2 Friends, FB Fight on Abortion, My Response
Submitted by jeff4paul on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 14:31Two friends were demolishing eachother on Facebook this morning about the abortion issue. FB is a horrible forum for these things and although I didn't want to jump in I felt like I wanted to make my thoughts on the issue known. As a disclaimer I am pro-life.
Would love your feedback on my response, was I inaccurate on my understanding, could I have said things better, did I leave important issues out?
I weigh in on this issue with great hesitation given the passion involved and how this issue strikes such a chord with people as evidenced in the posts above. But approaching this issue from a legal, constitutional and human rights perspective I think it's important so I would ask the following questions:
If a woman who is pregnant is prescribed drugs by a Doctor that harm or kill the fetus or if a drunk driver kills the pregnant woman; under the law if I'm not mistaken, they can be held liable for both the death of the mother and child. I don't understand why when the mother makes a choice to end the pregnancy we have a different perspective on whether that is a life and it has rights and protections under the law. It's like somehow the blinders are put on just because it's the mother's choice but didn't the doctor that prescribed the drugs or the drunk driver also make a decision that lead to the death of mother and baby? Is it simply that since the life is within the mother, her rights and liberty trump that of the unborn child? Does this child not also have the right to life and liberty or does that only begin after the child is born?
Secondly, regarding the law of the land, the Constitution/Bill of Rights guarantees Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." If this is true, then if these rights were specifically endowed by our Creator, and if you also believe our Creator is involved in creating human life, then doesn't it mean that ending a pregnancy by choice is a violation of that baby's right to life as guaranteed by the constitution?
Thirdly, Roe V/S Wade is unconstitutional and violates the 10th Amendment (State's Rights) which was created to prevent the overreach of the Federal Government. If State's handle the majority of laws currently, then why can't the states allow the people to vote on the issue and determine what those laws are? By allowing people to vote on the issue they are in more control of their government and can more easily have the laws reflect the values and concerns of the people.
If the legality of Abortion is the concern here than you cannot truly justify either side from a legal perspective without considering the issues I pointed out above. Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth and I'm not interested in debating these issues with anyone or trading jabs. Just wanted to offer my take on it.
Just focus on the funding. plus 46% of women who have aboritions
admit they used NO protection whatsoever and they were not raped/molested/whatever.
There is no reason why one individual should be forced to pay for another's risky activities. If I am drunk/screwing around and break my leg I don't go to a special clinic (ie for drunk men who like to party) to have my leg paid for at your expense.
Telling a girl that isn't pregnant that abortion is wrong is a question of morality. It's like telling a girl not to be a whore or a guy not to be a player.
In year 2012 culture whore/player = $$$/Fame/Madonna-like success.
Similarly, abortions in modern pop-culture = intelligence/atheist superiority (even though they are basically Darwining themselves)/maturity/'feminist role-model'/'good person'/'spiritually inclined (lol I know right, you can't kill a bug but go ahead and eliminate the next generation of humanity).
The bottom line: you can educate a smart person, but not a sheep.
Sheep can be only deprogrammed through removing them from the contaminated herd and putting them through sensory deprivation. Then you slowly educate them by placing them with a newly programmed herd based on their adherence to installed ethics (punishing them by shunning/removing privileged of company).
YOU CAN'T DO THIS ON THE INTERNET.
================================
Graduate from keyboard warrior and sign-waver with ROBERT'S RULES: http://www.dailypaul.com/142513/roberts-rules-video-library
Are you implying that some women could find it even "cool"
... to be allowed to abort any time they want?
I don't think you are, or if you are, I hope you're wrong.
Either way, I'd like to point out to the "pro-choice" women out there, that my deepest belief (and regret at the same time) is that their concern to keep their liberty of choice, there, have come from a very biased, unhealthy, smelly ballpark :
the acceptance of living in lousy societies where materialism can excuse easily abortion is WHERE THEY (PRO-CHOICE WOMEN) HAVE BEEN CHEATED.
I think it's not so much about the acceptance of the idea of killing babies that is the most revolting (of course NO ONE in one's sane mind would like that) ...
... it's about the unbelievable acceptance that EVENTUALLY occurred in our societies that we (men and/or women) COULD JUSTIFY IT "GOOD ENOUGH" (besides the most extreme cases of rape victims, or serious diseases, etc)
For threatening economical reasons. Or reputation. In the family, or elsewhere. Or work / career choice. Or loans to keep up with, etc.
