History took a right turn. We now have the code of Hammurabi. English common law and the Napoleonic code don't exist. If you brought someone into the world you had the right to take them out at any age. You're 16 year old is giving you some lip. You give him the look and he is suddenly very agreeable. It was a simpler time.

There are so many who agree with you! Values of personal responsibility should be taught in the home and/or the church - and it is a very private and personal decision to abort. Many religious persons feel that the following verse dictates the beginning of life.

Gen 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Our scientists speak from a material basis, but man is actually spiritual.. . IMO.

If the procedure is on a par with, say, liposuction then, clearly, government should not interfere and you are likely correct in observing an inconsistency among pro-life conservatives.

But the "contradiction" disappears once one countenances the pro-life conviction that abortion kills human beings.

And, while "individual freedom" is certainly at issue, so is the notion of human dignity, which is a core concern of any robust democracy.

I agree that human dignity is fundamental to civilized society and this principle was a primary basis of our representative democracy. However, the question of freedom of conscience is a component of human dignity and any legitimate government must by its nature guarantee freedom of conscience.

Jefferson’s thesis of individual liberty guaranteeing the right of individuals to freedom of conscience was central to the revolution. One of his greatest achievements was his work on religious freedom manifested in The Bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia, circa 1777.

In that masterfully constructed bill Jefferson set forth several points in favor of freedom of conscience and religion:

“…that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint;

that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone;….”

So, yes the conservative movement in this country contradicts it's own purpose buy not standing on its alleged principles of individual freedom and then seeking to use the state to enforce a purely individual choice based on conscience.

To fail to understand this contridiction threatens to undermine the principles of religious freedom for all of us.

Either we have freedom of conscience in this country or we don't.

"Freedom of conscience" does not extend to harm caused to others. We rightly intervene in the affairs of child molesters and rapists, and do not suppose the deliverances of individual conscience one whit relevant here.

And, of course, there is no contradiction if, on the one hand, I desire that government minimize its interference in personal affairs, and, on the other, I desire that there be laws to prevent child molestation and rape. Mill's "Harm Principle" would seem to have all such entailments.

If abortion kills human beings in a way that violates the right to life, and if laws are rightly in place to protect individual rights, then we have compelling reason for seeking restrictions upon or the prohibition of abortion. And, in fact, the mere belief--whether true or false--that abortion kills human beings is sufficient to exonerate pro-life conservatives from your charge of inconsistency.

To suppose that the crux of the abortion issue is, from beginning to end, simply a matter of individual freedom of conscience without so much as addressing the question of whether abortion kills human beings is to beg the question.

No matter how much I personally disagree with abortion, it is not government’s role to intervene in a personal decision. Personal conscience is a product of one’s values and morals.

I would not use the state to take your views and bury them under a sea of religious fervor. I would gladly give my life to protect your right to freedom of religion, among others. But to allow you to impress your religious views on others is as much a threat to religion and personal freedom as any dictator that could rule our country.

In my personal view, the state has a right and obligation to protect life and if a child can live outside the womb they should and ought to be protected as they are a citizen yet born.

Under the Constitution, all other situations become a matter of conscience and medical choice following my earlier arguments.

I respect your views but not your methods.

I used to believe that Rudyard Kipling's poem covered it all - but now using that small two letter word when referring to life and abortion certainly expands the power of that word. . IF

We already have a law that says we can not kill a human (I suppose "murder").

Why do we need one that says no abortions if it is murder.
I doubt that such a law in such a personal and private situation will stop very many abortions.

The fact that no such law exists would not keep you, or anyone else, from opposing abortion.

There is of course that thing about having a law and that does cause some to reconsider violating the law. It also makes many lawbreakers who feel compelled to get an abortion.
We haven't hung many Mothers lately however for breaking such a law.

It would seem that we also may need a law forbidding drinking of alcohol since about 35.000 die each year from it's use.

If the whole purpose therefore for having such a law is to assuage our conscience, then there is another question begged!

I do not feel judgmental enough to tell anyone they can not have a safe, legal abortion. Just as I won't tell them to not get raped, have sex, or be artificially inseminated.

that foolish statement "Just as I won't tell them not to get raped, have sex or be artifically inseminated." How many women do you know who choose to get raped? According to you their to do lists must read something like this:

Monday---have sex
Tuesday--If sex didn't work--get artifically inseminated
Wednesday--Get raped--if time allows
Thursday--get a safe, legal, abortion

I think having sex is great, ditto for artificial insemination if person wants a child and cannot get preggers usual way, abortion, I feel, is up to the individual----rape, is never wanted, never sought after, never invited, otherwise it is not rape. AND it is a crime in every sense of the word. Shame on you for not realizing this.

How to think about an issue is a very different concern from being told what to think about it.

I have strong views on the abortion issue and am quite prepared to argue for them. However, that is not what my post above is about. Rather, I was offering an assessment of an increasingly popular but spurious argument: the claim that pro-life conservatives take an inherently contradictory position. I would urge the same assessment of that particular argument even if I were pro-choice. It’s just a bad argument, and it is so even if the pro-choice position is ultimately right.

Actually, there are bad arguments and oversimplifications all around. Here are a few.

Whether the fetus has a right to life settles the issue.

This is a common assumption of my pro-life friends. But more argument is required. The classic challenge to such an assumption is found in philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson’s A Defense of Abortion She observes that there are many plausible cases in which a person may justifiably be killed or allowed to die despite the right to life. Among other things, the pro-life proponent needs to argue that the unborn child’s right to life trumps the woman’s right to choose. I seldom hear attempts from the pro-life side to argue this in the public square (though it is in the philosophical literature).

How would you feel if you were an unborn child and you knew that your mother wanted to kill you?

Presumably, if I am an unborn child I am incapable of entertaining such thoughts or experiencing such emotions. A textbook that I once used included a short sci-fi story in which aliens capture humans and use them as food. The author’s point was to highlight the terror and horror of such a situation and to draw an analogy to our use of animals for food. But, presumably, chickens are incapable of reflecting upon the full implications of what is happening to them in the way that the author’s characters did, and the force of the story depended upon that reflection. So, too, with this popular, sentimental and spurious pro-life argument.

Are you against abortion? Don’t have one!

Now, the form that this argument takes seems to me to work quite well in the following contexts: “Are you opposed to genital piercing? Don’t have your genitals pierced!” “Don’t like tattoos? Don’t have one!” But in the case of abortion it utterly fails to take the central concern of the pro-life position with any seriousness. For the pro-life conviction is that abortion kills innocent human beings. One might as well argue, “Are you against child molestation? Don’t molest children.” “Are you opposed to slavery? Don’t keep slaves!”

This attempt at argument is similar in import to the “freedom of conscience” argument that I critique above, and so that argument is subject to a similar assessment.

Pro-life advocates say that abortion is murder but then are unwilling to specify the sentence that women should receive for having an abortion. They are thus inconsistent and disingenuous.

This argument has cropped up in recent years. Ultimately, it commits the informal fallacy of ad populum--an appeal to public sentiment. The first issue that must be settled is whether unborn humans count as persons in the morally relevant sense. If they do, then there are moral and, possibly, legal implications. Suppose we think the following argument works:

(1) If unborn children are persons then they have a right to life.
(2) If unborn persons have a right to life, then abortion is murder.
(3) If abortion is murder, then anyone who has an abortion is a murderer.
(4) If anyone who has an abortion is a murderer, then anyone who has an abortion should be prosecuted and sentenced as a murderer.
(5) Therefore, if unborn children are persons, then anyone who has an abortion should be prosecuted and sentenced as a murderer.

Perhaps anyone who thinks that unborn children are persons will simply have to swallow that tough pill at the end and conclude that their cousins and next door neighbors should go to prison for life. And perhaps not. Several of the premises are vulnerable to objections. But more to the point, it would be absurd to attempt to reverse this argument as pro-choice advocates intend. Consider:

(5) If unborn children are persons, then anyone who has an abortion should be prosecuted and sentenced as a murderer.
(6) It is false that anyone who has an abortion should be prosecuted and sentenced as a murderer.
(7) Therefore, it is false that unborn children are persons.

Whether the unborn qualify as persons is a question of metaphysics that is hardly settled by appeal to current public willingness or unwillingness to prosecute abortionists. One might as well urge against animal rights advocates that if animals really had rights, then Truett Cathy should be prosecuted as a murderer of chickens, and so, therefore, animals do not have rights.

