Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Court Strikes Down Virginia Abortion Ban

Tim Craig

A federal appeals court has ruled that Virginia's ban on late-term abortions, approved by the General Assembly in 2003 over objections from then governor Mark R. Warner (D), is unconstitutional.

In a ruling issued this afternoon, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said the procedures covered under Virginia's ban "imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion."

The ruling will likely reignite the abortion debate in Virginia.

Supporters of Virginia's ban say it would stop the practice of killing infants moments after they are prematurely delivered. But the 2003 Virginia law did not include a health exception. Warner objected, but the legislature overrode him.

The 4th Circuit, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the nation, initially struck down the Virginia law in 2005 because it lacked an exception to safeguard a woman's health.

But in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on some types of late-term abortions. The Supreme Court then sent the Virginia case back to the 4th Circuit for further reconsideration. Arguments were heard in November.

In today's 2 to 1 ruling, the appellate court noted there are differences between the federal ban and Virginia's law as it relates to the types of procedures that are prohibited.

The Richmond-based Family Foundation, which fought for the Virginia ban, said in a statement it hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will now reverse today's 4th Circuit ruling.

By Tim Craig  |  May 20, 2008; 4:12 PM ET
Categories:  Tim Craig  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Oleszek May Run Again for Senate
Next: McCain Leads Obama, Clinton in Virginia

Comments

If this ban is substantially similar to the one upheld in Carhart v. Gonzalez, the Supreme Court should reverse the 4th Circuit without question.

Posted by: Alberto | May 20, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"If this ban is substantially similar to the one upheld in Carhart v. Gonzalez"

If this ban was substantially similar, it is unlikely that the conservative 4th Circuit would have reached the decision that they did...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

First the California same-sex marriage decision and now this Virginia abortion ruling...it's like the courts want to flame the culture wars into a raging fire just as the presidential general election campaign gets started. Conservatives have lacked rallying points so far, and they still lack a candidate who will fight on these fronts, but in these decisions that have liberals cheering, ironically, conservatives may actually remember how they have won elections in the past.

Posted by: blert | May 20, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse


While I'm not a hard anti-abortionist, neither am I for abortion where it can be avoided. It certainly never should be a form of birth control. An abortion, no matter how late, that is for the safety of the mother, while a difficult decision should always favor the mother, IMO.

However, whenever this most ugly of words, abortion, is used, it always prompts me to speak out:

-More sex education, earlier and more often. (Grade 5 and up).
-Pushing abstinence is fine, but condoms are much less risky. Make sure kids know where to get them and how to use them.

Abstinence is destroyed in one second.

Stop calling the "pill" and condoms "birth control".

They are not birth control, they are pregnancy prevention and in the case of condoms are very good at disease control.

Posted by: Alan Browne | May 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

It's not a culture war...it's the health of my wife you are playing with. What do you want- my dead baby and my wife dead as well to satisfy your moral need?

Posted by: Jon | May 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

This is good news. I note though that things like abortion and gay marriage gave us the idiot-in-chief Bush. Hopefully the court decision will end debate. Lest we end up with another idiot in the White House.

Posted by: Maddogg | May 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

A competent judicial decision is based on application of prevailing law to a specific set of facts before the court. To suggest that courts are consciously "flam[ing] the culture wars" implies that a court bases its decision on public reaction as opposed to sound law.

Posted by: P.F. Johnson | May 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Don't like abortions....don't have one. Very simple.

Posted by: rodlang | May 20, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Is it moral for a bunch of old white men in a closed room, sipping brandy and smoking cigars to tell women what they can or cannot do to their own body? I cannot support the Republican party knowing that they want to impose their will to "save the lives of countless unborn lives" yet have no problem sending soldiers all over the world to kill innocent civilians and even to die themselves for vague if not nonexistent purposes. Hypocrites.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I see the 2 rulings as courts repudiating the culture war of the Bush years and finally finding their voice after 7 years of nonsense from Bush, Rove, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, FRC, FOTF, etc.

Posted by: 809212876 | May 20, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"Supporters of Virginia's ban say it would stop the practice of killing infants moments after they are prematurely delivered."

I wish you had made it clearer that you are using the language of the ban's proponents. "Killing infants" and "prematurely delivered" is highly inflammatory language; it is medically inaccurate and hugely political. What we are talking about is a small number of abortions that would be performed in extraordinary circumstances; the issue is whether restricting providers' discretion about the safest procedure for the individual woman is permissible. The 4th Circuit has rightly acknowledged that, even in light of the Supreme Court's 2007 decision, it is not.

Posted by: JHS | May 20, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Given the nature of doctor-patient confidentiality, how would a ban on abortion ever be enforced?

The doctor, bound my his professional ethics and/or his duty to his patient, can't, and shouldn't, be compelled to disclose what procedures he has performed on a patient to the state.

The patient, predicated on the right granted by the 5th amendment, wouldn't have to disclose if she had an abortion either.

So how do the "conservatives" pushing this agenda plan to enforce it? Are they going to violate doctor-patient privledge or throw the 5th amendement out the window?

Why the government is involved in this deeply private matter is truly beyond my comprehension.

Posted by: Tom | May 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I am constantly amazed that conservatives who complain loudest against growing governments (despite growing populations) and label any kind of government regulaton as misguided liberalism aimed at curtailing individual rights are so determined to interfere with a woman's personal choice when to bear or not to bear a child.

Posted by: ww2sparks | May 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Uh, why can't you describe the "procedures?"

Abortion is murder, and your journalistic malpractice of "silence" is a killer, too. The WP subscription base is sinking, sinking, sinking, as people look elsewhere for the information you censor like the good apparachnik you are.

Posted by: Frank | May 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Things are getting better...and Obama hasn't even taken the oath of office yet!

America is coming back...

Posted by: Kase | May 20, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Blert - the problem with your argument is that the majority of the California judges were appointed by Republicans (the author of the majority decision was actually first appointed to the bench by the Judy Garland of the Fabulous right, Ronald Reagan). Second, the Fourth Circuit is the MOST conservative appellate court in the nation.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

So you can't blame this on activist liberal judges. I think the country is tired of conservatives imposing their morals on other people. As another poster said, if you don't like abortions, don't have one.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I pray the Supreme Court will reverse the 4th Circuit's ruling today.

" ...... killing infants moments after they are prematurely delivered."

Shame on us!

Posted by: Dave | May 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

The 4th Circuit? Who would have thought they'd strike down an abortion ban?

Posted by: Garak | May 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

How exactly is a woman's health protected by killing infants moments AFTER they are prematurely delivered?

I for one would be healthier if those who worship at the altar of abortion would be aborted now.

Posted by: WTF | May 20, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

maddogg, aren't you lucky someone didn't pull the plug on you.

All I can say for the people who rationalize reasons for abortion is Hitler beat them to it. His views are clearly stated in his 'book'. What a teammate to have.

Posted by: Jeff | May 20, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

A good day. A good decision. The right move in the right direction. Everyone should have a choice.

Posted by: NS | May 20, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Frank- and the lack of abortion in the case of my family may mean a double murder- that of my baby and my wife. I'm sorry that you think the passing of my child with Anencephaly is murder. I'm even more sorry that you think my wife should die to prevent it.

Posted by: Jon | May 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Don't want a baby? Keep your pants zipped. It's that simple.

Posted by: Apostrophe | May 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

What I do NOT get is why don't these people include protection for the life of the mother????????? What is this, the Dark Ages??