THAT is the real rationale underlying the abortion stakes that I find the most revolting anyway.
"The demand of a great people is always in the scale of its most serious misfortunes." De Gaulle
"Turn your life into a dream, then turn the dream into your reality." St Exupery
How America WILL WIN:
http://www.dailypaul.com/211222
let women do whatever they
let women do whatever they want, pretty soon sperm will be considered babies and masturbating in the shower will become a crime.
http://blacklistednews.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
http://endthelie.com
For what it's worth, here's my take
I'm clearly pro-life.
The main problem I have, or rather, had, when debating this topic with "pro-choice" people mainly goes like this.
I say rather "had", because I'm not that much interested anymore to try change people's mind on a topic I find old enough to be much easier to settle about, nowadays, thanks to the WWW -- I mean, c'mon, lack of info and sources of debates is no more an excuse to not make up one's mind once for all faster these days.
So, here it is, I say:
well, indeed, the main problem I have with the pro-choice camp is it SYSTEMATICALLY brings on the table (in favor of their argument to allow abortion, legalize it, regulate it, and so forth...) the EXTREME CASES first and foremost at the corner stone of their rationale.
Seriously. Can't we be SERIOUSLY intellectually honest with ourselves, there, for once?
Of course a rape victim's experience is one of the ugliest thing one can possibly endure without deep psy damages... actually, likely NEVER WITHOUT DAMAGES. Of course when it happens to a teenage girl one can reasonably expect to MULTIPLY the likely magnitude of damages by any factor, you pick it up.
Long-term chronic depression cycles, violence blowbacks, hold backs, destabilization, and so on, you name it. I'm no psy doctor anyway.
But why, yes, why the most extreme cases HAVE systematically to come up as the main justification for abortion?
Can't we think out of the box for one sec? After a reality check?
So, 1st, the reality check:
sorry, no, these extreme cases are really NOT, I have the weakness to believe, the VAST majority of abortion choice occurences. Hell no.
The vast majority of abortions occur for SOCIO-CULTURAL-ECONOMICAL reasons backed up by A THREATENING ECONOMICAL CONTEXT.
16, her, and 17 him : highschool not finished; threat of shame and/or overfeared "bankrupcy" in the family ...
Or 24, her and 26+, him : college not finished (or not started) but broke anyway ... won't be able to make it in this jungle with a baby thing around.
Or 30, her and 40+, him : still struggling working her/his a** off to make ends meet at the end of the month. Or to pursue a career despite a despotic boss you know can fire you any time.
I say : the excuse for abortion is FIRST AND FOREMOST "COMFORT".
I know, I'm shocking. And I'm sorry about that. But it's because I am actually abusing the use of the word "comfort" : enlarging its meaning to a larger, rather negative extent of stakes...
Abortion, it's, indeed, a "COMFORTABLE" excuse for a LOUSY SOCIETY ITSELF.
The thing is : you CAN'T really even BLAME people for thinking of abortion as an easy alternate "escape". After all, life is hard, and gets harder with the corrupt we have to put up with, above us (gov, crony capitalism, etc).
I can't really blame people for thinking about abortion for these reasons. But I blame people FOR PRETENDING they don't know or care about this dimension ... at the scale of the society itself.
Here's what I'd bet : even IN THE COMPLETE ABSENCE of serious disease or rapists ... in a lousy society, you would STILL have people seeking for abortion because they CAN'T mentally, psychologically, financially, morally afford having the baby.
BECAUSE of the society they live in. Too harsh to have them save ENOUGH love for a child coming. Or just enough sweat.
As simple as that.
I am asking : ISN'T THAT the real thing REVOLTING ?
Think about it. And I don't usually blame society for people's choices or mistakes. But if for only one, THAT'S the thing, where I think the LOW moral value of the whole society is IMPAIRING and making people do something ANTI-NATURAL.
Acceptance of abortion justification beyond the most extreme dramatic cases, maybe, is CIVILIZATION REGRESSION.
And no one tell me, nor fall by yourself into B.S. : don't blame the Church or Religion. Don't blame the reaction to Church or Religion. Don't blame the atheists. Don't blame the agnostics. Don't blame this or that country. Don't blame this or that people. Who to blame ?
