They aren't medically necessary, or involving a dead fetus or child. They are elective. Others should be honest about this. (There is a substantial amount of evasion and cowardice and deceit about the subject of abortion, including dishonest misuse of alternative, evasive, “deflecting” and likely guilt-assuaging words and phrases about this subject.)

We don't even have to argue or belabor this point, though the non-philosophical equivalent is incontrovertible fact. (To abort is to destroy a developing child or children, obviously.) We can also use a practical, “real-world” approach by looking temporally backward at this issue. To kill an infant that has just been born, or is in the process of being born, is killing, and usually murder, without any question. What about killing the child in the womb a day or a week before? (There's no question there that it is a child, not merely a “highly developed fetus” or “protoplasmatic multi-celled organism,” or whatever other evasive language one prefers instead.) We accept without question that government can prosecute people not only for murdering women, but for causing the death in addition of a child in the womb (indeed, going back quite far in time from childbirth). We consider even premature children, at least those who survive, to be children, not merely “fetuses,” “growths,” etc. The question then becomes, how far back do you go before it is no longer considered killing or murder? It's that easy — or should be.

(It's a side issue, not central, but the foremost point using this reasoning for what may be considered “the” compromise position on abortion is the point of viability, that any child born or removed from the womb who is viable, can survive on its own or has a chance to do so, defines its life's abrupt and premature end as killing, and likely murder. The real, real-world question is how far back before that, for anyone intelligent is forced to look backward once more from that point as well as complete gestation time, to determine at what point, if any, it's acceptable or at least less “drastic” or less controversial or less painful, to terminate a pregnancy. Real world view is, the earlier after conception, the better.)

That was awesome, bro. I love it.

Well, oddly enough, Roro….I'm NOT the “religious right”. I felt this way about murder LONG before I decided to become a Christian.

“It IS murder. Um, we could go around all day on this, but I don't think it will get us anywhere.”

You are 99% correct on that. But it's just like every issue between liberals and conservatives — both try to uncover the logical flaws in the argument. That's what debate is all about.

“Did you forget to read the post, JD? It covers the history of abortion in this country and definitely paints a picture in contrast to this statement. “

Yes, I read the post, roro. Many people have commented on Kathy's “Abortion has been a part of human existence since human beings first took their place on earth”, and then goes on to further justify murdering babies “because it's always been done”. You know something else? Murdering adults has always been around since the beginning (Cain and Able read a bell). That doesn't mean we should run out and legalize it.

That's the flaw in your logic. Life begins at conception. Their is a living organism with human cells and neurological synapses. You don't believe that. As I said before…. If you did, you couldn't bear the guilt of supporting murder.

“Again, this is not an issue of promiscuity. Go back to the thread where I defined that term for you”

Didn't mean to imply that the entire issue was of promiscuity. I meant that liberals and humanists have always been the roman orgy types and homosexual types throughout history. The liberal movement throughout history has stood against God and has stood for paganism/humanism. And as I pointed out above, I thought this way about the historical sociology/anthropology LONG before Christianity entered my life. The raw history supports my assertion that liberalism kills societies.

Has Dennis Kucinich ever made the attempt? =P

Sorry- I can't resist this…. Actually I don't think a really small guy could breathe if he crawled into a woman's uterus. So he'd die. Wouldn't that be suicide? If she let him (obviously he's not big enough to overpower her) then wouldn't she be charged with a criminal act?

Go Oedipus!

But of course, since the rest of your comment shows that you completely buy into Dem party talking points and haven't listened to any of the constructive criticisms of the health care legislation, so it's probably worthless for me to respond to your comment anyway.

The religious right has made this a “religious right issue”. Unless you're willing to dispute the fact that the most militant pro-life people are, in fact, religious, while most non-relgious people are pro-choice or ambivilent?

“A) It IS murder.”