Posted by: Scy | May 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

In 100 years, citizens will look back at abortion in today's time as a barbaric act. We are currently experiencing a lapse in judgement which, over time, will be exposed against the backdrop of history. Just as acts of genocide, slavery and oppression of the weak have been exposed time and again.

Posted by: Joe | May 20, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

America is coming back?! This is not what America should be becoming! What about the rights of an unborn child? Yes, that child is a living human being. Yes, this is "infant killing." Again, let's only think about ourselves and "our rights." Selfishness at it's very worst! And the doctor-patient confidentiality only means that a patient isn't named, your argument doesn't hold up here.

Posted by: Jess | May 20, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Jess- you are the selfish one here, for placing your world view ahead of my own right to make my own decisions. You don't like it- then don't make that decision. But don't play god for me and my family.

Posted by: Jon | May 20, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

The mere thought of women being able to decide things for themselves scares conservative men. They think they know better than the women's doctors who have had YEARS of training.

Listen to how out there they really are - they can't even stand an exception for the life of a woman. Sickening....

Posted by: Al in SoCal | May 20, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

SCY wrote: "What I do NOT get is why don't these people include protection for the life of the mother?? What is this, the Dark Ages??"

Yes, dark ages is right when it comes to the various religions that are opposed to any of the these procedures, even the morning after pill is "against" their beliefs, and all of their beliefs come from the dark or medieval ages, when "religion" was there to control the masses on behalf of the kings (who were of course "descended from God" hah!).

We've gotten rid of the kings, now we need to get rid of the other half of the axis of evil (the American Taliban) who keep trying to force ancient superstitions and myths upon us all in their "divine" quest to control control control.

Posted by: 809212876 | May 20, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I would just die if I tried to have an abortion and the little tumor survived, THAT is why there needs to be a health exception. I'd feel bad and stuff.

Posted by: Mollie | May 20, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

809212876, we are coming for you. Allah Akbar!

Posted by: Jihad Rulz | May 20, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I am pro choice. However, a late abortion as nothing like an early one and should never be executed unless the mother's health is in danger.

Women who want an early abortion should be guaranteed to get one swiftly,without delay.

Posted by: Abs | May 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

There is no 'right' to abortion(murder) in the Constitution, therefore the ruling is in error.

Posted by: Vale | May 20, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

If conservatives truly wished to limit late term abortions, they would include the health exception in their legislation. This is a political red herring, and debate on these rarely peformed procedures has been going on far too long. The health exception is never included in legislation from the right because they want the left to vote against it, so they can use it to rally the Christian base against their opponents. I'm tired of politicians treating real women's lives as a political game! There are very few of these abortions performed, and some are performed to save a mother with severe bleeding in cases where the infant is not going to survive. Until each and every one of these legislators has had a friend or love one almost die in childbirth (I have), they should stop passing such laws. Focus instead on what really works - access to contraception, real sex education, economic support to the poor, and adoption support services. Good grief - it is just so counterproductive arguing about legislation like this. NO ONE wants to see more abortions, so why do the the same people who pass laws like this try to limit access to contraception and sex education as well? BTW, how much money has the state spent passing this law and arguing this law in the courts. I'm guessing we could have helped more than a few woman with contraception or adoption services for a fraction of the cost!

Posted by: Jen | May 20, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Nuh uh Vale, the Supreme Court said so once. Who are you to dispute the infallible Supreme Court?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Decide for yourself, not for others. It's quite arrogant to think that it's logical to take away another's choice.

Posted by: Chris | May 20, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave.
Don't like whites only water fountains? Don't drink from one.

Posted by: disputatio | May 20, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is wrong. But without a compass to guide us, Americans are quickly jumping over the edge into the abyss like a bunch of liberal lemmings. Whatever is convenient and makes you "feel good" is the mantra and those who chant otherwise are "trying to push their morals onto others." What a bunch of idiots we have become.

But, give it a few generations. The ill-advised will soon have no prodigy to share their rancid beliefs with and the tide will change. You have to feel bad for the babies though. Never had a chance...

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Abortion = Baby killing. Please stop using the technical term and just state what this really is.

A woman's right to kill a baby/abortion. Then people will be sensitive to this inhumane act.

We treat dogs better than unborn babies.

Posted by: Joe | May 20, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Don't like slavery? Don't have a slave. Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone. Don't like despoiling of the environment? Don't bulldoze a forest.

Simple.

Posted by: margaret Davis | May 20, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Joe, dogs don't grow up to be people. Big difference.

Posted by: no more babies | May 20, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Don't like the death tax? Don't die.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

If your definition of "freedom" and "choice" makes it acceptable to irrevocably deny someone else the same freedoms and choices you yourself are exercising forever, then what does that make you?

If freedom and choice are good enough for you, they're good enough for your children, too.

Posted by: dbm | May 20, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

just because it comes out of my body doesn't mean its a person, come on, is virginia going to start regulating what happens when i take a dump?

Posted by: Sinead | May 20, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

The anti-abortion cause is dead. Most people are right in the middle who dislike abortion, but know that it is a necessary evil. For early term abortions it should be accessible to all women and girls and for late-term abortions it should be limited to health exceptions or dire circumstances.

The problem is the anti-abortion nut cases who can't never compromise and think standing in front of clinics harassing women is somehow productive. Please keep your religion away from our laws.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Don't like children being used as sex slaves? Don't go to Indonesia and have sex with a child...

What a stupid bunch of arguments...

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Alan Brown on all but one point. 5th grade is too late to start sex education. Children are being exposed to sex by their parents and the media at very young ages. Sex Ed really needs to start in Kindergarten because Kindergartners are talking about sex. This would also be a great time to teach kids about molestation, in an age appropriate manner of course.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse


"Don't like slavery? Don't have a slave."
-margaret Davis

"Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone."
-margaret Davis

By this logic, are you suggesting that if you do like to murder people or have a slave, then it's ok? And further, are you suggesting I shouldn't force my views on you by stopping you from murding or enslaving others?

Posted by: Joe | May 20, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Why not just kill the baby at birth and save the operation. Its the same thing!

Posted by: donmac | May 20, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

If all the people who are against abortion would open their homes and pocketbooks to the unwanted children already in the world I would give them a lot more credit. Until then, let us all make our own choices.

Posted by: kateyjo | May 20, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

donmac has the right idea

What we need are some of those shredders that Saddam used to put people in, but maybe smaller because babies are smaller. We could even use them for compost and help negate the carbon footprint of the babyshredder!

Posted by: Pat | May 20, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

The Post still can't bring itself to call this "procedure" partial-birth abortion, which is what it is. The baby is born half-way, then the doctor kills it by feeling up along the spine to the base of the skull, and then putting sharp scissors in between his index and middle finder, then puncturing the skull of the baby (who will be kicking hard at the pain, so the doctor has to be careful), and then inserts a vacuum cleaner into the hole with a very strong reverse pressure that sucks the baby's brains out and kills the baby so it can be born dead (the kicking eventually stops and the legs droop down limply).

I am sure that someone will ask our editor to delete this message because she objects to it. Has it occurred to our editor that the PROCEDURE IS OBJECTIONABLE?

Think on it. On how hard that baby kicks. Try not to forget that.

Posted by: Chris Inwen | May 20, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is a billion dollar business liberals will fight for. Planned Parenthood is in the business of murder, especially black babies.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

FYI, the reason conservatives look like they are trying to push their morals on you is because you don't seem to have any usable moral values of your own!!! When is enough enough? Is life (young and old) sacred or not? Conservatives don't want a bunch of unwanted babies brought into the world either, but abortion is a poor alternative. I have just the number of children I wanted, no more and no less, and it wasn't really that hard to figure out how to accomplish. I believe liberals don't like abortion any more than conservatives do, but we need to get on the same page on this. Education towards prevention is the answer. Both our energies need to go in this direction.

