At best an idealism, because I would imagine that a ban on all abortion would turn out about as successful as the ban on marijuana. Bear in mind that whatever the government tries to ban it loses control over it, and the more people who disagree with the ban, the more crazy out of control the situation gets. Around 50% or more of the people believe in abortion rights, so you can get some idea from there how banning abortion would turn out.

That 50% may not be that high, anymore based on some stats I saw, recently (but now can't find). Moreover, many of the people who believe in abortion rights run the gauntlet from open abortions, abortions only when the life of the mother is endangered, only for rape, incest, etc. By that standard, I am pro choice since I believe it should be a option to save the life of the mother.

I honestly don't understand the question and why you asked me.

PP - I think the concept is "when you are losing the discussion, bring up a side issue to derail the opposition". The name of this thread being "The Abortion Issue" should be a hint to those who would bring up legalizing marijuana (who might that be?) and other issues that are not related.

I find it mildly amusing that there are some on this forum who demand answers and even in a specific format (yes or no for example) concerning questions that don't necessarily relate to the topic. "Were you or were you not in your skin on January 1, 1993?".

I get it, Prune. No abortion. That is pretty clear, simple and to the point. Count me in as well. That's my stand.

This is a very simple issue: the right to kill vs. the right to live.

And just how far do you make the government go in helping it to enforce some ban on abortion? What if a dispatcher radios a cop that there's an abortion soon to begin at 1120 N. B St., but 15 seconds later the dispatcher tells the cop that there's an armed robbery in progress at First National Bank. What situation should the cop respond to first? Prunepicker?

At best an idealism, because I would imagine that a ban on all abortion would
turn out about as successful as the ban on marijuana.
Of course it's idealism, but very reasonable. Oh for a world where children
can't be murdered, tortured or ripped apart at a whim.

Marijuana is illegal and rightly so. The same for heroin and other controlled
substances. Like murdering children on a whim they don't contribute
positively to society.

Marijuana is illegal and rightly so. The same for heroin and other controlled
substances. Like murdering children on a whim they don't contribute
positively to society.
Then I gather you feel that medical marijuana is without a doubt quack medicine.

Then I gather you feel that medical marijuana is without a doubt quack
medicine.
How did you come up with that conclusion?

Simply because you wrote marijuana is illegal and rightly so.

Of course it's idealism, but very reasonable. Oh for a world where children
can't be murdered, tortured or ripped apart at a whim.

How dare you be so wrong and fool hardy as to think banning abortion is the proper solution to the killing of unborn babies in the womb. In Latin America where all, if not most abortion, is banned is where we have many of the world's highest rates of abortion. And interestingly enough, Cuba, where abortion is legal, the abortion rate is one of the lowest of the Latin American countries.

So if you really care about the slaughter of the unborn and the unspeakable pain you strongly believe they go through at the moment of abortion, in no way should the banning of abortion even remotely be given serious thought.

Source: LATIN AMERICA: Abortion - Still Illegal, Still Killing, Despite Growing Awareness - IPS ipsnews.net (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50621)

PP - I think the concept is "when you are losing the discussion, bring up a side issue to derail the opposition". The name of this thread being "The Abortion Issue" should be a hint to those who would bring up legalizing marijuana (who might that be?) and other issues that are not related.

I find it mildly amusing that there are some on this forum who demand answers and even in a specific format (yes or no for example) concerning questions that don't necessarily relate to the topic. "Were you or were you not in your skin on January 1, 1993?".

I get it, Prune. No abortion. That is pretty clear, simple and to the point. Count me in as well. That's my stand.

So do you really want to win the argument that banning abortion is, by far, the right thing to do? Then show me a country where abortion has apparently been successfully banned as indicated from its abortion rate being at or near zero, and it's a place you'd love to live in, while soaking up all the more highly moral atmosphere that successfully banning abortion has presumably produced. This assuming the country would actually allow you to live there and practice your religion. (Hint: It might be Saudi Arabia.)

How dare you be so wrong and fool hardy as to think banning abortion is the proper solution to the killing of unborn babies in the womb. In Latin America where all, if not most abortion, is banned is where we have many of the world's highest rates of abortion. And interestingly enough, Cuba, where abortion is legal, the abortion rate is one of the lowest of the Latin American countries.