Without legal abortions women will have back alley and coat hanger abortions.

This may be so, and if it is so, then it is, of course, tragic. But this observation once again evades the issue of whether the aborted unborn are persons with a right to life. Doctor assisted suicides may be far less messy or painful or frightening as the taking of one’s own life. But it is no argument for doctor assisted suicide that either we legalize it or people will b e forced to blow their own brains out. For perhaps there are good reasons for keeping those brains intact.

Abortion is a woman’s issue. Therefore, men cannot have valid opinions on the matter.

Suppose you read an article by an author whose name is “Pat.” Pat argues forcefully for a pro-choice view. You assume that Pat is a woman, and you are convinced. Later, you learn that Pat is a male. Does that revelation suddenly invalidate the arguments? Whether an argument is valid and has true premises is quite independent of the genitalia possessed by the person urging the argument.

You can dismiss the concept of freedom of conscience but it is the foundation of the very freedom you are using to defend your pro-life position.

If your position is right, then under the Constitution you will have to convince each individual of the "rightness" of your cause. You are not able to use the government to force others to "accept" your position. If the Constitution is amended to allow for this, then we all have lost a precious freedom and we are on the road to theocracy.

Because conservatives frequently advocate that citizens and the government should live by the Constitution, their espoused view that the government should force citizens to give up freedom of conscience is in fact contradictory.

As I said earlier, either we have freedom of conscience or we don’t.

I respect your position. However if your method is to use the government to force people to accept your position, I firmly disagree with this.

You do agree we should all live by the Constitution don’t you?

The point of my above post is not to argue that either the pro-life or pro-choice view is true. The point is simply to point out that certain miserably bad arguments--such as yours--are miserably bad, and they are such regardless of which position is ultimately right. Nothing that you say here even begins to challenge my assessment. You repeat your assertion that conservatives are guilty of some sort of contradiction. I've offered you an argument to the effect that they are not. To repeat the assertion is not to challenge the argument.

Further, the opposition claims loudly and clearly that abortion kills human beings. It is particularly myopic, in that context of debate, to repeat "freedom of conscience" as though it is a mantra. Argue that abortion does not kill human beings. Or argue that abortion does kill human beings, but, somehow, these human beings don't count. Or argue that it is OK to kill human beings after all. You could even argue that it is a joyous thing to kill unborn human beings, and that it should be done with great relish. These positions would at least be relevant.

Do I agree that "we should all live by the Constitution"? That depends.

What is the force of "should" here? It is either moral or non-moral.

Consider the latter first. Then, to ask, "Should we all live by the Constitution?" amounts to asking, "Does living by the Constitution serve as an efficient means to the achievement of non-moral end E?" If this is what you intend (I doubt this), then I need to know which ends you have in mind. For then I would need to assess whether E was, in fact, a worthy end, and, if so, whether living by the Constitution is an efficient means to E.

On the other hand, perhaps your "should" is moral in import. That is, is the implication that we have a moral obligation to live by the Constitution? If so, then either one of two things is further implied.

(A) There is a higher Moral Law--one that that transcends the Constitution--and that Moral Law implies or prescribes that we ought to live by the Constitution.

(B) The Constitution is itself the highest Moral Law, and The Constitution implies or prescribes that we ought to live by the Constitution.

Option (B) is, for a number of reasons (that I'll cite if asked), a piece of nonsense. So perhaps you mean to suggest (A). But if there is such a transcendent Law, then, presumably, this is what we all should live by. In this case, it is a contingent matter whether the Constitution is aligned with that higher Law. Where it is, then, presumably, it serves as a good guide. In the event that it is not, then it should be amended with an eye to moral law. And then, of course, there is the additional concern of whether we or the courts are correctly interpreting that honorable document.

Here, the question, "Should we all live by the Constitution?" is like the question, "Should we do whatever Joe Schmo tells us to do?" The answer is, "Only so long as what Joe Schmo tells us to do is consistent with what moral law entails that we should do." But then, the ground of the obligation isn't Joe's pronouncements but the moral law and its entailments.

Now, in fact, something like (A) is precisely what the signatories of that document intended. They did not conceive themselves to be bootstrapping some sort of Social Contract into existence. That is, the Constitution itself looks to transcendent and objective moral laws.

Roger Taney cited the 5th amendment as grounds for returning Dred Scott to his "owner." Insofar as slaves were rightly regarded as property and not fully persons he was right. The Constitution itself did not speak to this issue. Neither does it speak to the issue of whether the unborn are persons.

The Constitution is quite clear in defense of life, liberty, and property. The protection of life is first not without chance; it is first because it is first. The Constitution’s function is to protect these three essential freedoms from government, nothing else.

I have given you my personal thoughts on when the state has an obligation to protect life and you clearly disagree with this. As someone earlier mentioned, technology is continuality moving the issue of viability outside the womb and our laws should be changed to reflect this. Our goal is to protect life and in this case to protect life of unborn citizens.

Beyond this it is a matter of personal conscience. The fact that pro-life conservatives want to use the government to force their brand of morality on those that have a different belief, is contradictory to their espoused belief in personal freedom. If you believe that this is simply repetitive I agree. It is. Simple truths are always repetitive.

Your argument seems to spin into whether or not we have a choice to live by a Constitution that does not agree with your beliefs. Clearly, you are free to do this and you are just a free to go to prison for violating the freedom of others. This is the cost of faith I suppose.

Like so many other Americans, we simply disagree on this issue.

There are innumerable ways an "abortion" can occur as I'm sure you know.

Many women are unable to carry a "fetus" even for a month and spontaneous abortion occurs.
Some carry for two, three or more months and an "accident" occurs.

Some women, ignorant or not, do things that "cause" an abortion---not even aware that they did so.

Some "fetuses" are diseased or damaged so badly that they can not live even if born.

And I'm sure you are aware of the Palin type babies.

There is no end to these reasons, therefore it is not up to me to pass a stupid law that says any or all of these occurrences are murder.

If you want to try to prove in court that none of these occurrences happened and the abortion was pre-medicated murder, then have at it.

Again, what you want to believe is your business. But not for Mary Jane! Especially since it is totally unlikely that it will prevent even a fraction of the abortions. We have no need for the coat hanger people.

Judith Jarvis Thomson’s A Defense of Abortion

I would like to read this - but message says URL not found.

Never mind - found it here

After 'quickly reading' Thomson's article, I am convinced that government has no business in this issue. This is a highly debated issue - and so much depends on one's personal perception of 'life' and 'rights' and the 'control of the women's body'. At this time, one of the most prestigious groups of ‘predominantly’ men in our country is debating this issue. (The issue of using taxpayer money for the procedure). The House Bill already addresses this issue. (It states no federal funds may be used for the procedure) It will be interesting to see how this is resolved. The use of taxpayer money based on a philosophical/religious point of view is a slippery slope. The use of taxpayer money based on a legal premise is another issue. According to 'law' at this time, abortion is not illegal. To try to make it a crime is truly a slippery slope, IMO. It appears that most citizens will accept not using taxpayer funds for the procedure. An attempt to criminalize abortion by introducing such wording into a legal document could cause a ‘revolution’ like the American man has never seen.

I always enjoy reading Thomson’s stuff. She is a spritely and lucid writer.

While some have little tolerance for the use of seemingly bizarre test cases and thought experiments, such as those that fill Thomson’s article, I think they are helpful in thinking through the full implications of principles or assumptions. In short, I am willing to play Thomson’s game and entertain her examples.

Much of her argument in the referenced article depends upon the strength of her analogies. If you were drugged and kidnapped by members of the “Society of Music Lovers” and awoke the next morning to find that you were hooked up by some medical contraption to save the life of a desperately ill “famous violinist” who will die without this assistance from you, would you be morally obligated to remain? And should you be legally compelled to do so?

She expects that we will agree that the doctor’s argument is unconvincing: “If you detach and leave the violinist will die. And he has a right to life. Therefore, you are obligated to stay put. Oh, by the way, this process will take only nine months and then you may resume your normal lifestyle.”

Her point is that, while it would be very kind—even heroic—of you to consent to remain, you are certainly not obligated, and it would be a bad law indeed that required you, on pain of penalties, to do so.

Of course, I do agree with her here.