Posted by: ljv | May 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Don't like AIDS? Don't get it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Anyone on her know exactly what happens during these late term abortions? It is disgusting. It is one thing if the health of the mother is in question, which by the way, is very rare. Ask any doctor and they will tell you that. But for this to be legal because an ignorant woman decided 6 months in that she doesn't want the child, well she is committing murder, point blank.

I am a 30 year old woman who had an abortion at 18, so I know a little something about this. Let me tell you this...everyday I think of what I did with much regret. I was told by Planned Parenthood and my high school counselor that the child I was carrying had no liking to a human when I went in at almost 3 months to terminate my pregnancy. Of course, I was a young dumb teenager then and if I would have known then what I know now....I never would have done it.

I killed a being that not only had webbed feet and hands, had eyes, but had a beating heart. People need to realize legal first term abortions are not just a mass of cells you are sucking out of your body, no you are killing a living being with a heartbeat. I have to live with that guilt everyday of my life. I can't even imagine how you justify a late term abortion.

Oh, and don't give me but it wasn't viable out of the womb argument. When one of you can prove to me that you didn't start out as this embryo we so blatantly disregard as medical waste, then I will listen to you.

Posted by: Linda | May 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

What a great debate. Kill babies to save moms. Hmmm, or is it a choice to kill a baby??
Maybe morality is a double edged sword. I can not understand saying god is not alive in the lives of people, But God is the giver of life. I will not have an abortion, and I think the choice should be given to the child.I can not figure how the ones here say do not let the government chose the laws, but go to those same courts to force their beliefs on everyone else. The court ruled once , and I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will do away with the ruling as it had done 2 years ago.

Posted by: M | May 20, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

If late term abortion is justifiable, why not infanticide? Think about this for a moment. Does the location of the child with regard to the mother really make the difference between a "person" with rights and a "fetus" that can be chopped up, sucked out, and thrown away? You don't have to be religious to see that the difference between killing a nine-month old "fetus" and a new born "baby" is utterly arbitrary.

I for one am not happy with the implications of setting arbitrary limits to "personhood." Arbitrary limits can change. It is a very small jump to redefining personhood to exclude the handicapped, the elderly, anyone who is a bruden to those who set the arbitrary limits of personhood.

And with unwanted pregnancies in which the baby is viable - around the 20-25 week mark and moving back - why should removing the pregnancy require killing the baby? Why not remove the baby intact and alive and treat it like any other premature baby?

Posted by: Stephen | May 20, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Invading other countries is a Trillion dollar business conservatives will fight for. Killing millions of "them" is okay as long as there's big bux in for the beltway bandits. The military industrial complex is in the business of murder, especially foreigners.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I really do not believe the issue is of men's fear of women's independence or rights. Honestly I know more women who are involved and feel strongly against abortion more so than Men. I believe it really comes down to how we value and percieve life.
I also believe it is just not true to say religion is not compassionate to women. There are Christian Crisis Pregnancy Centers all over the country (not planned parenthood) that reach out to women before and after abortion to help them although these centers are against abortion.
Women who have abortions carry the emotional and sometimes physical scars after abortion. These Centers run by "religious" people are there not to judge but to help.
People against abortion are not adhering blindly to religion. There is science that supports life begins at conception. A infant heart begins beating in it's mother's womb at 21 days. For those who believe life starts at conception or soon after, it grieves them to think that a life would be sacrificed for the "right" of a woman to terminate it. I do not believe most Americans support banning abortion when the woman's life is at risk.
I believe it comes down to this. We are not against a womans health, independence, rights or welfare. We are for it - and for the unborn child she carries.

Posted by: JP | May 20, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

and I agree with most on here, that education is the key. #1 If I would have had parents that gave a crap, and #2 known more than DONT HAVE SEX IT IS BAD, then maybe at 18 I wouldn't have gotten pregnant. Trust me saying don't do it doesn't work. We need to give kids the education to make a wise decision when it comes to having sex.

Posted by: Linda | May 20, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

These are WaPo bloggers, not reporters. Interns would do a better job.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Choices - you have choice don't have sex without protection. It's that simple.

We need people to be accountable and responsible for their choices. Not make excuses why killing a baby/having an abortion is okay.

Under the guise of, it's my body argument. That argument is so tired and old.

Take responsibility for your actions and this world will improve dramatically.

Posted by: Joe | May 20, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Right... great moral values - all that's missing is the line "Let them eat cake"

I'm so sick of self-righteous "compassionate" conservatives. I would love for you to preach your moral values in Iraq to a woman who just had her child die of gunshot wounds. Your moral authority is nil in my book. Now whose number did we find in that black book from the DC madam? I bet if that prostitute got pregnant Mr. Conservative Senater (Vitter) would have gladly paid for an abortion - even (gasp) a late-term one.

Keep your "moral values" to yourself please.

LVJ said "FYI, the reason conservatives look like they are trying to push their morals on you is because you don't seem to have any usable moral values of your own!!!"

Posted by: Al in SoCal | May 20, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse


Don't like cancer? Don't smoke!

Don't like broccoli? Don't eat it!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

@Paul -

You are calling people who believe in choice lemmings?

What about the thousands of religious fanatics who blindly follow their pastors without a thought?

To paraphrase another poster: If we could get rid of religion, the world would be a much better place.

We call terrorists evil because they kill in the name of their god when we have done the same thing in the name of Christianity.

Look at most of the problems we have in the world today and you'll find the root cause is bull-headed, religious lemmings.

Posted by: Dean | May 20, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

they can't vote until they're 18, so the right to abort should last at least that long

Posted by: abort my teenagers | May 20, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Don't want a baby? Keep your pants zipped. It's that simple.
Posted by: Apostrophe | May 20, 2008 4:58 PM
Exactly! Or do what Apostrophe's uncle Rufus did: sodomize ya 'cause there ain't no babies gonna come outta mah rump!

Posted by: Catamite! | May 20, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Great analogy Sinead- comparing a child to a crap. Perfect.

That is the best retort to why you should be able to have an abortion- because everything coming out of your body is waste. Sinead truly hit the liberal view of human sanctity on the head. If you hit it hard enough it may abort...

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Funny how anti-abortion groups are perfectly OK with the idea of pregnant women dying because they're not able to have a life-saving abortion at the last minute. Hypocritical much?

Most people don't realize that the reason "partial birth" abortions are performed is BECAUSE any other method would endanger the life of the mother.

Posted by: Lynn | May 20, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Difference:

Planned Parenthood gives ALL the options - adoption, abortion, etc.

Christian Crisis Centers do not.

End of story. They don't even explain that abortion is an option albeit one they do not support.

Here's a hint JP. Ignorance is never the answer.

JP said "There are Christian Crisis Pregnancy Centers all over the country (not planned parenthood) that reach out to women before and after abortion to help them although these centers are against abortion."

Posted by: Al in SoCal | May 20, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

They don't do late-term abortions for the fun of it people. They're done if the mother's health is in danger or if the fetus is too damaged to survive.

I know a lovely married couple who had to go through a late-term abortion because the fetus was basically irreparably damaged by backwards and missing chromosomes. The doctors didn't know this until several months into the pregnancy. Trust me, the decision was the worst thing they ever had to go through.

There is no joy in late-term abortions so you pro-lifers need to quit acting like people somehow enjoy them or have them done because they lack morals or ethics.

Posted by: dan | May 20, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

There went the Democrats' fond hopes for Virginia!