If you really insist, here's who : blame the ENSLAVERS. Blame those who BAKE UP, who MAINTAIN "up and running (falling)" lousy societies, less and less free, more and more brainwashed with the current "hype" in well-thinking. Instead of leaving individuals going NATURALLY for what is NATURAL : not kill your child just because you're short on money or on time.
Those are Ron Paul's ennemies : those who keep DESTROYING FREE, and/or PEACEFUL, and/or WEALTHY countries, countries such as were, once, The USA.
Therefore :
I believe, in a HEALTHY, WEALTHY society, where the CURRENCY IS SOUND and means something, where LOSING one's job is no such a big deal because EMPLOYMENT is healthy, too, where your 50 or 60 year old parents HAVE KEPT their hard earned savings...
... having UNEXPECTED kids shouldn't be A CONCERN at all and should be received with JOY, and A PRIORI.
See?
The stake of rejecting or accepting abortion is only a consequence of the firmness (or lack thereof) of the mentalities and of the positiveness health of the society as a whole.
Make the society more fair, healthier, wealthier, more motivating, in all, LESS DESPERATING ... and the wish to have legalized, regulated, controlled the COMFORT abortion iceberg WILL disappear by ITSELF.
I know, easier said than done.
So, let's start by putting Dr. Ron Paul in the office.
THAT will help, whether OR NOT he is for or against allowing abortion for "the extreme cases".
The real stake is : do we REALLY want a society where a woman having an UNEXPECTED baby (not in an extreme, dramatic case) will NOT HAVE TO WORRY ONE SECOND if she can afford it or not?
I think everybody DOES WANT THIS SOCIETY, where large scale abortion practices have become USELESS in themselves.
The USA can show the path to the light again to other countries who had fallen in the same ABORTION JUSTIFICATION DECEPTION.
A path shown via wealth AND peace.
Ron Paul 2012 !
QED.
"The demand of a great people is always in the scale of its most serious misfortunes." De Gaulle
"Turn your life into a dream, then turn the dream into your reality." St Exupery
How America WILL WIN:
http://www.dailypaul.com/211222
I disagree
To win support look for ways to agree, not for ways to disprove or to out yell.
I don't agree with Ron Paul on this matter. If the decision were left to government at the local level I'd still say it isn't any business of government. If Ron Paul and I were in the same state or community he might be on the other side.
So, we'd oppose one another on one issue.
I support Ron Paul.
To lose, keep trying to convince me and those who think like me that we are wrong and you are right.
Or, do it Ron Paul's way.
Arguing about it isn't that way.
I agree with the original post too!
Producing, distributing and archiving the BEST Ron Paul Speech films.
The abortion issue is hard no matter what
Abortion should remain legal. The cost of abortion should be sterlization for BOTH, man and woman.
I'm sure that would greatly reduce abortion.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
replace abortion with murder
replace abortion with murder and maybe you'll see my point of view.
sterilization would not be good period. There could be way worse effects that good if that was done.
Your point places more pressure on women and none for men
I know many men who are fornicators and they could care less about a woman getting pregnant. The law doesn't affect them. They don't have any medical proceedure, or guilt, matter of fact, Christian men are very guilty of confessing or bragging about knocking some slut, whore, etc up... it cost them nothing. This needs to change.
I know for a fact if by law abortion was legal and that DNA implicated a man who would be made steril, abortions would dramtically reduce. I know many men who would seriously stop being fornicators and take the life THEY created with more seriousness. It would stop serial abortion/murder.
I think those who oppose are not really against abortion, but for controlling women.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
The fallacy here is that you
The fallacy here is that you are introducing an external element which creates an economic effect, rather than an argument to philosophically defend one position or the other. If you forced all auto-makers to install self destruct bombs in to cars so that the owners could blow up the car if it was stolen, it would probably reduce car thefts. However, it would not effect the rightness or wrongness of stealing a car.
What you are saying instead is that abortions are undesirable and that new external pressures should be introduced to reduce their frequency. That might or might not be true, but now the ethics of your proposed external pressure has to be analyzed as well as its effectiveness and if there are unwanted consequences. All of this lies outside the argument of the morality of performing abortions.
Men are GUILTY of producing abortions
It takes two to conceive a child. The woman who has NO SUPPORT, moral, financial, or legal support from her male "partner", faces many horrors ALONE, and then she is blamed, persecuted, slandered, punished and tons of guilt dumped on her, including many times, abuse. What happens to the male partner? NOTHING!