The moral we are to draw from her bizarre little story is that Person A’s right to life does not entail the right to the use of Person B’s body—even if that use is necessary for saving A’s life. And this, she thinks, carries over to the abortion issue.

But allow me to tell my own little story.

Consider a scene in the current and excellent A Christmas Carol with Jim Carey. The Ghost of Christmas Past persuades a very reluctant Scrooge fly with him to great heights by touching a bit of that apparition’s robe.

Let’s imagine Scrooge now, a thousand feet up and looking down over London. His very life depends upon the ghost’s continued willingness to bear him aloft. Even Scrooge, we may suppose, has a right to life. Does his right to life entail a right to the continued use of the ghost’s body (forget for the moment that ghosts do not have bodies!). Is the ghost now obligated, and by way of a direct duty to Scrooge, to allow Scrooge to continue to grasp him? I think so. And this is to say that the ghost would be doing Scrooge an injustice were he now, mid-flight, to decide to leave off and take a solo flight as Scrooge drops to his death.

To take a less fanciful example, every passenger aboard the passenger plane is entitled to the continued “use of the pilot’s body”—such as the continued presence of his body aboard the aircraft. (Suppose he is contemplating bailing out as they sleep, as in one of the Indiana Jones movies.) Their lives depend upon him, and so this is, among other things, an entitlement that is guaranteed by their very right to life (and not merely the less serious concern that pilot salaries are paid by passenger fares).

If this much is right, then we are wrong in concluding that one person’s right to life may never entail the right to the use of another person’s body. We could spend the day multiplying actual and fanciful examples in which such an entailment seems to hold.

What is the essential difference between the flying and violinist stories? In both cases, one or more persons’ lives depend upon “the use of another person’s body.” But in these latter, flying, cases, the dependent persons would not have found themselves in that irreversible situation but for some decision on the part of the person whose “body” is required. Scrooge would not have found himself among the clouds but for the encouragement of the ghost. And the passengers might have taken a different flight with a different pilot, or chosen not to fly at all.

Arguably, this is a feature of cases of pregnancy that are the result of consensual sex. Unlike Thomson’s violinist, the unborn child is found to be in an irreversible relation of dependence that would not have obtained at all apart from some act on the part of the woman.

In order to draw a closer analogy to pregnancy, the violinist example requires some tweaking. First, you agreed in advance to allow yourself to be used to save his life. Second, he might have had other options—some other "music lover," perhaps, but, third, once you are hooked up, those other options are ruled out. (This is, of course, not to suggest that the fetus, too, might have had other options but for the mother’s decisions. In that case, the fetus would not have been found to be dependent upon the mother at all for the splendid reason that it otherwise would not have existed.) The violinist’s dependence upon you is now irreversible, though that dependence upon you might never have obtained at all. Does his right to life entail a right to the continued use of your body? I should say so. You are not merely a Good Samaritan for remaining; it is a demand of justice.

It is easy to adjust such Thomsonian examples to take other considerations into account. For instance, as Thomson notes, many or most instances of consensual sex are performed with something other than procreation in mind. Indeed, precautions may have been taken in the form of contraceptives that, alas, failed. If the woman has taken every reasonable precaution to prevent the pregnancy, is it reasonable to think that she must now, nevertheless, lend her body to the growing fetus? What is the analogous violinist case?

Regardless of the contraceptive used, there is always some possibility that pregnancy will result. We have but to work such odds into our story in some way. You did not directly agree to be hooked up to the violinist. Instead, you voluntarily signed up for a kind of "lottery" in which one person out of one hundred will be selected at random. Though the odds that it would be you were 1 in 100, you were chosen. Had you not signed up, some other 100th person would have done so. And had you not been selected from among the 100, someone else would have. But now, you are attached and having second thoughts. But, as stipulated above, it is now too late for any of those other options--his dependence upon you is irreversible once you are attached. Does the violinist’s right to life entail his right to the use of your body? I think so, and I think we have here a much closer analogy to pregnancy than the one offered by Thomson.

Further, as we saw in the pilot example, the notion of “the use of someone’s body” need not be limited to cases such as pregnancy or weird medical treatments. The passengers have a right to the continued presence of the pilot’s body (not to mention alert mind) aboard the aircraft. We enter into all sorts of contracts and covenants that obligate us to work—-building decks, teaching classes, repairing vehicles and piloting planes-—and that work is only accomplished if our bodies are cooperative. (Might one suggest that the mother-child relationship that comes into existence in pregnancy is best regarded as similarly "covenantal" in a way that the victim-violinist relation in Thomson's original story is not?)

If Person A’s right to life does not entail a right to the use of Person B’s body, then what does this imply once the dependent child has come to be born? She has a right to life. Further, she cannot live unless certain essentials are provided, and such provisions most definitely call for “the use of one’s body.” Presently, the courts may require a father to pay child support in the case of a divorce. Thomson allows, at least for the sake of argument, that the unborn possess a full right to life. But if that right does not place any requirements of justice upon mothers, then one wonders why “deadbeat dads” are not to be exonerated? I am not sure that I see a principled distinction that would force paternal labor but excuse the woman from maternal duties.

Finally, one wonders whether Thomson’s conclusions have untoward implications—-at least from the perspective of many within our society—-regarding various welfare programs, or, to take a current and pointed example, health care reform. If Person A’s right to life does not entail the use of Person B’s body, then who says that I must hand over the fruit of my own labor in the form of taxes to be used to pay someone else’s medical bills? One political reality is that the pro-choice position is very often packaged with views favoring such health care reform. One wonders whether one may consistently invoke Thomson’s argument regarding the abortion issue while also supporting such social programs.

You have evidently given this a lot of thought! I re-read Thomson - and couldn't help but laugh (often). As you say - she is such a lucid writer.

I don't know about those mothers who are able to 'carry' babies for others - but I went through the 9 months of allowing another to use my body in order to have life - twice. It is a decision that involves the complete change of ones physical and mental being for nine months and additional time after that if one assumes the responsibility of nurturing that child. . .a lifetime if one bonds with and raises that child.

Her point is that, while it would be very kind—even heroic—of you to consent to remain, you are certainly not obligated, and it would be a bad law indeed that required you, on pain of penalties, to do so.

We are all aware of the different methods of preventing pregnancy . .and sometimes these methods do not work. Should not an individual have the right to determine how and for how long their body can be used to create the life of another? There is a point where . even at conception .. that the 'child' is just matter - not a person. (You addressed this) Men can look at this situation logically and philosophically and reach a different conclusion than most women. I'm not aware of any man who has had the nine-month experience of pregnancy. . .and the VERY DIFFERENT experience of birth - with or without drugs.

Let me share some of my experiences. I've worked with marvelous children who have been placed in foster homes because for one reason or another that had no family to assume responsibility for their care.
I have visited orphanages that house children who for one reason or another are not adopted or placed in foster care. I wish that those who want to MAKE a woman use her body against her wishes to bring a life into this world would be there to take that child and provide the environment that the child deserves. What I feel Thomson did not express in her examples was the emotional and physical reality of pregnancy. (She came pretty close with the violinist ) I see/hear men pontificating about the 'right' to life - but they are not 'hooked up' for nine months. A woman should have the right to make that decision in a timely fashion. The Catholic Church states at conception - as do many other churches. But the Bible says 'man is made of dust (matter) until he receives the breath of life. Scientists have examined matter and determined a time when a fetus can sustain life without the 'body' of the mother. Most women that I know pray that they never have to make a decision about aborting - and I believe that decision should be made by the women, her partner, her doctor, and her value system. I am puzzled why an entire health care reform plan may be in jeopardy because of differences in belief about abortion. I am OK with not using federal funds - for there are some groups who will assist women in need. To make it difficult for women to receive assistance when using their private insurance if any federal funds are involved - is forcing an issue of values on those who also pay taxes - but have a different point of view regarding this situation. Anyway - enjoyed reading your analogies

I believe in the woman's right. I can still remember girls going to hacks when I was in college and getting butchered. The point is, if they don't want to have it, they will go to any extreme. Now days, there are so many ways ....not...to get pregnant, but they don't always work.

Myself, I raised by child by myself, one more would have toppled us over. Not all are so lucky, or insane, as Octomom.
I loved my one too much to jeopardize what little chance they had.

What bothers me most is that pro lifers live in an unreal world. They remind me of the girl that never got married, yet fancied how perfect it would be. They only look at the storybook side of life. It is so much easier to deal with.