Gilmore will easily defeat the pro-abortion Mark Warner for the US Senate!

McCain will easily defeat the pro-abortion Obama for President!

Posted by: DaTourist | May 20, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Dan - the 400 mostly white men who came up with these laws don't care about these people. They care about pandering to the fringe right-wing groups who care NOTHING for women in these situations. They would prefer your friend DIE.

Truthfully - who wouldn't put in an exception to the mother's help. All these conservatives on this board have voted for these uber-right wing politicians who enact policies like these - then claim they care about women when it's quite obvious they don't.

Dan said "I know a lovely married couple who had to go through a late-term abortion because the fetus was basically irreparably damaged by backwards and missing chromosomes. The doctors didn't know this until several months into the pregnancy. Trust me, the decision was the worst thing they ever had to go through."

Posted by: Al in SoCal | May 20, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

My wife had an abortion and still deals with the trauma of it today. It is not an easy thing to do. My question for all of you with these big mud slinging opinions in here is how many of you have had one? or your spouse? Its easy spout off an opionion when you have never dealt with the situation!

Posted by: Eric | May 20, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

When has a woman's life ever been saved by killing her baby on a table next to her?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

HOW CAN YOU BE A JUDGE AND NOT CALL THIS UNCONSTITUIONAL???:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us_y9GP_-DA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOAPleF1t0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOAPleF1t0

BABIES HAVE RIGHTS ALSO!!!

Posted by: rafaelmarie | May 20, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is not an easy thing to have to undergo and I would not take that choice away from the mother.

Posted by: Alex | May 20, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Under what health circumstances are D&X abortions performed?

There is currently no statistical information available on why "dilation and extraction" abortions are performed.

In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.

Yet the procedure is also performed in cases where the woman's health is at risk, or when the fetus shows signs of serious abnormalities, some of which don't become apparent until late in pregnancy.


See where it says the MAJORITY of these late term abortions are performed on healthy mothers. UGH..makes me sick

Posted by: Linda | May 20, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Tromba, so you're ok with me having my baby's skull punctured and brain sucked out, but executing murders is barbaric?

Amazing.

Posted by: Kate | May 20, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Not even Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, a comparatively benign Catholic gentleman and a Democrat, would have vetoed Virginia legilature's ban on late term abortions.

But US Senate Democrat candidate Mark Warner did!

Posted by: DaTourist | May 20, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Liberalism is a death cult.

Posted by: Patti O'Riley | May 20, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Pro Life philosophy promotes:
-Taking responsibility for you actions
-Discipline
-Self control
-Selflessness

Pro Choice philosophy promotes:
-Selfishness
-Doing what makes you feel good regardless of the consequences
-Harming someone else to help yourself
-Getting out of a bad decision (to have sex when you weren't ready)


One philosophy seems to promote more natural moral vices then virtures.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

LOL. In an election that Republicans should have no chance of winning, Democrats are pushing two polarizing candidates and now have their court system making decisions that are going to fire up the conservative base. As a conservative (Not Republican, mind you) I was planning on voting for a third party this year, but the libs are going to make me vote for McCain.

Posted by: Rick | May 20, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

"Is it moral for a bunch of old white men in a closed room, sipping brandy and smoking cigars to tell women what they can or cannot do to their own body? "

what's worse is that all five of the majority upholding the "partial birth" ban were catholics, each of whom showed to have more fealty to the vatican than to the consitution.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Why is it a great thing for me to have my child carved up into pieces after birth, but I can't move into a religious compound and marry her off when she's 13?

Better dead than wed?

Posted by: Amanda | May 20, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Consider this irony of conservative history.

In the 1960's, the FATHER of the modern "conservative" movement, none other than Barry Goldwater, was PROUD that his wife worked for Planned Parenthood.

An irony of today's "conservative" movement is that out of one side of their mouths they scream for less government and "get government off the backs of the people," ad nauseum. Yet out of the OTHER side of their mouths they want the government to stick its nose into everyone's bedroom and doctor's office, in the name of THEIR religion, which, by the way, has NOTHING to do with the law as handed down in Roe v. Wade.

Conservative = hypocrite. The backlash is building and this fall a tidal wave of resentment will wash over the GOP for 8 years of contemptible bumbling and butt kissing of the American Taliban. Good riddance to the GOP and the far right.

Posted by: 809212876 | May 20, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Liberalism is a death cult. - Posted by: Patti O'Riley

Says the reich wing warmonger who supports torture, murder, rape and treason.

Patti, you support the regime that LIED not once, not twice, but 935 times about Iraq to start a war that killed over 100,000 innocent civilians.

You support the regime that illegally used White Phosphorous against Iraqi civilian targets in Fallujah and elsewhere.

Liberalism a death cult? You're one to talk!!

Posted by: Tom3 | May 20, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

If you don't like rape, don't get one.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

What percentage of abortions- late term or otherwise- are for the sake of the mother's health? Almost nil. So, let's do some math. Current stats say there are well over a million babies killed every year. Okay. Let's assume 10% of those (which is very high) were for the sake of the mother's health. That is 100,000 NECESSARY killings. What about the other 900,000? Why are we killing those babies? Convenience? Selfishness? Because we can? "Oh, I forgot to use protection?" Whatever argument you try to pose, the bulk of killings are for selfish purposes.

"But what about choice? Who are you to tell me what to do with my body?" Bottom line is I cannot tell you what to do with your body. But you should be able to control what you do with yours- and that would be to take measures so you don't get pregnant. (Both guys and girls) We want to be able to do whatever we want without consequence. So, pass laws to justify behaviors. Hence Roe vs Wade and killings of mass numbers.

And please don't give me the crap about how religion is the root of all that is bad in the world. Please! The reason you don't like religion is you don't want to follow the tenants. That would mean be kind to your fellow beings, keeping your pants on, and recognizing that there just might be more to life than just our selfish wants.

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Right - conservatives are concerned for life between conception and birth - after that the compassion ends. War, death penalty, no health care, business concerns above all else, etc.

I'll never understand conservatives. Actually I believe the South is a perfect representation of conservative "values". I'm just glad I don't have to live there.

Patti said "Liberalism is a death cult."

Posted by: Al in SoCal | May 20, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

The great thing about planned parenthood is that you can have your donation earmarked for a black baby I mean fetus.

Posted by: no more chimps | May 20, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

All you right-wing nuts who want to thump your bible and say abortion, especially late term, is as sin and thus should be illegal, consider this:

Imagine your wife is 6 months pregnant.
The doctor tells you it is a certainty that your wife and your baby will die if she gives birth.
Your wife will live if an abortion is perormed.

If you choose to save your wife's life in this scenrio, you are pro-choice.

End of story.

Posted by: Common Sense | May 20, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I am generally conservative. I want to pay lower taxes and see as many terrorists killed as possible. However, I do not get the conservative imposition into a woman's/couple's life and will always support the right to choose.

A hundred years ago, give or take, life was defined at birth. Science keeps ratcheting back when they think life starts every year. What will they legislate next? What happens during a woman's period or during a male solo sexual encounter? Will it be illegal to throw that away too? I am sure science at some point will be able to combine the two and create a life & people will be fighting over it then as well.

Posted by: NoVACon | May 20, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Tom3, rednecks DO NOT support Obama.

Posted by: Andy | May 20, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

'The Richmond-based Family Foundation, which fought for the Virginia ban, said in a statement it hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will now reverse today's 4th Circuit ruling.'