The abortion argument, as it stands, is unfair not just to children, but to women. I'm saying that a man who sires and abortion needs to be punished harshly least he ever do that again.
It takes two, and two should be punished, the punishment being sterlization rather than premeditated man slaughter. Sexual organs are not more important than life.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
I understand what you're
I understand what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that you're introducing an external element in to the argument. First: either abortion is okay or it is wrong. Then: Who bears responsibility for that decision? Who deserves to have responsibility that may not naturally be assumed to have it? What punishment should they receive?
My statement is simply that your comment is on the second category rather than on the inherent rightness or wrongness of the act itself. You present neither justifications for allowing abortions or rationals for why it is wrong. You also do not walk a middle path, stating circumstances where it would be acceptable or unacceptable. I think that before we can have a discussion about who bears responsibility or how those responsible should be dealt with, we need to finish the discussion on right and wrong.
A woman's body is her property
Creating a life one has no intention of sustain through childhood is a crime against humanity.
It seems to me, you are not seeking soultions but arguments to harrass, blame, punish and damn women.
The problem is men are getting away with "murder". You want to stop abortion? Stop the men producing children they have NO intention of sustaining.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
I agree with your assertion
I agree with your assertion that men who engage in sexual intercourse without the intention to help raise and care for potential children which may be born because of their decision are acting in an immoral fashion. I don't neccesarily think that makes them an accessory to murder if an abortion is performed, but abandoning their responsibilities as a parent is a serious crime against their children and against women.
What I am saying is that whether your assertion about men's responsibility regarding the action of performing an abortion is right or wrong is irrelevant until it is determined whether an abortion, in of itself, is a right or wrong action. After it is resolved whether the act is moral or immoral, THEN you can start assigning responsibility and working towards a solution. I thought it was a relevant point because the initial post is about the morality of abortions rather than about how one goes about solving the problem. Additionally, your post states on one hand that you support the right to have an abortion (a pro-choice stance) and that you want to implement policies to stop abortions (a some-what pro-life stance). So, because of that contradiction, I'm trying to clarify, first, whether you believe abortions are a morally acceptable act or a morally reprehensible act. That has to be the starting point of any conversation about the topic, then you can start talking about fitting that view with governing philosophy, who is responsible for what actions, how rights are protected, and so forth.
I am Pro-Life
There is nothing pro-abortion about what I am saying. I really can't imagine anyone seeking an abortion as a form of birth control with my legalized abortion that demands sterlization.
There is nothing moral about fornicating, oral sex, ejaculation without the intent to produce Children.
So to me, we are discussing fornicators who are not acting morally to begin with. It's one immoral act after anther that winds up murdering an innocent life.
Moral men and women do not fornicate or indulge in any sexual activity.
Acting responsibily is chosing to not be sexual unless one is in a determined act of reproducing.
My suggestion of legalizing abortion and sterlization as a package deal is to STOP abortion, not encourage it.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
Thank you for clarifying. I
Thank you for clarifying. I guess what confused me is that you say it would be "legal" and the "cost" would be "sterilization". This, technically, is a form of price control and the fact that abortions would be legal means that avoiding the price control would probably only be viewed as a minor crime.
I am pro-life too, although I do not agree with some of the specifics you have listed here, but I would argue that - if we are to approach this from a legal perspective - one would have to work to make abortions illegal with the excepting circumstances where rights conflict in such a way as to favor it (mother's life threatened, rape/incest). These circumstances are really corner cases, however, and not the primary reasons abortions happen.
Overall, I believe in the idea that we need to change peoples' minds first, before abortions will stop. Abortions happen because we don't have a common understanding that the act is violence against another human being (as much as turning off the oxygen in a sealed room would be). It is difficult and requires patience and understanding, but I think that peoples' minds can be changed about this topic if we work towards that goal - instead of merely towards changing the legal system. Change their minds and the legal system will follow.
Finally, on the note of people who are not acting morally to begin with. As Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." All of us have had moral weakness at one time or another in our lives and it is only through self-deception that any of us could believe otherwise. For some people, they engage in sex recklessly and then become afraid of the consequences of their actions, failing to understand that what they do in that fear is wrong. Often, however, as many anecdotal stories here mention, they realize the wrongness of what they did after the fact and regret it deeply. We're all flawed - which is why we all have to help each other. Don't be too quick to judge, because one day we will all have our turn in their shoes for whatever our individual moral failings are...
