously.

ps - for those thinking I won't apply this to "my" side? I publically humiliated an ACLU spokesman at a meeting of local Democrats who had folks convinced that the NDAA would allow the military to arrest US Citizens in their homes and hold then indefintely when I read the paragraph in the NDAA that specifically forbade that and challenged him on whether he had actually read the act and was lying about it if he had.

>>Abortion is murder, it results in the death of a human. I know I can't change minds that are set, but then again do not tell me that in our society we hold life to be sacred because we end it so indiscriminately

This is an conundrum beyond my explanation. But a child conceived by rape is still a child and aborting it is murder. Yes, it is a horrible situation, but if all life is sacred, then all life is sacred no matter the manner of its origin

You'd never guess from that column that abortions have been going down in the US since the 1980s, and a good deal of that is due to PP involvement in contraception. Of course it may be heading back up due to e.g. Texas.

"if all life is sacred, then all life is sacred no matter the manner of its origin"

Except all life is NOT sacred. If all life were sacred, we would not have a death penalty. That doesn't preclude punishment, but death would not be a punishment if life were sacred (indeed, if life were sacred, then it would follow that death would be sacred too, would it not?). If all life were sacred, then we wouldn't be ignoring that underlying our latest gun policy discussions is the fact that children were massacred just before Christmas in Connecticut. If all life were sacred, then we wouldn't engage in wars, and we wouldn't hestitate to step in to stop massacres of people in other countries. If all life were sacred, we wouldn't be discussing ways to cut our social safety nets. If all life were sacred, then we wouldn't put up with prejudice against any group of people. If life were sacred, there would be a line of people ready to adopt with no thought to age or sex of the adoptee with no one needing to be adopted.

But life is NOT sacred - not in this country. The only lives we care about is the lives that we are either directly affected by (our family, friends, neighbors) or by people like us or by theoretical life. We can care about aborted potential life because it's simple to do so, the life is already gone, and it doesn't affect us personally.

So Calico, that is your justification for encouring a culture of mothers killing their babies?

All I can say is Wow!

Wow!

I sorta agree with you CP, Life is not sacred in our society no manner the protestations to the opposite. Look at Capital Punishment, in effect the state says we hold all life to be so precious that no one can kill anyone else and if you do, we will kill you.

I get a little tired about all the claims that other people don't regard human life the same way we do, well, we show little regard for it often enough that that argument rings hollow

I'm still amazed by your justification for abortion Calico. Would you say that is a progressive justification?

Barry

It's not a justification for abortion.

It's a condemnation of the hypocritical condemnation of abortion using the standard that life is sacred when our actions don't back up our belief that life is sacred. When we start acting like life is sacred, when our words are put into action, when we do more than talk the talk, then we can pull out the life is sacred card and have it mean something.

I don't believe that a women's right to choose to have an abortion needs to be justified because my personal opinion is that life doesn't begin until ones autonomous systems can at least theroretically work on their own without needing to be attached to a parent. Since in humans, that is generally in the third trimester, and abortions are generally prohibited in the third trimester except for extremely rare circumstances, then I personally don't feel the need to ban abortions.

But if we start acting as if life really is sacred, then maybe I'll reconsider my position. But I certainly won't do so based on religious beliefs that aren't, in my view, being given more than just lip service.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

I struggle with this issue.

On one hand, I absolutely understand why someone would want to terminate a pregnancy as a matter of choice. Pregnancy and parenthood can be overwhelming burdens for those not prepared for them.

However, on the other hand, I believe life begins at conception and that one human's rights to choose how to live their own life do not entitle them to terminate the lives of other humans that are inconvenient.

The reason that I feel I justify a pro-life position on the issue is that decisions regarding sex are the most long-lasting. Whether the act is forceful and a crime, or loving and with the intent of procreation, the decision to engage in the act is a decision that stays with a person forever. The weight of the decision has been culturally downplayed, and I feel abortion on-demand helps to degrade the weight of the decision.

So I struggle with the actual issue of "Should it be allowed at all," but feel that its use in cases that are anything but the most severe is nothing more than another contribution to cultural rot.

I'm aware that the best argument against what I'm trying to say is, "It's just sex." but the fact that some people think that's a valid argument kind of proves my point.