If Democrats and liberals had not appealed against the Virginia ban on late term abortion (passed over the veto of Dem. Gov. Mark Warner!), we wouldn't be in the fortunate position today of having this case heard by the Supreme Court, where we can be fairly confident the Virginia Ban will be upheld, 5-4.

So, we have to understand that liberals serve God's purpose even when clueless liberals take issue with God.

Posted by: DaTourist | May 20, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"The reason you don't like religion is you don't want to follow the tenants"

It is TENETS, you inbred redneck moron.

Tenants are the morons who rented your double-wide.

Posted by: Tom3 | May 20, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Tom3, rednecks DO NOT support Obama.
Posted by: Andy

Thank You, Captain Obvious.

Of course they don't. They're racist inbreds.

Posted by: Tom3 | May 20, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

This is not about a woman's "right". I don't recall a "right" in the Constitution that even closely resembles an individual taking the life of another. Therefore the 4th Circuit made an incorrect ruling as it applies to an individuals "rights". And yes, an unborn infant is a life. While I am against abortion, I feel there are VERY rare occasions that may warrant the use of it to protect the life of the mother. I know which way I would choose were it my wife on the table. And yes, even though judges are supposed to rule according to the law, they do in fact make judgments that are politically motivated. I also agree with a previous post, if you don't want to go through childbirth, keep your feet out of the air or practice better pregnancy prevention. No one is to blame for the situation any person finds themselves in but that person. What happened to individual responsiblity? You don't have a colloge education? Bad decision making on your part. Anyone, especially lower income children and unwed mothers can attend college and get the majority of it payed for. Unwanted pregnancy? Bad decision making on your part, birth control and condoms are free at the Healt Dept. Unhappy marriage? Be a little more selective next time, and base your decisions on something other than physical attraction. Out of control children? Try saying no at Toys R Us from an early age to teach them that they can't have everything they want. If they knew what that word actually meant, and that you meant it when you said it, there would be no problem. Losing you home? Bad decision making on the part of the lender and the buyer. It is not the fault of the government that anyone, albeit it individuals, corporations, or institutions, make poor decisions. The blame lies with the decision maker. Period.

Posted by: JROD | May 20, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

NoVACon, fallacy of the slippery slope.

End of story.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Outlawing abortion is oppression of the working class(es). It the number of children born into families who cannot support them financially and/or emotionally. It causes unready parents to have kids when they make very human mistakes and/or have accidents (birth control doesn't always work).

What the anti-abortionists like to ignore is the kids who have to grow up in families where the parents don't have the means to raise children. Would you like to grow up in a house with mentally ill poor parents?

Neglecting children causes PTSD 80% of the time. It is worse than abuse, which kids are naturally somewhat resistant to. (They've found that abused kids are less likely to get PTSD than neglected kids.) In situations where there would be an abortion, those kids would, if brought up, likely be neglected.

What this means is that we'll have even greater number of neglected, mentally broken, aggressive, violent, prison-material kids growing up, dragging our schools, welfare, and justice systems down.

We would have to pay higher taxes to try and fix, or more likely incarcerate, these people who the "pro-life" supporters want brought into this world, while the kids-becoming-adults live tortured, destructive lives.

What if these kids who would have been aborted aren't, have parents that shouldn't have kids, grow up to be sick, commit terrible acts against other people, and then spend the rest of their life in prison? According to most Christians, this person would go to hell. In the meantime, they've killed and/or tortured someone. They've hurt countless people in their lifetime. We've had to pay for their drag on society and lost loved ones. Some people who could be authors or preachers or whatever are now prison guards, trying to hold all these people in prison.

That's what illegalizing abortion means. That and women dying in alleys trying to prevent their lives from being ruined so anti-abortionists can have what they want.

And what about parents who would be able to raise kids better when they are older, but who are instead forced to have kids because of accidents when they are young, poor, and less mature? This is part of the benevolent Christian god's plan?

This is insanity.

Posted by: George Griffith | May 20, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

That's right Tom3 and you owe me rent!

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

What we really need to do is kill all the poor people.

Posted by: George Griffith | May 20, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

My god if we could just find a way of aborting all the babies who would grow up to be Conservative jesus humping jackasses what a great world this would become. I wish I could start aborting them post birth with a hammer.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

In Virginia, and across the South from the Mason Dixon Line to the Gulf, from the Atlantic to Texas and Oklahoma, Election 2008 (McCain vs. Obama) will be about the appointment of judges and justices to the Federal judiciary.

We know where that leaves Obama, don't we?

Posted by: DaTourist | May 20, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

" . . . Is it moral for a bunch of old white men in a closed room, sipping brandy and smoking cigars to tell women what they can or cannot do to their own body?"

I've never understood this "what they can or can't do with their own body" argument -- correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't YOUR body that's being killed, is it? It's A BABY'S!! If that baby was 2 months old, you wouldn't get to do anything you wanted to with his/her body -- you could be arrested for hitting that little body, shaking that little body, starving that little body, etc. So why does a woman with an unborn child think she can do anything she wants to with that little body -- including killing it in a horrific late-term abortion?!?! If you are not in a position to take care of a child, then don't get pregnant. If you decide mid-pregnancy that you thought you wanted the baby but have now changed your mind, or perhaps the pregnancy IS the result of a rape -- then bring that soul into the world and give it to a family who can care for it. Killing is killing and it is NOT "your body"!!!! I've never understood this abortion concept and never will -- it is so clearly something you are DOING to another PERSON!! Calling this a "reproductive choice" is just wrong -- semantically, rhetorically and morally. Keep your pants zipped or your legs closed!!

Posted by: JB | May 20, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

We need to abort anyone named Andre

Posted by: George Tiller | May 20, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Andre, great idea on the post birth abortions, let's get started.

Posted by: Leonard | May 20, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

We just should have killed off all the redneck inbreeds during the civil war and saved the Union all kinds of trouble down the road.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

That's right Tom3 and you owe me rent!
Posted by: Paul

LOL!! Actually I own a house AND a condo. Own them both outright.

I still owe ten grand on the Saab convertible though. I'll probably break it before I pay it off.

Posted by: Tom3 | May 20, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Federal and state governments should have minimal rights in the wombs of expecting mothers. Expecting mothers have been, and should continue to be, granted the ability to act with impunity in their own best interests.

Posted by: peter | May 20, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

If we corner that organ-grinder monkey Obama and make him defend abortion-on-demand, will we be Swiftboating?

Prepare to be Swiftboated, Obammy!

Posted by: DaTourist | May 20, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

kill whitey!

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't have enough experience to know how to grind an organ, well, not a musical organ

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"My god if we could just find a way of aborting all the babies who would grow up to be Conservative jesus humping jackasses what a great world this would become. I wish I could start aborting them post birth with a hammer."
-Andre

This is a perfect example of the type of individual that is attracted to the pro choice argument.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Wow...I take issue with those of you who lable all conservatives or republicans in your rash generalizations. Some liberals and democrats are socialists but I don't label all of you as such. So kill the stupid partisan rhetoric...all of us.

If I am correct, science has not identified firmly when durring the gestation period life begins. The truth is however, there is strong evidence that it does begin at conception. Why do I say this? Because when a woman becomes pregnant, her immune system is altared temporarily so that her body doesn't identify the zygote as an invading organism and automatically attack it. Let me emphasise the word ORGANISM. A seperate biological living thing. Now I will concede that this is only MY personal interpritation of the science but I believe it is founded. Once again we can not determine 100% when life "begins" for a fetus/zygote. But personally I would rather error on the side of NOT eliminating a "non-living" zygote than error on the side of killing a growing human life.