So if you really care about the slaughter of the unborn and the unspeakable pain you strongly believe they go through at the moment of abortion, in no way should the banning of abortion even remotely be given serious thought.

Source: LATIN AMERICA: Abortion - Still Illegal, Still Killing, Despite Growing Awareness - IPS ipsnews.net (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50621)

If you don't practice birth control, the pregnancy rate is going to skyrocket. There is a lot more going on in Latin America on that front that can explain the situation/stats as opposed to the notion that if you ban abortion, the rate goes up.

Duh.

How dare you be so wrong and fool hardy as to think banning abortion is the
proper solution to the killing of unborn babies in the womb. In Latin America
where all, if not most abortion, is banned is where we have many of the
world's highest rates of abortion. And interestingly enough, Cuba, where
abortion is legal, the abortion rate is one of the lowest of the Latin American
countries.
Bunty, it doesn't matter. Murdering children on a whim needs to be stopped.

Somehow I doubt that very many women get an abortion "on a whim."

Somehow I doubt that very many women get an abortion "on a whim."
I'm being flippant for a reason. I'll bet more are for "birth control" or
irresponsible behavior than any other reason. Regardless, abortion needs to
come to an end.

I thought you always approached things with civility and humor. Is being flippant humorous or just a lack of tact?

I don't believe saying that women get abortions "on a whim" is flippant, I think it's irresponsible.

I thought you always approached things with civility and humor. Is being
flippant humorous or just a lack of tact?

I don't believe saying that women get abortions "on a whim" is
flippant, I think it's irresponsible.
I didn't mean for flippant to be thought of as humorous or a lack of tack. Nor
did I intend a double entendre since there is nothing humorous about taking
the life of a child. I was using flippant in the case of being disrespectful or
not appreciating the gravity of taking a human life. Perhaps impudent would
have been a better word but flippant was used because it came to mind at
the time.

Again, I will have to say that I don't think women just go out and get abortions without weighing in their minds what they are doing. You are assuming something about them, and that is dangerous.

Again, I will have to say that I don't think women just go out and get abortions without weighing in their minds what they are doing. You are assuming something about them, and that is dangerous.
I think you are both assuming something about the women getting abortions.

I will do the same - I think some think it through with considerations for what it actually entails and others consider it just a procedure and "what you do" if you inconveniently get pregnant.

Some see it is a a moral/ethical issue and others see it is as just a medical procedure to get rid of a parasite. And there are plenty of comments on this board to back up the latter. What we HEAR and what we are TOLD by the pro choice advocates is that women think it through with a great deal of soul searching.

What we read when many pro choices bother to comment is that it is just a parasite and people who think otherwise are religious nuts. If people don't believe that view of the situation doesn't impact how women view abortion, I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell...

Again, I will have to say that I don't think women just go out and get abortions without weighing in their minds what they are doing. You are assuming something about them, and that is dangerous.
Speaking of dangerous, just how far do people, like Prunepicker, want the law to go to put a stop to abortion? But to advocate banning abortion in full view of the fact that the world's highest abortion rates are found in countries where it's banned is just sick. What a disgusting exhibition of moral insanity.

Speaking of dangerous, just how far do people, like Prunepicker, want the law to go to put a stop to abortion? But to advocate banning abortion in full view of the fact that the world's highest abortion rates are found in countries where it's banned is just sick. What a disgusting exhibition of moral insanity.

Bunty, even if you disagree with PP, you don't have the high road on this one. You are preaching a theory you don't have any idea is true - it is just something you made up and want to believe. To attack someone as morally insane when they are clearly trying to protect kids - regardless of whether you believe he is accurate or not - is pretty audacious. You can disagree with how to go about doing the right thing but calling someone's attempts to do the right thing sick because you don't agree with the method is really intolerant.

Bunty, even if you disagree with PP, you don't have the high road on this one. You are preaching a theory you don't have any idea is true - it is just something you made up and want to believe. To attack someone as morally insane when they are clearly trying to protect kids - regardless of whether you believe he is accurate or not - is pretty audacious. You can disagree with how to go about doing the right thing but calling someone's attempts to do the right thing sick because you don't agree with the method is really intolerant.