They think everything will be rosy. They don't deal with all the nasty realities. They think it is a crime to 'kill a baby', I think it is a crime to make a woman have one. If she doesn't want it, she may really hurt it. That is a fact, like it or not.

People can't MAKE others think as they do.

My advise to all pro lifers is ...take care of the ones that are here now...they are REAL..when you have done that, then come talk to me about taking away a woman's rights. That woman that you are trying to take away her rights may know a whole lot more about that child's future than they do. She may be having an abortion to spare the ones she already has. I don't fault these woman. They are having to make REAL decisions....something the right to lifers don't have to face, or deal with the consequences.

I can still remember girls going to hacks when I was in college and getting butchered.

What college did you attend??? I think I would have transferred to a less violent place.

What a hypocrite you are!

What drugs do you take to stay in your reality?

I think it is a crime to make a woman have one. If she doesn't want it, she may really hurt it. That is a fact, like it or not.

Yes, and assuming that the child has been allowed to be born, the most merciful thing to do is to smother it. That way, we avoid the possibility of its being abused by a resentful mother.

don't give me that ...I give 10.00 to a home bs. Have you ever raise a child? Have you ever dealt with a real child outside of a perfect dream world? Don't stretch...a real answer.

How many have you adopted? how many with special needs? do you work full time and take care of them?

If...you work..has anyone living in your dream world ever helped these women raise or even baby sit these kids? Sorry, you don't know what in the .... you are talking about.

until you take care of the REALL ONES...don't even talk to me about the hypothetical ones!!!!!

IN OTHER WORDS...YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE!

Have you ever dealt with a real child outside of a perfect dream world?

No. I hate children. They annoy and distract me when I am trying to enjoy my perfect dream world.

How many have you adopted? how many with special needs? do you work full time and take care of them?

Thanks to amniocentesis we can identify and abort the retards in advance. One day, God willing, we'll live in a world with no children of special needs.

If...you work..has anyone living in your dream world ever helped these women raise or even baby sit these kids? Sorry, you don't know what in the .... you are talking about.

No. But one day I saw a woman--likely a single mother--struggling with four children and making her way into Kroger. I stopped and held the door for her. She thanked me. I smiled.

until you take care of the REALL ONES...don't even talk to me about the hypothetical ones!!!!!

Hypothetically speaking, imagine a young woman who has decided to terminate her late term abortion. (Perhaps she realizes that raising it would just be too much and she would likely just end up beating and neglecting the child.) Her hypothetical doctor grasps her hypothetical fetus by its hypothetical feet, draws it out as far as its hypothetical head, takes a hypothetical pair of scissors and hypothetically inserts them into the base of its hypothetical skull. Then he removes all of the hypothetical contents of the hypothetical head and delivers a hypothetically dead baby.

What I do know is that some woman know their limitations. I will not sit in judgement of them. Neither will I demand that they have a child they don't want and then go my merry way. Children are a responsibility and not a toy. Have you ever seen an 8month old that has been beaten so much he as knots on his little head and a drunk father standing over him 'thumping him' because he thinks it is cute when the little guy puckers up his bottom lip? I have. When I was a child, someone came to our house and did exactly that. My father took the child away from him. Eventually he got the child back. It was a small town, this same person also had a beautiful teenage daughter who blew her brains out because social services made her go back to her father.

In your world people like Octomom could thrive. In mine, it is a sin when you already have 6, 3 special needs, thats 1/2..and go on to have 8 more just cause you want to. To me, it is a sin, to put your wants in front of the 6 little helpless ones you already have that don't have a choice in the matter. 3 special needs kids need a lot of love and a lot of care.

Most woman make such difficult choices, not out of selfishness, but out of love. To do what is best for all is sometimes very nasty. I much more admire people who try to help the little ones there are here with problems, real problems that last their entire little lives. I've known people who adopped crack babies, it is an up hill battle all their lives. How nice it would be if we could work with the little broken, slightly imperfect ones here already, that need us.
Everyone that is a parent is not a good one.

Yes, lots of really terrible things happen in this world. What does that have to do with abortions?

Why make a woman HAVE a baby? If her cirmustances are such that she can't or won't take care of it, what have you done? If you are going to MAKE her have it...are you willing to support it? It cuts both ways, if you are going to force your will on someone else, that comes with certain responsibilies to take care of the very real child.

To MAKE a woman have a child she doesn't want or maybe can't care for, is irresponsible unless you are going to shoulder YOUR RESPONSIBLITY FOR making your will the final outcome. Anyone who forces someone to have a child they don't want or wont care for, is just as IRRESPONSIBLE as the person that has it and treats it badly, maybe more so.

as I said earlier...

"The world is full of children that aren't being taken care of properly. It seems to me that if you feel it is your responsiblity to MAKE someone have a child, then you too must be responsible for the outcome.My advise to all pro lifers is ...take care of the ones that are here now...they are REAL..when you have done that, then come talk to me about taking away a woman's rights. That woman that you are trying to take away her rights may know a whole lot more about that child's future than you do. She may be having an abortion to spare the ones she already has. I don't fault these woman. They are having to make REAL decisions....something the right to lifers don't have to face, or deal with the consequences."

I also believe in the woman's right to choose. I would prefer adoption but I don't have a problem with early stage abortions. However, abortion isn't the answer to child abuse etc. Abortion is legal right now. Yeah, Octomom is irresponsible white trash but unless you're talking about forcing women to have abortions then how could an abortion have helped that situation? Same thing goes for the abusive dad situation to wrote about. The mom in that situation had the legal right to abort but she choose not too. These stories you are writing about are not arguments for abortion. They are just stories about bad people.

These unwanted children stand a very good chance of being the ones you read about being killed.

If someone is telling me they ..DON'T WANT A KID.. am I going to leave mine with them? Hell no. When you MAKE a woman have a child she doesn't want, you are already stacking the deck against that child. By the way you didn answer...question...would you support this unwanted child? or would you just make the decision for her to have it and walk away? That is my point...I know you said you think abortions are ok, but it is a much deeper thing. In my eyes, it is wrong to make someone have a child they don't want, and then walk away. That is not solution...that is part of the problem.

Everyone wants to make these woman have them, but they don't want to be responsible for the outcome. The outcome is a little helpless child in the hands of someone who could very likely take it out on it in the very real form of abuse.

yes, but the women in these stories had the choice. They choose to have their kids.

when I was a child. They had ..NO..CHOICE!

who is nuts...!

of couples out there trying to adopt. Instead of killing a child why not place for adoption.. A classic win.. win if I ever saw one..

"A little matter will move a party

~Thomas Paine"

. .true - so why are the orphanages full and there is a shortage of foster homes?

They want babies. Sometimes they go overseas to get them. Not so many want older kids, kids with baggage or a bad parental situation that they were pulled from. They want to start with a fresh moldable child, not one with possible physical or emotional issues.

Since people can't figure out for themselves that aborting babies (yes babies, not fetuses) removes newly born babies from the adoption pool, government must solve this problem.

Since the Democrats are in charge, here's what they would do. They would add this to the health dare bill.
Anyone applying for a free abortion certificate would have to schedule a session with an end of life counselor. Since these counselors do double duty helping old people die more quickly, the waiting period is usually 2 months. After the counselor, the applicant must prove that he or she is really "with fetus" and get an ultrasound (1 month wait under Obamacare) and take that to DMV who is also doing double duty issuing abortion certificates. Oddly, this is the quickest part of the process. Of course if any Pro-life people are shown the ultrasound or are hovering within 500 feet of the DMV, it is a $10,000 fine and 1 year in prison - although that can be bartered away by agreeing not to vote in the next 2 elections. Then you take your certificate to the local abortion doctor (2 month wait for an appointment) and get the little critter scraped out of you.

Now, should the child be born at any time during this process or the waiting periods, it will be put on e-bay and sold to the highest bidder. All proceeds donated to the Democratic National Committee.

Think Prezbo can get 60 votes for this plan?

For you to acknowledge or refute that there is a demand for healthy babies regardless of ethnicity in the US. Are there really any healthy babies going into orphanages or foster care without someone trying to terminate parental rights and going through court proceedings? This is the big thing about babies that adamant pro abortion people gloss over. There is a demand for newborn healthy babies. They don't go into the system without someone wanting to adopt them. Your argument that orphanages are proof of a lack of good homes does not hold water in the case of babies

What I have said and still say is there are children in the system waiting to be adopted. It sounds like Hack got his pretty young.