I will say this though...you can not legislate certain aspects of morality. They are individual choices and must be treated as such. This should be settled with honest, open and educated discussion rather than beligerant, partisan bickering. You may be able to change a law, but it won't change the heart of a person.

Jon - I truly hope you wife is healthy and that everything possible is done to ensure it. The truth is, sometimes we have to make the tough choice of who lives and who dies and I believe that saving one life is better than losing two. God bless.

Posted by: JD | May 20, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

It's a ball of cells until its old enough to collect welfare and vote democrat

Posted by: progressive | May 20, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

If the mothers life or well being is at significant risk then this is understandable. If the mothers life is not at significant risk then this is horrible. In many cases late term means the baby could survive on its own.

Posted by: DoodleFly | May 20, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

@Tom3

A Saab- nice!

If the condo is on the beach I may want to rent it- just make sure it has one-bristle toothbrushes as I only have one tooth. Redneck thing...

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

The joke is on you, person who pretended to be me and saying I want to kill poor people, I am poor. Grew up that way, still am. It's sick to take my effort to try and help those who need it most, myself included, and try to pervert it into an attack on those very people.

Are you paid to do this, or what?

Posted by: George Griffith | May 20, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Don't like murder? Don't commit one.

Posted by: Juvenal | May 20, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Can any of you inbreed rednick jesus humping republicans name ANYTHING where you have progressed the human ideals. Heck, can any of you cro-mags walk down the street and not drag knuckles?

Mr. Tiller, one of us is gonna sleep with your mom tonight. Please let me have a turn for once.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

IMO all of you are nuts.
I would like to mention that I am a god fearing Christian who believes in the fate and will of God as taught to me in Sunday school. I honestly believe the only way an abortion will happen as with all life and death is if God allows it to happen. Just my humble opinion.

Posted by: Its Crazy | May 20, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

JD, go away, this blog is for hate and spew, not rational argument

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Virginia!

Obama, must defend his intention to appoint abortion judges and justices to the Federal judiciary!

Will Governor Kaine still support Obama in November 2008?

Posted by: DaTourist | May 20, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Paul- You nailed it!! The other hypocrisy is the grotesque misrepresentation of the
"mother`s health" which is translated into an inconvenient or uncomfortable pregnancy
can be terminated for the most cavalier of reasons.Unfortunately,abortion on demand,anytime,anywhere is still the cornerstone of the Democrat platform!

Posted by: bjcass | May 20, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

There go the dems making sure Babies get killed on demand.

Posted by: Dwight | May 20, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Late term abortions are very rarely needed what with the medical advances that have been made. A woman's "mental health" in requiring this type of procedure is suspect at best. This is a barbaric procedure period. Just how terribly hard is it ladies to either keep your legs closed or take one lousy pill a day?

Posted by: Kathy | May 20, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Many women choose to get an abortion because of the cards they are dealt. I don't really think that a girl who is having a baby from her fiance or lover would decide to get rid of it. Think people, if we want women to keep our babies we should start by giving them more love and attention. Basically, when a woman is no longer loved by her "partner" she has to forget about him and move on with her life (as men do). Keeping the baby is not the best way to do it.

Posted by: Frentic | May 20, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Joe wrote: "We treat dogs better than unborn babies."

Actually Joe, we treat unborn babies better than dogs. The statistics are a bit old but refute your statement. Sorry I didn't have all day to look them up but did find these:

Number of Abortions in 1997: 1,186,039
Number of Dogs Euthanized in 1997: 1,304,787

So your statement is false. We treat unborn babies better than dogs. And actually the number of abortions have been going down and the number of euthanized dogs have been going up so there is a greater disparity today more than ever.

Posted by: stats | May 20, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Oh my, what venom...reading over the submissions sickened me. A woman has the right to do what she sees fit, for herself. Why would someone else have the right to choose for her? Pro-choice all the way.

Posted by: maryann | May 20, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"I for one would be healthier if those who worship at the altar of abortion would be aborted now."

Ah, another kind, loving christian espousing murder of born, alive human beings. Typical.

Funny thing is...abortion isn't even mentioned in the bible.

Posted by: SteveCO | May 20, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Withheld | May 20, 2008 5:59 PM

Obama doesn't have enough experience to know how to grind an organ, well, not a musical organ

DaTourist replied:

Well, you know, HIV-AIDS was unknown to humans until SOMEHOW it got "communicated" from monkeys to African natives. I don't pretend to know just how this happened, and I don't like to think about very much.

Posted by: DaTourist | May 20, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

My uncle told me that when he was young he went to Europe. He visited France, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany. He mostly walked but sometimes got a ride in a truck or other vehicle. Along the way he killed people. Mostly grown men but many women and children who had no choice in the matter. He knew that he was killing women and children some of the time. He told me that when he meets his maker he will have no one to answer to except God and he will accept that judgement. By the way he got a couple of medals for killing people, including women and children.

Please stop passing judgement on these people. They are probably going through the most terrifying time of their life and you are not God. Try to be compassionate and more Christ-like, offering them support and comfort. Instead of terrorizing them in front of clinics or on highways with your disgusting picturess, you should be using your time and obviously considerable financial resources helping them through their troubled times. What do you do for those 14 year olds you convince to go through with the pergnancy? Where are you helping them raise crack babies of incestuous rapes? If you are truly concerned with saving babies, save the ones that are born.

Posted by: RAM | May 20, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Whatever you think about the decision, calling the 4th Circuit, "one of the most conservative appellate courts in the nation" is totally misleading and poor journalism.

It's true that the majority of judges on the Fourth Circuit are so-called "conservatives." But only "en banc" decisions come from the entire court (all of the judges). This opinion, like most, was made by only three specific judges assigned to the case. This was a split decision, 2-1. Guess who appointed the two judges who found the ban unconstitutional? Bill Clinton. Guess who appointed the judge who dissented and said that the ban was okay? Bush Senior.

As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts. The facts are that this was a decision where two judges appointed by a Democrat won out over one judge appointed by a Republican, nothing more. The Wall Street Journal does a disservice to its readers hyping it up as something else.

Posted by: Brian | May 20, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

"Don't like children being used as sex slaves? Don't go to Indonesia and have sex with a child..."

Um, el stupido, having sex with a child is illegal in the U.S.

It's not illegal to get an abortion.

"What a stupid bunch of arguments..."

Look who's talking - another braindead right wing idiot.

Posted by: SteveCO | May 20, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Withheld,
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am the father of 5 and my wife is pregnant with our 6th! (due on election day!)

I'm praying that our leaders will act with wisdom and discernment in moving forward. For so long we've argued back and forth without revisiting the facts.

Having lost a child previously, it is essential that we discuss these issues with an appreciation of the value of human life and develop policies that protect the mother and the child.

Anthony
gospelism.org

Posted by: Anthony | May 20, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

If God doesn't impose his will on us, how can I impose my will on anyone. But we do have the resposibility to make laws that protect the inocent, and lets call abortion what it really is "murder of the unborn."

Posted by: CATHY | May 20, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I have started an "exploratory committee" for my dog Spot's Democrat Presidential nomination in Election 2012!

Spot will be a "post-racial" Democrat, uniting black and white dogs in one great canine brotherhood, and (uh!) sisterhood! Spot specially likes to "unite" with the sisters in our neighborhood!

Spot has all the qualities of a Democrat, plus Spot has LOYALTY, too!

Posted by: DaTourist | May 20, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Kathy:
"Just how terribly hard is it ladies to either keep your legs closed or take one lousy pill a day?"