My friend regrets her decision to get an abortion
This has haunted her most of her life, 10 years after having an abortion. Now just married a few years she has been trying to get pregnant and hasn't been abe to up to now. It's wrong!
Well done!
A couple other things you could add:
1. The history of Planned Parenthood and the KKK, eugenics, "taxpayer funded foundations", etc.
2. The deleterious health effects of abortion on the mother, including much greater risk of various cancers, all of which is constantly downplayed or outright denied by the abortion industry.
What he said!
http://www.tragedyandhope.com
http://www.im2moro.com
I am prochoice up to a point.
I am prochoice up to a point. I think anything after a couple months is 'wrong'. Before then, I look at as just a clump of cells. I am not a religious person, but there is a passage in the bible that says something along the lines that its life once blood is imbued or something like that. Th fetus gets blood at around 3 months, I am content with this.
I completely respect that people feel differently.
Hypothetically, if you became
Hypothetically, if you became pregnant and did not want the fetus, and there was a way to remove it, incubate it and keep it alive until it was born, would you do that or abort it? And could you explain your reasoning for your answer?
WE AUSTRIANS NOW
Hypothetically, I would also
Hypothetically, I would also have to be a woman in this case.
The entire point is that you do not want a(nother) child to begin with. If someone else were around to take this child, I would still not want it as there are alot of children in the world who have no parents and need adoption.
If you want a child, there is no need to take any elaborate steps, simply have the child.
I simply say that I am personally ok with it to a point, but would never force this on anyone.
If a
Person does not want a child then they should be responsible and either use protection or some form of conterceptive or not have sex. I'm pro-life but i myself think people can do whatever they want and it will be on them to suffer the consequences with the choices they make. Even with the issue of abortion. But hey that's just my view on it.
Well said
I thought your argument was very well worded and nuanced. Bravo.
I am pro-life as well (with an exception for rape). However, I used to be pro-choice. I changed my position before I discovered Paul in '07, which means I had lots of uncomfortable discussions about it with my liberal friends. It's a very complicated and difficult issue from an ethical and philosophical perspective on top of being an emotionally charged issue for both sides of the argument. I think we could have a better conversation about it if everyone would just recognize and accept that.
Again, well said.
If you make an exception for
If you make an exception for rape, what is your reason for being pro-life in the first place?
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Show your support for Ron Paul and inspire others at new grassroots site:
★ http://www.ronpaulpatriotnation.com ★
( Consider uploading a picture or video of your sign or event, etc .)
Moral Obligations
Pregnancy is a dependent relationship. It's one thing if that dependency is taken on voluntarily or a known risk of an activity that is participated in voluntarily. However, rape involves the use of force.
Two examples to explain why this is different than pregnancy as a result of consensual sex:
1) The famous violinist: Imagine that you woke up one day in a hospital, attached to a man in a wheel chair. The doctor, noticing that you were awake informed you that the man in the wheel chair was a famous violinist and that he was hooked up to you in order to save his life. If you disconnect the violinist, he dies. The doctor also informs you that the violinist will need to be hooked up to your body for nine months in order for him to be disconnected without causing his death. Are you under moral obligation to keep the violinist hooked up to your body? I would argue that, no, in this case you are not, because your participation in this activity was not voluntary. That doesn't mean you *would* disconnect him, just that you are not morally obligated to save his life on the principle that you never volunteered to do so. If you had, instead, gambled knowing that if you lost you might be hooked up to this man, well, then you do have a moral obligation, because you volunteered, even if the odds said you weren't likely to end up taking care of him.
2) Gambling: The act of gambling is satisfying to some people in-of-itself. People who gamble do so knowing that they may win or lose and they accept that either outcome is acceptable. If they gamble and lose their money, they do not get to reverse that process, as that would be stealing. However, if another person took YOUR property and gambled with it and lost, you have a right to take your property back.
Rape is the use of force against another person, causing them to be involved in a sexual act that they did not participate in voluntarily. This means that, while they may personally decide to carry the child through to term, they are not under a moral obligation to do so.
Abortion is wrong, period.