"Your argument that orphanages are proof of a lack of good homes does not hold water in the case of babies" What are you saying..orphanges are good homes? I didn't say they wound up there for lack of good homes...what I said is they wound up there ...because no one wanted them...get it? They are there...these 'good homes' are there...why don't they come get them? could it just be...they don't want them? it looks that way.

The whole point of mine is THERE ARE CHILDREN THERE WANTING AND WAITING. How old they were when placed, I don't know. If it makes you happy I will call someone in the morning.

Does the child have to be brand new? Are you saying a child that is a month/year/ or two years old, doesn't need someone just as much?

You are agreeing, in so many words, with the idea that these people want and deserve a new baby. I would like to be a millionaire too, I'm not, but that doesn't keep me from living and enjoying my life. I think these people's idea of what would make them happy might be off.

When I'm in a store and I hear a child cry, I go see what it the matter. I can't tell from that cry if that child is black, white, or half n half, but it is a child, and I am just as concerned when I hear it, and I don't stop to see if I can tell what color it is. All children deserve the same love.

You seem to want to prove Git's point. He doesn't have one, and neither do you.

my life doesn't revolve around your wants.

I swear your logic reaks of it. You have said over and over again that these babies are not wanted. Not true. Normally a lot of red tape. Sometimes ethnicity plays a role where a child can't get placed with a particular family. I have known people who waited and wiated to take custody of a couple of children and have finally given the green light to adopt. And are there really orphanages here in the US? Please tell me where? A typical decision to abort a healthy baby cannot be justified as there would not be a market for that baby. Now let them get to be eight years old and abused, then I agree with you.

According to social workers - the biggest demand in the states is for a 'white' healthy baby, from 'drug free' parents. Many who have this requirement go to other countries or through private adoption agencies or attorneys. (This is a big business). There are not an abundant number of babies who fit this criterion in the states. . .or who have both parents willing to give up parental rights at the birth of the child.

That is what I anecdotally knew. I am curious if there is still a problem with placing of babies in a culturally different home. There used to be such a problem, not sure if that is the case today.

Google orphanages in the US.

Sadly there are still orphanages in the US. The foster care system is trying to make orphanages an entity of the past.

This discussion is interesting. I have friends and family who are now hoping to adopt a child. It appears that the situation of adopting a racially mixed child has greatly improved. The problem/concerns deals with health, (drug free parent, etc.), emotional state of the child, etc. AT one time a group of African American professionals were against placing AA children in 'white' homes. That situation has changed greatly over the years. (However - society's attitude towards this situation has changed - and it (society) is far more accepting of the child as an individual, etc.) Also, couples of 'adoption' age appear to be interested in making the child aware of and proud of his cultural heritage. Halle Berry's mother is 'white' - but I feel did an excellent job of allowing Halle to be proud of who she is. . .a talented, beautiful woman. [My social worker friend just wrote - "we try to get these kids in homes where they will feel loved and cherished - and if the adults exhibit this - the kid has found a home!]

Pro-life people and anti-gun people are all the same. They are all all or nothing, my way or the highway types. How many lives/abortions would be spared if these people spent half their energy/funds promoting adoption and firearm safety instead of just beating their heads against the wall trying to stop the unstoppable.

Sorry to segway into the gun control topic. In many aspects I just feel the two issues go hand-in-hand.

I'm pro-life....and my daughter IS ADOPTED.

I'm pro-fire arms..... and I HAVE firearms training.

I ride a motorcycle.... and I HAVE taken the safety course.

I can see your point about the gun haters...but I somehow miss your point on the Pro-Lifers. I know many pro-lifers who adopt. I know NO gun haters that promote safety training. I'm just sayin'......

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

The Pro-life movement and the Anti-Gun moment are both very similar in that they both are very well funded and powerful special interest groups who are hell bent on getting their way without any compromise. I spent a little time this morning skimming some pr-life websites and I didn't see any information on adoption. This debate between Muddle, Sugarfoot and other went on for 3 days before anyone even mentioned adoption. Out of all the pro-life bumper stickers I see everyday I can't remember ever seeing one that promoted adoption as an alternative. So I'm just sayin'... I think the Pro-Life people and Anti-Gun could be much more productive if they spent even 20% of there resources promoting alternatives to the things they are against instead of spending 100% of their resources trying to influence legislation in order to force their beliefs on everyone else.

The Pro-life movement and the Anti-Gun moment are both very similar in that they both are very well funded and powerful special interest groups who are hell bent on getting their way without any compromise.

And so are both of these group's opposition movements. The Baby-Butcher movement is also very well funded and hell bent on getting their way without compromise... So what is your point. The NRA is also hell-bent on preserving gun-rights and freedom. Personally I am all for that one.

I spent a little time this morning skimming some pr-life websites and I didn't see any information on adoption.

You didn't put much effort into then. Check out most any Crisis Pregnancy Center and you will discover they promote fully the concept of adoption over killing off the baby. I have known dozens of people personally over the years who have pursued adoption only to find the wait for a baby can be several years long. Many give up domestically and turn to overseas adoptions. Adoption is a wonderful alternative to abortion and one that I would also encourage for my daughters over abortion any day.

Adoption = Failed Abortion

This debate between Muddle, Sugarfoot and other went on for 3 days before anyone even mentioned adoption.

Hmmmmm..... perhaps none of the baby butcher proponents thought to ask what one of the alternatives to abortion was. Or perhaps...they just don't care. But I'm glad to see you guys got around to it.

Out of all the pro-life bumper stickers I see everyday I can't remember ever seeing one that promoted adoption as an alternative. So I'm just sayin'...

Guess you aren't very observant. I have.

ADOPTION - The Caring Option

Choose Adoption Over Abortion

So I'm just sayin....

I think the Pro-Life people and Anti-Gun could be much more productive if they spent even 20% of there resources promoting alternatives to the things they are against instead of spending 100% of their resources trying to influence legislation in order to force their beliefs on everyone else.

I do have to agree to some degree. But.. I won't defend the gun haters so I will speak to the Pro-Life side of this. I fully understand and think you will agree with me that the first and foremost focus of the Pro-life Movement is to save the child. I agree with that concept and understand the concern and urgency of that movement considering the millions of babies that are butchered every year.

Now if you were to know people involved in the Pro-Life movement as I have over the years, you will find that these folk are HUGE advocates of adoption and many have personally adopted these children themselves and / or are active mutually with organizations that promote adoption and / or assist the birth-mothers that decide to keep their children. So I think your ignorance of those involved and dedicated to saving babies shows big time in your post Matt.

Now with that said I'm sure I'm going to hear from Suggyfoot about back ally clothes hanger abortions that rip the baby from the mother's womb while she ignores the fact that clinical abortions also rip the the baby from it's mommy's womb... at a very profitable rate might I add.

Look Matt.... Respectfully.... I do not think we are going to legislate a ban on abortion. I truly believe people's hearts must be changed in this regard. However..My biggest beef is that the Butcher The Baby Movement complains about the Pro-Lifers trying to get the gumament involved in saving babies while Baby Killer Movement is working to pass laws to fund and kill babies via tax payer dollars.

So why should the Pro-life movement cede their battle when the Baby Killer Movement refuses to? Just askin'.......

I for one rejoice daily that my beautiful daughter is a product of a failed abortion.

Adoption.... NOT ABORTION

Remember...The choice was made when she spread her legs.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

when old "uncle Joe" raped her, huh?

Poverty always brings on more unwanted babies!

Those able to adopt are extremely selective in their choices. Ever see a couple take one assigned at random?
More are put into the world, never adopted, from adoption agencies than are adopted by anyone.
Twice that many from single Mothers.

Isn't all of this caused by religion? "Marriage?"

Our old Biblical heroes had hundreds of kids from concubines and many wives but could feed them so it was OK!

Isn't feeding them our real gripe?

when old "uncle Joe" raped her, huh?

Just because your family stems from a long line of inbreeding doesn't mean you are an authority on everything. For Nellie's sake I sure hope they moved her well away from you. Why not go back to disparaging our National Guard Troops as you did a few minutes ago. You are such a natural at that and it will take you mind off your niece.