How terribly hard is it, Kathy, to realize that to save the life or health of the mother, *it matters not a whit* what you think? It matters that the mother's health is saved. Period.

It's barbaric practice to bomb hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians to death based on the lies of our Worst President Ever and his War Criminal V.P.

I don't hear any complaints about *that* barbarism, which negates any argument - or intelligence - on your part. Kathy.

Posted by: SteveCO | May 20, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

@SteveCO

Good call Steve! How wrong I was to think sex with a child was legal in the US! Silly me...

Oh, you are right again! Abortion is legal! That makes it perfectly and totally right and good! I am so glad that our government dictates to us what is right and wrong.

Gosh Steve. You are smart!

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

To be precise, everyone is entitled to HIS opinion. But what if his opinion is that you are not entitled to yours. Is he still entitled? If people who believe in abortion are going to be fair about it, shouldn't they accord that right to their mothers? And if they do, aren't they, logically speaking, canceling out their own existence--at least in principle--and therefore forfeiting their right to an opinion? Is it time for a policy of retroactive abortions for promoters of abortion?

Posted by: juvenal | May 20, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I think it only helps republicans in november to have another wedge issue to up voter turnout. VA has passed several immigration laws so republicans will not have that as a hot button issue to run on.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

"Tthe 2003 Virginia law did not include a health exception. Warner vetoed the law, and the legislature overrode his veto."

"The 4th Circuit, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the nation, initially struck down the Virginia law in 2005 because it lacked an exception to safeguard a woman's health."

I'm 100% pro-choice and the Virginia legislature is 100% anti-woman. And the fact that their decision was overturned by a conservative court shows proves how much the Virginia legislature hates women. I wish I could afford to move from this third world state.

Posted by: ccatmoon | May 20, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that the people who support laws forcing you to wear seatbelts in a car & motorcycle helmets are the same ones who support choice on abortion issue.
Your position on life reveals much about your belief system & who is important to you. IE: your freedom to live as you choose at the expense of an innocent baby(who really cares if a "few" babies have to suffer some pain and give up their life for your pleasure). After all nothing in life matters but you anyway. Don't blame you for praying that there is no God to care about the killing of the innocent. As judgment could be a real bummer.

Posted by: Roger | May 20, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Ah, maryann -- and here it is again: "A woman has the right to do what she sees fit, for herself. Why would someone else have the right to choose for her? Pro-choice all the way."

F I N E -- choose for YOURSELF -- NOT for another human being -- who is THE BABY!! Choose NOT to get pregnant. Choose to protect yourself. Yeah -- CHOOSE to do the right thing -- not the convenient, legal and AWFUL thing. You are WRONG -- we don't "have the right to do what we see fit, for ourselves" -- we live in a civilized society with rules and laws to protect ME from something happening because YOU decided that stealing my car was in "your best interest" and you decided that yourself!! How 'bout if a rapist decides that raping YOU is in HIS "best interest" and that he decided that himself?!?! Can you not see how SPECIOUS this reasoning is?!? The only ones who are NOT being protected under our laws are the smallest, the most helpless and the truly innocent. I don't get it, never will and you can't make me understand it by waving a ProChoice flag like that somehow makes this all right. It isn't. It's wrong in every way. Go ahead and make the Ultimate Choice -- protect yourself from pregnancy and STDs and everything else involved with not keeping your legs shut. But don't get pregnant out of your poor choices, then abort your fetus and claim you exercised your own choice!!! What about that baby's choice?!? Oh, my gosh -- I can't even think with this twisted rhetoric. It's just wrong.

Posted by: JB | May 20, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

If God doesn't impose his will on us, how can I impose my will on anyone. But we do have the resposibility to make laws that protect the inocent, and lets call abortion what it really is "murder of the unborn."

Posted by: CATHY | May 20, 2008 6:10 PM

My dear Cathy, you may not always be aware that God imposes His Will on human affairs, but that in no way means that God doesn't do so.

For example, it was God's Will that young Teddy Kennedy would escape the laws of Massachusetts for his cowardly behavior in Ms. Mary Jo Kopechne's Chappaquiddick drowning, but then God afflicted 75 year old Teddy Kennedy with a brain tumor!

Posted by: DaTourist | May 20, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

The US Constitution is NOT a document that should be waved about to make these decisions. It's not what it was designed for. That's why abortion is a state-by-state issue, and folks who keep throwing out the "oh, it's unconstitutional" or "no it's not" need to go back to Civics class and re-learn the difference between national and state legislative rights and responsibilities. The right of a state to make its own individual decisions regarding freedoms and restrictions that the Constitution does NOT specifically already protect are what make this a United States rather than the Republic of North America-South of Canada.

If you are against or for abortion, contact your representatives wherever you are and tell them so. They have to record the contact and the comments and if they don't vote the way you want, don't vote them in again. Politics in this country needs to go back to grassroots so we can clean house in our hometowns first and work our way up. This particular issue will likely never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction because it *is* a difficult decision...personally I'm more interested in my local taxes and gas costs going up than whether or not someone who isn't me gets an abortion, late-term or no...it's really none of my business. It's on their conscience and soul, not mine.

Posted by: RS | May 20, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Last time I checked the US was not a Theocracy, therefore the laws are NOT based on any religion.
I support the right to a safe abortion. I also believe, very strongly, that it is a decision between a woman, her doctor, and her own conscience.
I also believe that it should be very rare. That is shouldn't be used only as birth control. That there needs to be much better education on human sexuality, not just abstinence.
It all starts with EDUCATION.

Posted by: nodak | May 20, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

It takes a sperm 2 weeks to enter into an egg. That's 2 weeks after you had unprotected sex to get tested for pregnancy. That's enough time to take the morning after pill.

With that in mind, there is no reason whatsoever to have an abortion THREE to NINE MONTHS into a pregnancy.

Absolutely disgusting.

Posted by: John | May 20, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

JD - About the 'organism' growing inside a pregnant woman... I think a much fitter definition is thus:

"a swelling of a part of the body, generally without inflammation, caused by an abnormal growth of tissue, whether benign or malignant."

A.K.A., a tumor.

If you can tell me how this definition does not fit, go right ahead. I'm interested. What is a fetus if not a tumor?

Besides, there is one thing that all healthy humans share in common: consciousness. A fetus does not have this. That is why no one remembers their own birth or early years. A baby doesn't develop such things until much later. I personally base human life on those who are conscious and decision-making. Therefore, abortion is simply the removal of a tumor. Unless, of course, you believe in destiny and fate, and if you do, well.. What in goodness gracious is the point of life?

Posted by: ZZ | May 20, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"Your position on life reveals much about your belief system & who is important to you. IE: your freedom to live as you choose at the expense of an innocent baby..."

OOPS. There's your problem, why you're so confused: it's not a baby! It's a fetus! And a fetus that is hurting the health of a mother is far less important than the mother.

Your position as an anti-abortionist reveals much about your belief system & who is important to you.

Obviously, some mythical deity and fetuses are more important to you than born, alive and breathing human beings.

Interesting.

Posted by: SteveCO | May 20, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

It's very sad we are having this debate when overpopulation is killing the world. Yes, technically we can feed everyone. But practically we have not found an economic, religious or social system that will keep fully functioning, non-embryonic, non-fetal adults from killing each other in the most horrible ways. Congratulations Republicans, as long as you keep us debating this absurd issue we will continue to careen headlong down the path of making the earth completely uninhabitable for all human beings. May God bless you appropriately.