Please, Bunty has never actually thought about this topic or any other. He is just regurgitating talking points he read on DailyKos or whatever Leftist blog he gets his beliefs from. Bunty believes what he is told to believe, period.

Again, I will have to say that I don't think women just go out and get abortions without weighing in their minds what they are doing. You are assuming something about them, and that is dangerous.

What would they have to weigh their minds about if the fetus is not a life? Who cares?

How do you know that all women who have abortions think that the fetus isn't a life?

So do you really want to win the argument that banning abortion is, by far, the right thing to do? Then show me a country where abortion has apparently been successfully banned as indicated from its abortion rate being at or near zero, and it's a place you'd love to live in, while soaking up all the more highly moral atmosphere that successfully banning abortion has presumably produced. This assuming the country would actually allow you to live there and practice your religion. (Hint: It might be Saudi Arabia.)

Convoluted reasoning.

Convoluted reasoning.

Bunty thinks outcomes are predicated on only one variable. I guess he must be against outlawing murder since it obviously doesn't work. Look at the murder rates in the civilized world. Because murder is illegal people can't just do it swiftly and humanely. They are forced to do it back alleys with crude equipment and make a big mess of it.

How do you know that all women who have abortions think that the fetus isn't a life?

So some women think that a fetus is a human life with full rights yet they murder it anyway?

http://forum.unity3d.com/files/flogging_dead_horse_112.jpg

Bunty thinks outcomes are predicated on only one variable. I guess he must be against outlawing murder since it obviously doesn't work. Look at the murder rates in the civilized world. Because murder is illegal people can't just do it swiftly and humanely. They are forced to do it back alleys with crude equipment and make a big mess of it.

Very good analogy.

Bunty, even if you disagree with PP, you don't have the high road on this one. You are preaching a theory you don't have any idea is true - it is just something you made up and want to believe. To attack someone as morally insane when they are clearly trying to protect kids - regardless of whether you believe he is accurate or not - is pretty audacious. You can disagree with how to go about doing the right thing but calling someone's attempts to do the right thing sick because you don't agree with the method is really intolerant.

And so PQ I gather you couldn't care less that the highest abortion rates to be found in the world are where abortion is banned and you would just love to take your chances with unborned babies and try banning abortion here. My God, PQ, if you really care about the innocent unborn being slain in the womb, I would just go hang my head in shame. Shame on you.

Very good analogy.

No, RealJimbo, it was very wrong and silly analogy made my Caboose.

Please, Bunty has never actually thought about this topic or any other. He is just regurgitating talking points he read on DailyKos or whatever Leftist blog he gets his beliefs from. Bunty believes what he is told to believe, period.

Caboose, you are so pitifully wrong in your reasoning that all I can feel is pity for you. I don't bother logging onto DailyKos or whatever leftist blog you may imagine for me.

My God, PQ, if you really care about the innocent unborn being slain in the
womb, I would just go hang my head in shame. Shame on you.
If anyone should hang their head in shame it should be you. You give out
more half truth information than anyone on these threads. Couple that with
never apologizing when you're information is shown to be wrong, especially
after using childish tactics like your shaming attempts and put downs, should
shame you. To make things worse you'll knowingly, and these are your
words, freely "give wrong information to people that you don't respect"
doesn't make sense. What good it that? How does that help? What part
of that isn't a bumptious and childish act?

What would they have to weigh their minds about if the fetus is not a life? Who cares?

Hey, to focus more attention from the male aspect, if some of you males are really against abortion, I just wonder how many times you all have had unprotected sex with a woman when a baby was not wanted.

Hey, Caboose and Real Jimbo, if some of you males are really against abortion, I just wonder how many times you all have had unprotected sex with a woman when a baby was not wanted.

Bunty, yet again you ask a leading question that leads you nowhere.

I guess you don't think it's possible for a man to have unprotected sex with a woman and then accept the responsibility when he fathers a child?