Those able to adopt are extremely selective in their choices. Ever see a couple take one assigned at random?

Idiot... most are assigned random. Mine was.

More are put into the world, never adopted, from adoption agencies than are adopted by anyone.

We're talking babies here knucklehead. There are waits of often times several years to get a baby you silly old fool. Do you ever think before babble?

Isn't feeding them our real gripe?

Is that your real gripe? Will you gripe when they start rationing healthcare to senile old fools in the future?

Go back to your frothing hatred of Bush and telling us how awful our military is as they, in your opinion, operate outside of the law which classifies them as criminals. You sir....are freaking piece of work. Back to your corner old man..take your prescribed pill and bow down to the earthen Chia Pet you have sitting at your altar. Lift your prayers to the DNC... Perhaps they will hear you and save you.

Side Note: Next time Bonker$ comes up missing and I show concern and wishes for his return.... someone please... please come up and kick me.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

and just ignore Bonker$ et-al.

Since he can't distinguish the green pill from the red pill he just takes both and then starts typing.

Suggarfoot will bi$%h about my hunting feral dogs but thinks it's ok to make an appointment to kill a child. (I can't fathom that one either)

If you don't have one already I'll gladly send you a mouse pad that says "Bang head here!".

Keep up the 'GOOD' fight.

Suggarfoot will bi$%h about my hunting feral dogs but thinks it's ok to make an appointment to kill a child. (I can't fathom that one either

What always amazes me about these people is they will contribute money to some abused dog they feature night after night on Channel 2 news but when the abused subject is an 8 or 10 year old child they conveniently temper their outrage and concern. I suppose it is the sign of back-assward times my friend.

Regarding the mouse pad..... This old hard head is well equipped to take lumps for the cause of the "GOOD FIGHT".

and just ignore Bonker$ et-al.

Well...lately I have for the most part. But you know how it is... you're sitting around the campfire late at night with your buddies... and you have a pocket full of firecrackers... and you know... ya just can't resist.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

Let's just get the facts straight:

"Remember...The choice was made when she spread her legs."

Not a good depiction of the cause of our abortion crisis IMHO. Many women are raped by dates and strangers. Many are lied to and convinced that "If you loved me you would.."

I don't think it productive to scapegoat women in this.

"There are waits of often times several years to get a baby you silly old fool."

Here is a stone cold solid FACT Git: We made our decision to adopt in 2001. We saw endless pictures of the over 500,000 kids in foster homes and orphanages waiting for parents. These kids are part of the tax burden that have tea partiers so riled up. They are "consumers."
They are not "producers." They count 100% on taxpayer-funded aka government healthcare, because that is all they have.

We took one month of adoption classes, met our mixed-race son in June, we took him home in July, and Judge English finalized our adoption that October.

Anyone familiar with adoption of children in State custody should know it is a VERY EXPEDITIOUS process. There is very little delay. There is VERY LITTLE cost.

Git, I wish it was true that the focus of the pro life movement was the life of each and every child in foster situations and orphanages. But that is not the case.

While we fight to keep taxes low and vilify any "socialist" that might even suggest a tax increase, we refuse to look at the cost of lives (and wars for that matter) that necessitate a revised tax code and spending agenda.

Just my two cents. I don't want people to think it is at all difficult to rescue a child from state custody.

Cheers

Kevin "Hack" King

I thought the conversation revolved around adopting babies that would otherwise become butchered at the murderous hands of abortion providers and not aged kids in foster homes. But I see your point. Until we use up the surplus kids you speak of then by all means....let's slay the rest of the unborn bastards. Sounds practical, humane and progressive to me. In the spirit of recycling, I'm sure there is a market out there for baby carcasses to use in stem cell research, catfish bait or at delicatessens that cater to blood thirsty left-wingers.

I suppose what we need now is a government agency to determine which pregnancy is allowed to survive and which pregnancy must be terminated. I'm thinking this could be accomplished by setting up regional boards that certify all births. If a pregnancy is not certified then the birthmother loses all medical benefits and risks the confiscation of the out-of-womb fetus. I'm slow...but see...I'm coming around.

Glad we got that all cleared up. Heck...if you can't beat 'em.... Join 'em.

Aside from all this, I hope your family is doing well.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

"In the spirit of recycling, I'm sure there is a market out there for baby carcasses to use in stem cell research, catfish bait or at delicatessens that cater to blood thirsty left-wingers."

You forgot 'Soylent Green'.

As for Kevin's post I see no difference between rapists and the 'oh baby if you love me you'll..., types.

Because of them the .22 is a vary popular caliber.

As for Kevin's post I see no difference between rapists and the 'oh baby if you love me you'll..., types.

Because of them the .22 is a very popular caliber.

One day...I hope to meet my beautiful daughter's cowardly piece of human debris sperm depositor. With a baseball bat.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

You made the recycling argument up yourself so you can argue it.Even if the subject matter was whether or not super models would be anorexic on the moon, there is NO NEED to:

1) Scapegoat women.

and

2) Try to give people the impression that adopting children is difficult. It's not, unless you have a narrow preference list. And, by the way, my son was 12 months old. Not "aged" by any stretch of the imagination.

Now you can feel free to continue your argument that abortion (which has been legal since 1973) is "murder." I'm not getting into that unwinnable argument. But let's not twist facts in making our points.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

No bain involved here for you. You chimed in and I addressed several points that go beyond what you wrote. I shall respectfully respond back at the points you list.

1. Scapegoating Women - Don't scapegoat Git by tossing that one out there on me. I'm not scapegoating women. I made it very clear in other posts that the 'sperm depositor' (not ever to be referred to as a man) should never be let off the hook regarding their role in contributing to a pregnancy. I fully understand many of the issues and hurts women go through in this regard. So put this one to rest.

2. Impression That Adopting Is Difficult - Adopting a newborn is difficult for the most part. There are many people who are not cut out for various reasons to adopt older children that come from often times horrific circumstances. Finding homes for these children is a difficult challenge and is a totally different issue compared to infant babies and the huge demand for them. I am so happy that your wait was short. For most adoptive parents that wait on newborns or infants the wait is not so short as the demand for newborns is tremendous as people starting families have strong desires to raise a family from the baby stage on up in and environment and with conditions that most closely resembles that of families that are of a biological nature. Is that a selfish desire? I think not. It is an honorable and commendable act of love and wonderful way to build a family.

Many people feel led to adopt and foster children from the toddler age up. God bless them...from the bottom of my heart. In these cases it often takes someone with a special calling or gift to deal with many of the issues that accompany these children. Many people are not equipped or 'wired' in a manner to be able to handle these sort of children. That does not mean they are bad parents or anything like that. On the contrary they may very well be perfect candidates for a newborn adoption and perfectly equipped to raise them admirably.

The direction of this conversation got hijacked when posters who were not able to intellectually argue the wonderful alternative of adoption over abortion and instead tried to inject an unrelated angle into the argument.

Now you can feel free to continue your argument that abortion (which has been legal since 1973) is "murder."

Dude... Abortion is legal yes. I'm not arguing that. Nor do I think that law will ever change. But that doesn't make abortion right or change the fact that abortion equates to ripping a baby to shreds and killing it inside or outside the womb. Abortion advocates can dress-up abortion terminology in any way they choose as to make the act more... errr.... digestible for the general public. But anyway they dress it up....it is still a very ugly and brutal act of killing a life.

Abortion may be legal and many people may accept that fact with much reserve. But, for the government to fund it and promote it with taxpayer dollars and not promote the alternative of adoption is an unacceptable function of government.

So buddy.... don't accuse of me of "twisting facts" when there is a huge and lengthy backlog of adoptive parents waiting for newborns. Not to mention the 'many' that fore-go the process knowing how lengthy the wait is and the expense involved.

So "cheers" back atcha man. Best to ya and your wonderful son. Tell your adoption story often Kevin. It is one to be proud of.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

Don't want people to think I sympathize with non-bleeding-heart liberals:

Love ya man! I still remember you and Thing 1 and 2 down in Orlando. Keep raisin 'em right. .... I mean, correctly

Kevin "Hack" King

To reason with an bleeding-heart that knows when to back away from the DNC playbook and talking points.

Peace and prosperity to you this Christmas and throughout 2010. And fear not..... The Gitlets are being raised correctly in the 'right' way.