Um, we could go around all day on this, but I don't think it will get us anywhere. It's not considered murder legally. You think it should be. I think it shouldn't. There's not a lot that's going to change either of our positions on that.

“With that logic….. A really small guy could craw into a womans uterus, and it would be perfectly legal to kill him.”

Yep, it sure does follow. If the only way to get this little man out of the woman's uterus will kill him, and if she's not ok with him being there, then yes, it should be perfectly legal to kill him. If there is a way to get him out without killing him (particularly if it will not endanger the health of the woman whose uterus has been usurped), that should be done, and he should be tried and convicted for sexual assault if he was up there of his own volition. If someone sticks any piece of himself into a woman's girly parts, it's totally legal to kill him in self-defense. You know, this is an excellent example of a hypothetical that could be (and is) used to show how ridiculous it is to force a woman to use her own organs against her will. I think most people would see that this little man needs to get the hell out of this woman's uterus if he doesn't wish to be killed in self-defense.

“At one time, abortion was illegal because it was considered murder. “

Did you forget to read the post, JD? It covers the history of abortion in this country and definitely paints a picture in contrast to this statement.

“in order to justify your embrace of promiscuity and pagan living”

Again, this is not an issue of promiscuity. Go back to the thread where I defined that term for you, or just look up the definition. Also, for someone who's trying to argue that I was out of line in bringing up religion in this matter, you sure are eager to paint abortion as a religious issue all of the sudden.

Nice try, roro.
This isn't about “my Church”.

Murder is illegal even to ATHEISTS. There are many, many non-religous people who think that abortion is murder. So don't even try this long-used liberal tactic to attempt to make this a “look at the religous right” issue. Not gonna happen.

A) It IS murder.
B) Our Supreme Court has refused to rule on when life begins. They have refused to rule on whether or not abortion is murder. They simply ruled that (until that it is settled) it is wrong for the government to pry into the “privacy” of what goes on inside a womb.

With that logic….. A really small guy could craw into a womans uterus, and it would be perfectly legal to kill him. Also, it would be illegal to give blood tests or urine samples to prove DUI or drug use.

At one time, abortion was illegal because it was considered murder. Your kind came in and pencil-whipped it in court to make it a “privacy” issue, in order to justify your embrace of promiscuity and pagan living. Go for it. You're doing a great job. It's the way that liberals always operate. If you can't get people to believe your tripe, you force it on them in the court.

“With pro-lifers, it is very much our place to “decide” that all murder is BAD.”

A) It's not murder. You're calling abortion murder is simply not true, regardless of how many times you want to say it. B) The supreme court and our national laws say you don't get to decide what goes on in other people's wombs, just like you don't get to force people to donate their organs to others (even if the donor is dead), just like you and your church don't get to decide what my morals “should” be. That's not how it works.

You are kidding me, right?

Well, let's just go ahead and install genetic engineering there Adolf. Let's only let the truly “choice” kids live and so we can have less “abondoned street children”.

I like and respect you, JSpencer. But this has to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen you put forth.

Abandoning a child is nearly as bad as murdering one in the womb – neither option gives the child a fair chance in society to prove his/her worth. In both cases, the parents are abhorant and irresponsible for failing to step up to their DUTY – the one they immediately and silently volunteered for when they agreed to a sexual encounter.

As for Kathy… This is no way personal toward her. It is, however, something I remain extremely passionate about. If we fail to give children the opportunity to live and succeed; then our world gets worse generation by generation.

No. People on the left (and right, for that matter) skew raw data as you did above to either support their cause or to cloud the waters.

Case in point:
“If you go to second trimester abortions to a certain extent and most definitely third trimester abortions, you're looking at completely different stats which *heavily* lean toward health reasons”

And if you only count women named Alice whose birthdays fall on December 17th, you'd also get another set of numbers, Roro.

The statement stands that with ALL abortions counted as a group, more than 90% of them are for reasons OTHER than for health reasons.