Why do women get an abortion? Unwanted pregnancies. Does anyone actively seek out abortions for the sake of killing an unborn life? Most likely no one feels this way; rather, it's unfortunately the only means of dealing with the problem and they may very well have remorse about it.
Perhaps in the future we'll have sufficient technological means where we can extract, incubate and birth babies outside of the woman's body; this will effectively solve the moral issue of abortion. But, as it stands now, we're still at a point in science where life can only come into being through the body of a woman, therefore, the only choice to deal with an unwanted pregnancy is to use the most barbaric method--aborting an unborn life. Therefore, unless there is a medical necessity to perform the abortion, it should be outlawed in all cases.
Any discussion about viability brings up pointless issues that don't get to the root of the problem discussed above. If given the choice between letting the fetus continue living in some care facility or killing it on spot, it is safe to say that no mother would choose to terminate their child's life. In other words, life is valued by nearly everyone. Terminating life should never be accepted as a solution.
WE AUSTRIANS NOW
You have a right to your life, your liberty and no one has the
right to take that away from you. I actually heard the Al Sharpton say that these fetus's were poor, and were forced to be born. Wow, forcing someone to be born...tyranny. Life is a privledge. If you are with child, then there is another life inside of you besides you. It is not a "right", that's obvious. Humans are the only species on the planet who abort their young. There are organizations who will adopt your unwanted baby, sight unseen.
It's because the law
allowing abortion is arbitrary and capricious, and based solely on emotion, and has no logic or consistency.
It's not really "law". It's a legally-codified example of political correctness gone mad.
Would you execute her?
Would you execute a woman who had an abortion, or if you are against the death penalty, would you put her in prison for life without parole?
If so, you are heartless. If not, there is some other principle that is more important because abortion is not the same thing as murder.
Abortion is one of the few issues in which pro-liberty people will have a difference opinion. I say rights begin at birth, not at conception. Others think rights begin at conception, in which case abortion is murder, in which case such a person must accept that execution or life imprisonment is the only "just" punishment.
Liberty begins with the right to our own bodies, and abortion is the one area where there is a disagreement on who owns that body. I say nobody has a right to be inside another person, even if they did not intend to be there.
People who are pro-life should accept that the government is the LAST place you want to reduce abortions. Just look at the "war" on drugs. Or the "war" on poverty. Or the "war" on poor eduction. Or the "war" on terrorism.
Abortion can ONLY be reduced, and then ONLY by persuasion, not violence.
I propose a challenge:
Should a mother be executed for getting an abortion? Imprisoned? That is beyond disgusting. I do not know of ANY pro-life activist who would even entertain such thoughts. We are for LIFE!!! Not death. A mother who has aborted her baby needs to be given mercy and love and forgiveness.
Abortion is always violence against BOTH the mother and her baby. The mother is a victim of lies and misinformation about the "choice" that she will never be able to take back; the baby ALWAYS ends up dead without a further chance for life or liberty.
All of us on DP have put in and continue to put in the time and effort necessary to educate ourselves on Dr. Paul's message. Some of us (myself included) have had to face the harsh reality that we were living in ignorance on many crucial issues. In my case I didn't identify myself as a neo-con, but in reality that is what I was. It wasn't until I began to learn about Dr. Paul and his message that brings with it the CHALLENGE to become educated and rise out of ignorance that I was able to recognize my errors and change.
Therefore, I would like to put forth a challenge to you and to those who share your opinion to watch the following videos (and also check out www.abort73.com ). Educate yourself about the "choice" that you support. And then please get back to me and let's talk about this honestly. I will warn you that some of the images/discussions are very graphic and beyond horrendously disturbing...but in reality, that is what abortion is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPBZ2Q0mY7g&feature=related “abortion: before & after”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nff8I2FVnI “eclipse of reason”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHWFLuEBP_E&feature=related “an overview of abortion in 2 minutes”
Hey, bro ...
... you and I probably agree on way more things than we disagree on, so let's not let this issue turn us into enemies.
Ron Paul is against abortion, did not perform them when he was a doctor, and says it is up to the states not the feds, which opens the door to legal abortions.
Now then ...
You evaded my question. Many pro-life people say abortion IS murder. Do you agree? If you do, then what do you think should be the penalty for murder?
Is your proposed penalty consistent amongst all murderers? If not, why not? If abortion is not murder, then what is it?