Hmmmmmm...right now I'm about ready to ring Thing 2's neck. That kid is a character.... must git it from her momma.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

I think that you are as aware as I that foster homes in the USA are full of kids who could be adopted. From infants to teenagers.

The world is full of mostly other races to be adopted, especially in Africa.

I give you credit for taking a randomly selected baby---most will not do that! They fill out forms as to what they want.

The uncle Joe wasn't mine! You changed the subject.
No one disparaged the National Guard troops---just the management
You knew what I was talking about.

None of the rest of your babble is worth commenting about!

Bonkers is right. There are a lot of kids in foster homes. Having been a parent, I've seen some kids that are little heart breakers.

When mine makes it off to college, (Oh please God), I'm thinking about taking a foster kid. I love kids but I'm too old to raise another, it wouldn't be fair. But I could take one in and love the fool out of them for a little while, untill someone better for them came along.

Have you ever thought about that? I bet you and your wife would enjoy that now that you have one adopted one that is yours.

Well Foster away Suggyfoot. I commend you for that. But the discussion is about killing off babies. Not fostering children. Yet that is a great topic to get into without changing the subject at hand.

Have you ever thought about that? I bet you and your wife would enjoy that now that you have one adopted one that is yours.

Well yes we have thank you very much and not that I owe you answer on this.... and that just may very well well happen one day. Now let's get back to the subject of justifying the butchering of human life for the sake of conveinence's sake.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

this is the last I'm going to say on it.

To me, the subject is unwanted or unneeded children, sad but real. We differ what the woman's rights are. It is her decision.

I don't think of it as butchering, you do. I don't think of an early term pregnancy as a child, you do.

Something we can both agree on is there are real children waiting in orphanages or foster year after year for someone to come love them.

It is Christmas, have you ever thought that this conversation may have been a nudge by someone bigger than both of us to help you make up your mind about a foster child?

They are real and you have a big heart.

Merry Christmas.

"I don't think of it as butchering, you do. I don't think of an early term pregnancy as a child, you do."

I guess, based on your statement, that it would entirely depend upon whether or not that early term pregnancy is wanted or unwanted. I can assure you that any woman who has endured the miscarriage of a wanted early term pregnancy considered that loss as a child.

I have read many of your past posts and deduct that you are likely a very compassionate being, so I am sure that you would consider that loss to be a child as well - because it was wanted. So, the difference seems to be the mothers intent. If it is wanted - it is a child....If it is not - then it was never a child.

As for the issue of butchering....I don't consider these women as butchers or murderers either. My feeling is that, most often, these women (mostly young women) are terrified and desperate. I don't think it would be fair to equate them to the likes of Ted Bundy.

"The most beautiful things in life cannot be seen or even touched, they must be felt with the heart." - Helen Keller

The reason I made the comment about the miscarages was that I saw first hand the state of the fetus, there was no way it could have lived outside the womb, it couldn't even live ..INSIDE..

It was heart breaking, because I wanted a child, but what I saw was not, in my eyes, a child.

I would never judge these women and I don't think anyone else should.

This is a site I was looking at last night. It gives a break down of when most abortions are done. It also talks about a Dr Tiller that was killed by one of the nut cases. He did the 'so called' late term abortions. Several women wrote in and gave their circumstances and praised Dr Tiller.

I sat there and thought, thank God I've never been in these women's shoes. But I also gave a lot of thought to Dr Tiller.

I think he was a good and brave man with a deep conviction that he was doing the right thing. People can not make blanket statements, this is right, this is wrong in such tradgedy as these woman talk about. My heart goes out to all of them.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/02/thirdtrimester-abortions-facts-stories-and-how-you-can-help-0

To me, the subject is unwanted or unneeded children, sad but real.

Unneeded Children???? I think I just got a peek into the window of your soul. OMG!!!!

We differ what the woman's rights are. It is her decision.

Yes...it is her decision. One that she is often times coerced into without thoughtful and considerate counseling of all her options.

I don't think of it as butchering

Of course you don't Sugarfoot. The baby is, as you put it...Just an "unwanted and unneeded child". And you view that unwanted child much as I view my enjoyment of eating steak. You don't want to know or imagine in your mind the brutal butchering of your "unwanted and unneeded baby" much like I don't want to view the slaughter of my 12 oz rib-eye right before I sink my teeth into it. In the same manner, I prefer the term processing when it comes to my beloved beef appetite.

It is understandable why you would choose a term such as medical procedure or the sort when describing the brutal act that actually transpires. Can't say I fault you there.

Something we can both agree on is there are real children waiting in orphanages or foster year after year for someone to come love them.

They are real and you have a big heart.

Thanks for your nudge attempt to instill a hint of guilt into my being. But I am not ashamed as to what I contribute toward those who find themselves in less-than-desirable circumstances. I feel no inclination to defend my philanthropic acts of love or lack thereof to you. But what I will say is..... I sleep well in that regard. And yes...we can all do more. But I fear what I am able to do will become less as my government butchers my livelihood and income in the near future.

Merry Christmas. We do need to take pause, throw up the white flag, and focus a bit more on what this time of year represents.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

"SHE MADE HER CHOICE WHEN SHE SPREAD HER LEGS." Well, the sad thing about that is each time "she makes a choice by spreading her legs" there is a male who makes his choice by unzipping his pants. The unfair thing about that is "he" can go on with his life with no reprecussions if he so chooses, "she" does not have that choice. The male does not have to deal with any of the mental, physical, or emotional things the female has to deal with regardless of her choice. Sometimes life is very unfair--but no baby ever gets made by a mother alone.

"Isn't feeding them our real gripe?" This is it in a nut shell. There are little unwanted kids that aren't being taken care of.

and Mytmite, you got em right between the eyes, or truthfully, a little lower!

"The unfair thing about that is "he" can go on with his life with no reprecussions if he so chooses, "she" does not have that choice. The male does not have to deal with any of the mental, physical, or emotional things the female has to deal with regardless of her choice. Sometimes life is very unfair--but no baby ever gets made by a mother alone."

There are a lot of irresponsible men out there that still don't pay support, and won't. Mine moved out of state, and pulled so many things, not the least of which was to try to brainwash my child how mean Mommy was that she was trying to making poor sick Daddy pay. I didn't give up, I just said we will make it on our own, and we did, not very well, but we did. A lot of women CAN'T... I was just lucky.

The truth is, the saftey net for these kids and their Moms isn't very good.

and Mytmite, you got em right between the eyes, or truthfully, a little lower!

Oh yeah.. she really nailed me. Nailed me so hard even though I agree with her. Think and comprehend before you type Suggy. Please.

"The unfair thing about that is "he" can go on with his life with no reprecussions if he so chooses,Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

what she and I were talking about was 'the he' in the equation. No one said she nailed you, it wasn't directed at you.

I concur with you 100%. I detest my adopted daughter's sperm donor. I in fact..loath him knowing what he did to the birthmother of my daughter. But...I am sure there are others on here that would side with him. The same ones that endorse killing off unborn babies and those who defend Islamo Fascist Terrorists.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

It's funny Suggy how you missed this response as if I would defend the males or ignore their contributions to the pregnancy. Yet you reply above as if I disagreed with MYTMITE. Typical.....

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

That statement is very telling of your comtempt for these women. She SHLeggs for 'who?' Where is the guy in all this?

If you are honest with yourself, you didn't want just any baby to love, you wanted the perfect little white one with nothing wrong with it. You guys say you believe in adoption, but only selective. Case in point...IN ALL THE DEMONSTRATIONS ON TV, I'VE NEVER ...ONCE...SEEN ONE PERSON STANDING OUT FRONT OF A CLINIC WITH A SIGN SAYING...I'LL ADOPT..THIS IS MY NAME AND PHONE NUMBER.

The reason is, you don't want just any baby. The ones that are NOT so perfect can go right on through. There are tons of not so perfect out there living right now.

If you really believed it was killing only, and not just wanting the perfect baby, you guys would be setting up a fund so these woman could support the kid right?

The truth is, you want that perfect kid. If you didn't you could have a housefull right now.

MAKING these women HAVE these babies isn't going to guarentee you get it. If they are MADE to have it, a relative would get priotory over you.

Again, take care of all the little unwanted ones that we have, ...or.... come up with a waiting list of you guys that will unconditionaly take the child of the next woman walking throught the clinic doors...or...set up a fun for these woman to raise these kids, and we can talk. Untill you do, there are a lot of holes in your 'baby butcher' stories.