“with pro-choicers is that we don't actually care what you think is the difference between a “good” abortion and “bad” abortion. It's not for you to decide whether those other 90% of women have a reason for abortion that is “acceptable”. “

With pro-lifers, it is very much our place to “decide” that all murder is BAD. If you want to justify murder by sticking your head in the sand or by throwing numbers around to make yourself feel better about calling it something other than murder, that's your right as well.
You feel that I can not justify my “denial of reproductive rights with someone else's body”.
I fell that they cannot justify murder because they cannot afford to deal with the problem that they created.

As with many Asian cultures, who count the age of children starting at conception, we “lifers” believe that life begins at conception, and to kill that life is murder.

JD — I strongly disagree with this statement. The thing is, those of us on the Left do know the statistics, we just interpret them more carefully. You say that 90% of abortions are not undertaken for health reasons. Fine — this is backed up by data. (If you go to second trimester abortions to a certain extent and most definitely third trimester abortions, you're looking at completely different stats which *heavily* lean toward health reasons; most abortions are performed in the 1st trimester, at which point it is legal to abort for any reason, while most health risks aren't assessable within the first three months of pregnancy.) The thing with pro-choicers is that we don't actually care what you think is the difference between a “good” abortion and “bad” abortion. It's not for you to decide whether those other 90% of women have a reason for abortion that is “acceptable”. The phrases “a woman's right to choose” and “a woman's right to control her own body” may sound overly simple to you, but it really and truly is what it comes down to for those of us on the pro-choice side of this argument.

But given what all has been happening this year, is it really, truly surprising?

This is commonplace on the Left, and is potentially detrimental to the greater goal they currently also seek. They came to their conclusion immediately, no matter what the facts are and where reasoning may lead instead.

Well, you started out on a defensible, right path, at least. Abortion and contraception are related…

It's sad that this has been tainted by politics, and as anticipated, it's been corrupted in particularly by leftist politics. (These agitators are apparently willing to wreck the more-general, more-important goal of universal federal health care, just to meet their selfish and illogical demands.) I warned everyone that abortion would not fail to become (or more accurately, to be made) a politicalissue in and of itself, and emerge as such if government (federal) health care takeover and provision was sought, and it was an easy observation to make and report.

Now we're seeing it.

For those folks who might want a lesson on what can happen when irrational views toward abortion are taken to the extreme, do a little research on the policies of Nicolae Ceau?escu.

In 1966, the Ceau?escu regime banned all abortion, and introduced other policies to reverse the very low birth rate and fertility rate – including a special tax amounting to between ten and twenty percent on the incomes of men and women who remained childless after the age of twenty-five, whether married or single. The inability to procreate due to medical reasons did not make a difference. Abortion was permitted only in cases where the woman in question was over forty-two, or already the mother of four (later five) children. Mothers of at least five children would be entitled to significant benefits, while mothers of at least ten children were declared heroine mothers by the Romanian State. However, few women ever sought this status; instead, the average Romanian family during the Communist era had two to three children (see Demographics of Romania).[8] Furthermore, a considerable number of women either died or were maimed during clandestine abortions.[9]

The government also targeted rising divorce rates and made divorce much more difficult – it was decreed that a marriage could be dissolved only in exceptional cases. By the late 1960s, the population began to swell, accompanied by rising poverty and increased homelessness (street children) in the urban areas. In turn, a new problem was created by uncontrollable child abandonment, which swelled the orphanage population (see Cighid). The regime did not acknowledge the existence of HIV/AIDS and outlawed contraception in 1966, a policy situation that on its own would probably have lead to an increase in HIV/AIDS. However the situation in Romania was exacerbated by the provision of blood transfusions to young orphans and hospital patients with the aim of improving their strength. The transfusions of untested blood, often completed on multiple infants or children using a single syringe, led to Romania accounting for 60% of Europe's paediatric HIV/AIDS cases at the turn of the century despite having a population that only makes up around 3% of Europe.