If anyone should hang their head in shame it should be you. You give out
more half truth information than anyone on these threads. Couple that with
never apologizing when you're information is shown to be wrong, especially
after using childish tactics like your shaming attempts and put downs, should
shame you. To make things worse you'll knowingly, and these are your
words, freely "give wrong information to people that you don't respect"
doesn't make sense. What good it that? How does that help? What part
of that isn't a bumptious and childish act?

Then, please, Pruenpicker, point out where I have been FACTUALLY wrong in this thread, if it means so much to your heart. And do distinguish fact from opinion. You know, Prunepicker, it would help enormously, if you would practice what you preach and to not deny that you have not been doing so!

Bunty, yet again you ask a leading question that leads you nowhere.

I guess you don't think it's possible for a man to have unprotected sex with a woman and then accept the responsibility when he fathers a child?

Then I am sorry for implyng that there might be some men on this forum who wouldn't take responsibility for a child they created.

Then, please, Pruenpicker, point out where I have been FACTUALLY wrong in
this thread, if it means so much to your heart. And do distinguish fact from
opinion. You know, Prunepicker, it would help enormously, if you would
practice what you preach and to not deny that you have not been doing
so!
This post.

What would they have to weigh their minds about if the fetus is not a life?
Who cares?



Hey, to focus more attention from the male aspect, if some of you males
are really against abortion, I just wonder how many times you all have had
unprotected sex with a woman when a baby was not wanted.
Why are you quoting Caboose's post and not responding to it? You're
posting information that isn't relative and posting a reply that's even more
irrelevant. This is providing wrong and misleading information. Why don't
you respect Caboose? Is it because of the questions Caboose asks and
you can't squirm out of?

This is another example of your providing half truths or
being FACTUALLY wrong that you asked me to show
you. Since this is very common with you I won't bother
searching older posts because you'll be providing copius
examples in the very, very near future, i.e. before the
day's end. Probably your next post.

Why are you quoting Caboose's post and not responding to it? You're
posting information that isn't relative and posting a reply that's even more
irrelevant. This is providing wrong and misleading information. Why don't
you respect Caboose? Is it because of the questions Caboose asks and
you can't squirm out of?

This is another example of your providing half truths or
being FACTUALLY wrong that you asked me to show
you. Since this is very common with you I won't bother
searching older posts because you'll be providing copius
examples in the very, very near future, i.e. before the
day's end. Probably your next post.

That was just a posting that suddenly occurred to me to make all of a sudden at a whim. Should that strongly upset you and Caboose, then I'm sorry. If you wish to look down on me in disrespect as a human being for doing that, then that's just fine by me. Be my guest. No doubt, Caboose will quite strongly approve of you for doing so, along with PQ. IF you don't think I respect Caboose, it is because he has before in the past gone overboard worse than you in personally attacking me, even though he will quite vigorously deny that, or at least would not describe it as going overboard.

Meantime, you and Caboose know very well that when life begins is a matter of opinion among different people besides you. So why not we get back to the topic at hand, which is the abortion issue. For instance, any ideas as to how you would enforce a ban on abortion? I know you have dismissed my idea of requiring the placement of pregnant women on 24 hr. a day monitoring.

That was just a posting that suddely occured to make all of a sudden in
great haste. If you wish you look down on me in total disrespect for doing
that, then that's just fine by me. No doubt, Caboose will strongly approve
of you for doing so.

But you and Caboose know very well that when life begins is a matter of
opinion among different people besides you. So why not we get back to
the topic at hand, which is the abortion issue. I'm sure Caboose is raring to
go at it again on that.
Not a good answer. If you can't keep your mind on the post to which
you're replying then you don't need to be posting. It's that simple.

Secondly, why mislead people? Do you not respect the people on this
thread? If you post something that misleads then you're posting wrong
information.

Thirdly, The bottom line is you quoted a post that didn't have anything
whatsoever to do with your post. If you're going to quote somebody you
must reply to the post, otherwise you're doing nothing more than providing
wrong information. What if someone you respect gets this information and
thinks it's not wrong or misleading? You need to think through your modus
operandi before you push the submit button. When you desire to give
wrong information to people you don't respect you're also giving wrong
information to people you do respect, not that they respect you. The
people you respect may not understand your convoluted reasoning. I
know you're barely 20 years old but that's no excuse for not thinking
before you post.