That statement is very telling of your comtempt for these women. She SHLeggs for 'who?'

No contempt you silly woman. No contempt at all. In fact my daughter's birth-mother is a hero to me.

Where is the guy in all this?

At least you didn't call them men. I would refer to them as pieces of irresponsible and low-life human debris.

If you are honest with yourself, you didn't want just any baby to love, you wanted the perfect little white one with nothing wrong with it.

Keep talking through you a$$ Suggybear. Fact be known my perfect baby is half white and my bride and I determined we would love whatever baby God brought to us in whatever condition it was in. What's your next point you predictable babbling old bat. I'll continue to value the concept of life. Knowing I'll never change you mind you continue on with your appetite for baby mutilations. Continue on with your sick assumptions......

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

"I have known dozens of people personally over the years who have pursued adoption only to find the wait for a baby can be several years long. Many give up domestically and turn to overseas "

I was at a friends for Thanksgiving, she was keeping a friends of her's child that was having to work. The friend was black and single, but she was fostering a little white 9-10ish crack boy. The little boy had grew up in the system, there was no waiting list for him.
Again, until I see all these right to lifers either standing with a poster with their name in front of the clinics, saying they will take these kids unconditionaly, or them funding the mothers that want to keep their kids and can't, I don't know that you have an argument.

Your kid might be part black, it may not, if it realy is, God bless you.

Gee..where do I start here. It's really not worth my time. But what the heck...

I was at a friends for Thanksgiving, she was keeping a friends of her's child that was having to work. The friend was black and single, but she was fostering a little white 9-10ish crack boy. The little boy had grew up in the system, there was no waiting list for him.

So your solution is to kill the white crack baby off?

Again, until I see all these right to lifers either standing with a poster with their name in front of the clinics, saying they will take these kids unconditionaly, or them funding the mothers that want to keep their kids and can't, I don't know that you have an argument.

So because nobody is standing outside the clinics with your desired sign that means there is no reason to halt the brutal butchering of an innocent life? Why does that sound sick and twisted to me???

As far as funding them... we do fund them silly. End of story there.

There is not reasoning with someone like you on this. But I'd bet that if before birth YOU were offered the CHOICE as to whether you would live or die... no doubt you would choose life. Aren't you glad your mommy chose life?

Your kid might be part black, it may not, if it realy is, God bless you.

You bigot! I never once said my baby girl was black. I said she was half-white. So I guess your God bless me doesn't apply.

Sheesh...... It would be a waste of time to share the experience of what we went through in our adoption process and how we finally concluded that if our child was half black, handicapped or whatever... that when our child arrived it was not for us to turn down the gift God brought to us. That was settled before we ever received our child.

Dang...I suppose now that you've discovered that my child is not half-black as you assumed...then your wishes toward me are God d__n you. As if her being half something else makes her a lesser person in your eyes.

The librul mindset... Okay... respond back.... let's roll.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

experience of what we went through in our adoption process and how we finally concluded that if our child was half black, handicapped or whatever... that when our child arrived it was not for us to turn down the gift God brought to us.

I'm truly happy that you and your wife came to that conclusion - sincerely. . . .but don't you see just a tinge of 'racism' here? black, handicapped, or whatever In our marvelous country, we have so many, many strengths. To deny that we still suffer from this evil called 'racism' is like living in a dream world. I have hope that those under 40 are beginning to move beyond this 'illness'. Believe me - this illness exists in the mindset of ALL Americans, IMO - no matter how or who tries to deny it. This is not just a ‘liberal or conservative’ issue. (And Mytimite, if you’re reading this, I include ALL Americans)

is just what I wanted to draw out of you. I'm not being mean, but trying to make you look at things.

You and your friends waited on babies, I'm trying to make the point, they were and are there.

I have not said, nor do I know all the solutions. What I do know is that if a lot of right to lifers realy look at why they want these kids born, it is a much more personal reason than the fact that you 'think' this is killing a child.

In my mind, early aboritions are not wrong. I've had one child n 3 miscarrages, and am confortable with my feelings. How many times have you been pregnant?

is just what I wanted to draw out of you. I'm not being mean, but trying to make you look at things.

Oh PLEEEEEEEEEZE. Don't pee on my foot and try to tell me it's raining. You got nailed with your prejudiced bigotry so deal with. Stop trying to Bonker your way out it.

"But trying to MAKE me look at things"...... Ummm... I see things pretty clearly. That is not even worth dignifying with an answer. (eyes rolling)

You and your friends waited on babies, I'm trying to make the point, they were and are there.

Uh-huh... Riiiight..... Just laying around for the pickin'. I suppose you are right that there are plenty of them if you want 'dead ones'.

I have not said, nor do I know all the solutions. What I do know is that if a lot of right to lifers realy look at why they want these kids born, it is a much more personal reason than the fact that you 'think' this is killing a child.

Ummm could it be that Pro-lifers actually.. err... value life? Hmmmmmm????

In my mind, early aboritions are not wrong.

Okay...say let's give you that one. Then why are justifications viciously fought for abortions to be given at anytime during a pregnancy? Even up to the point where the baby can be born and survive outside the womb? But for some reason... those of you that feel human life is disposable would rather destroy a life over raising it.

I've had one child n 3 miscarrages, and am confortable with my feelings. How many times have you been pregnant?

Gee Suggyfoot. I'm comfortable with my feeling too. I feel real good about NOT being comfortable about ripping unborn babies apart in the mother's womb as a method of absolving responsibilities. Sorry about your miscarriages. I don't understand one bit about how they equate to abortion. If you choose to discuss miscarriages then I won't be able to relate. But I do know plenty of ladies that do understand the horror and suffering of those tragic experiences. Regarding how many times "have I been pregnant"? Well duh..none. What the heck does that have to do with anything you silly goose. My wife has... and I've been through it with her. So what you are saying is that because I can't become pregnant that I have no right to participate in this conversation? Okay...then by YOUR way of thinking, because a woman cannot compete in college football then women shouldn't be allowed to watch or comment on the games. I get it now.....

Draw me out.... what a laugh. I caught you dead to rights exposing your bigotry. Time for you to go lie down in the corner with Bonker$.

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

Drop the subject. You can never win in an argument on abortion. That is why Boortz will never discuss it. Just pass out the morning after pill, and begin sending massive amounts of birth control to the masses around the world. No birth control then no money will be sent.

It's obvious that you enjoy beating you head against a wall!

Thank you sir may I have another. LOL!

Obama.... The Bernie Madoff Of Washington

Spoken like a true Cadet! I don't know much, but what I do know is that I ain't touching this discussion. Monday, we celebrate our 41st Anniversary, 2 healthy kids (now adults)and no regrets about how we did it!

There are a lot of little kids out there that need someone.

You are right, they are very similar. "My way or the highway" doesn't get it. Nothing is ever so simple.

There are so many ..real..kids out there that need someone, but people want the perfect child, the perfect circumstance. If they would give some of these little guys a chance, they would love them just as much.

People don't ...dooooo what they are suppose to. If they did...all those 'thousands' you are talking about would have settled for a half white, black, or disabled baby. They won't. There are plenty of crack babies to go around.

We are back to 'the perfect world deal'. Why won't the white women be the baby factories for the yuppies who want only the perfect child? I don't know, maybe they are too busy in their real world to care that the yuppies just want a little white perfect baby.

"Ya know kid, you are just lucky that I decided to have pain and keep you. Ya know I didn't have to? I could have flushed yer sorry butt down the toilet or out the trash!"
Poor kid "I know mamma. Thank you for raisin me all by yer lonesome"
"You had no right to live, you still don't!" says Mamma Suggarfoot
She continues "And don't you complain about schoolin! If you haven't graduated yet, then you have no right to speak about it! You got me?"
Poor kid "yes momma, sorry. Can I find my manhood when I am 18?"
"Nope, it gone. I put it in a box in the closet. You don't need it with me around!"

Man, I feel like Bonkers. Suggarfoot, is it okay to kill a full term fetus? Is it? Is it okay for someone else to kill that bag of cells called a fetus? Where do you draw the line?

As far as your personal comment about my family...

"Can I find my manhood when I am 18?"
"Nope, it gone. I put it in a box in the closet. You don't need it with me around!"

We all know you have a house full of geldings!