Why don't you respect Caboose? Is it because Caboose asks questions
you can't squirm out of?





This is another example of your providing half truths or
being FACTUALLY wrong that you asked me to show
you. Since this is a very common occurrence with you
I won't bother searching older posts because you'll be
providing copious examples in the very, very near future,
i.e. before the day's end. Most likely it will be your
next post.

Which this one was. I appreciate your help.

Please, Prunepicker reread your post above and go to bed. You're tired. I'm confident that the people in this fine forum can tell the difference betweem strong willed opinion and attempts made to mislead. Maybe you don't, and would rather go on personally attacking, something you always deny doing, but I still wish to move along to the topic at hand.

Please, Prunepicker reread your post above and go to bed. You're tired. But
if you have your heart set on to keep personally attacking me, and
probably all the while denying it, then have at it some more. I'm tough.
I don't need to read my post again because you asked me to do so, i.e.
you once again posted wrong information. Secondly, I'm not attacking,
that's more wrong information you're intentionally providing. You've asked
me to provide example of you being FACTUALLY wrong. This post was
two fine examples of you providing FACTUALLY wrong information

Everything in this post of yours is FACTUALLY wrong. If anyone is tired it's
you. Your silly and incredible childish tactics to try to turn the tables
aren't working.

Every post you've made, so far, is FACTUALLY wrong. Don't think for one
minute that I'm not going to continue to point out every single time you
provide FACTUALLY wrong information. After all, you asked me too do so.






This is another fine example of providing half truths or
being FACTUALLY wrong that Bunty asked me to show.
Since this is a very common occurrence with Bunty I
won't bother searching older posts because Bunty will
be providing copious examples in the very, very near
future, i.e. before the day's end. Most likely it will be
the next post, which this one was.

And so PQ I gather you couldn't care less that the highest abortion rates to be found in the world are where abortion is banned and you would just love to take your chances with unborned babies and try banning abortion here. My God, PQ, if you really care about the innocent unborn being slain in the womb, I would just go hang my head in shame. Shame on you.

Bunty, you are on another planet, dear.

I don't need to read my post again because you asked me to do so, i.e.
you once again posted wrong information. Secondly, I'm not attacking,
that's more wrong information you're intentionally providing. You've asked
me to provide example of you being FACTUALLY wrong. This post was
two fine examples of you providing FACTUALLY wrong information

Everything in this post of yours is FACTUALLY wrong. If anyone is tired it's
you. Your silly and incredible childish tactics to try to turn the tables
aren't working.

Every post you've made, so far, is FACTUALLY wrong. Don't think for one
minute that I'm not going to continue to point out every single time you
provide FACTUALLY wrong information. After all, you asked me too do so.


Prunepicker, can you distinguish opinion based material from fact based material when someone has made a post? Surely, I'm not the only one who wonders. But please don't stop. Continue on with your personal attacks while merrily denying it all the way. I'm loving it!! But I would just as soon you get back on the topic of abortion.

Bunty, you are on another planet, dear.
Well, I am sorry about going overboard with you in exerting my strong willed opinion.

You two need to sit on the couch and hold hands until you can get along.

Well, I am sorry about going overboard with you in exerting my strong willed opinion.

S'okay. I just worry about you, sometimes.

S'okay. I just worry about you, sometimes.
Thanks, but don't worry about me. Worry about PP.

Just saw this on msnbc.com

Fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks, study says - More health news- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37920310/ns/health-more_health_news/)

Lighten it up a bit...possibly NSFW. No nudity, just language and ideas that some of you won't care to consider.

YouTube - Doug Stanhope: Voice of America - ABORTION IS GREEN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo)


Do I think it's ok? Good ol Christian guilt leads me to beleive it is wrong. I think it is 'a' right, right or wrong depending on who you want to believe.

Just saw this on msnbc.com

Fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks, study says - More health news- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37920310/ns/health-more_health_news/)

Hard to see what difference it makes.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/02/03/btsc.oppenheim/