Posted by: Jason Crowson | May 20, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I am going to put this as simple as I can for the backwoods hillbillys in Virginia... IF YOU DON'T HAVE A WOMB YOU DON'T GET A VOTE. When men evolve to have all of the babies in our society then those men can determine the right to choose what they do with their bodies. Ya'alls undersstands?

Posted by: Kieth | May 20, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

What is so funny and sickening at the same time over the "woman's health" clauses in legislation banning this type of abortion is that it's not needed.

These procedures take several hours because the cervix must be dilated first. If the pregnancy was causing the woman's life to be in danger, the logical thing to do would be to take her to a hospital for an emergency c-section which would take a significantly less time than this form of abortion.

No, this is pure infanticide. What knucklehead made the distinction that as long as the kid's head is in the birth canal, it doesn't have the rights of any other human being?

Posted by: kws | May 20, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

@ZZ

Ha! A tumor! That's what it is! Mystery solved.

The old fall-back- it's a fetus, not a baby. What a sad system of poor judgements we use to justify our poor choices. Thanks to ZZ however, we have now determined that babies are just tumors- let's get rid of them.

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

A woman's body is her own and what she does with it should be her decision, not the governments nor the religious right wingers.

If she decides to have an abortion that is her decision for she feels she has a very good reason to have one.

I do not understand why people in this country feel that they have the right to stick their noses into a persons private life.

Pro-choice is just that it gives a woman a choice to keep her baby, put it up for adoption or to terminate the pregnancy. Regardless what she chooses it is HER decision and everyone else should stay out of it.

Posted by: MistressV | May 20, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Paul:
"I am so glad that our government dictates to us what is right and wrong."

Actually, the government tells us what is the law, not what's right and wrong. You really *are* confused.

That's the job of bible thumping type A screamers like you, Paul baby, who think they have a hotline to a god that didn't even mention abortion in your bible that he supposedly wrote.


Posted by: SteveCO | May 20, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

If all sudents were told about the choices of protection, not just abstinence, we would have fewer young children having babies and abortion would not be an issue but the conservatives only want abstinence taught and President Bush has given millions to teach this curriculum.

Posted by: helen30 | May 20, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

What always amazes me about the "abortion debate" is the refusal to remain focused on the distinctions between the reasons for choosing an abortion. On the one end of the spectrum is "oops! I didn't mean to get pregnant!". Not too hard to vilify in that case - it is the preverbial abortion of convenience. On the other end of the spectrum you have life or death decisions for the mother. Pretty hard to villify the mother there. Then you have the cases where it is a choice exercized because the baby, in utero, has been diagnosed with some severe and unresolvable health issue. Tougher call than the other two situations, but you can see where that decision is made out of compassion. When you think about it, all abortions fit into one or more of those three categories. Yet because the extreme anti-abortionists and the extreme pro-abortionists refuse to give up ANY ground on the issue, the real facts and circumstances don't get discussed. All of us want to do what is right. Those of you on either extreme of the issue need to let go and come together to find the middle ground.

And one more thing. WHEN an abortion occurs (so long as it is truly an abortion), is really irrelevant. If you believe that a fetus is a child then you have to believe that an embryo is a child - to state otherwise is hypocritical. What matters, folks, is why. And that is where the debate will ultimately have to focus.

Posted by: Chris | May 20, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I think it only helps republicans in november to have another wedge issue to up voter turnout. VA has passed several immigration laws so republicans will not have that as a hot button issue to run on.

Posted by: | May 20, 2008 6:14 PM

DaTourist replied:

Of course, you are partly right.

"Wedge issues" separate liberals from conservatives, Democrats from Republicans, but generally liberals and Democrats are not proud of their side of the Wedge Issues.

Abortion will kill Mark Warner and Obama in Virginia.

But immigration is not a dead issue either. If you live in Northern Virginia, constantly in fear of Central American gangs of illegal immigrants, immigration will probably be more of an issue than mass transportation.


Posted by: DaTourist | May 20, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

"It takes a sperm 2 weeks to enter into an egg. That's 2 weeks after you had unprotected sex to get tested for pregnancy. That's enough time to take the morning after pill."

Posted by: John | May 20, 2008 6:19 PM

Wow. Go back to health class.
An egg is viable for approximately 24 hours. Sperm can survive for maybe 48-72 hours at most in the uterus on the way to fallopian tube.

The two week time frame you are referring to is when a woman first misses her period.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Is this issue ever going to be resolved?? It seems for as long as I can recall, this issue has been on the adgenda of the Pro Life and Pro Choice questions. What kind of justice system can never resolve and issue without it constantly being appealed?? Such a waste of time and money for something that takes place behind closed doors between a doctor and patient.

Posted by: Bobby Yarush | May 20, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Trying to control people(woman) and take away someones freedom based on opinion and judgment,when there actions do not effect you shows a shallow defect in one's soul and personality. Freedom and choice are at the core of life with or with-out words on a piece of paper,facts or government. Passing judgment,blame,anger,hate,or even laws that limit freedom/life when it does not effect you at all,will only bring these same feelings, situations, and circumstances back onto yourself. Basically being forced to "learn the hard way"

Posted by: ricky | May 20, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

@SteveCO

And abortion is right because the government says so.

And you assume so much... I am not religious at all. But anyone who has any sense at all can see that killing unborn babies is wrong despite its legality. But not for you Stevie-Boy. If the government gives the thumbs up, let's jump right in! Are you homosexual? Or are you going to turn homosexual once gay marriage is legal? It must be right!

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"Is it time for a policy of retroactive abortions for promoters of abortion?"

More murder proposed by kindly anti-abortion misogynists.

Posted by: SteveCO | May 20, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

This issue will only truly be resolved when people have the right to choose when to get pregnant. We need a safe, effective way to prevent pregnancy with 100% certainty until the decision is made "by both parties" to get pregnant.

The problem with "women's choice" is that men have no say in the matter. Therefore, anything we come up with to give women the right to make the choice alone is insufficient.

The only solution is to make sure that men do not and can not get a woman pregnant if they don't wish to. It should always take 2 yeses. At some point we will finally figure out that the default of sex should be "no pregnancy", and that two people making a baby should enter into a legally binding agreement to go forward and procreate.

Posted by: mreman | May 20, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Abstinence only does too work. My parents raised 7 children on the concept of abstinence and ALL of us grew up to have weddings where the brides deserved to wear white and the marriages have all been successful.

It doesn't work without parental support however. Abstinence cannot be successfully taught at school since it is a way of life that involves so much more than just facts (which is all schools can provide).

Posted by: mithraug | May 20, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

There are so many couples out there who want to adopt a baby yet people assume there are only two choices: abort the baby or raise it. It takes years and a lot of luck and thousands of dollars to finally adopt a baby. And yet abortion clinics are disposing of babies who could survive on their own--killing them right before (or after) birth. Too sad.

Posted by: Andrea | May 20, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

So, if I don't like murder, I shouldn't kill anyone? Everyone is talking about the privacy and the rights of the mother but what about the child?

Posted by: Bill | May 20, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"For example, it was God's Will that young Teddy Kennedy would escape the laws of Massachusetts for his cowardly behavior in Ms. Mary Jo Kopechne's Chappaquiddick drowning,..."

The same God's Will that allowed George W. Bush to desert the National Guard and bomb hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians to death.

"... but then God afflicted 75 year old Teddy Kennedy with a brain tumor!"

Oh yeah, that had to be God, waiting 40 years to affect the life of someone 75 years old.

Geez, how do feeble thinkers like this even feed themselves?

Posted by: SteveCO | May 20, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Paul is making a lot of sense. Just because a person thinks abortion is wrong doesn't mean he is a bible-thumping church goer. Come on, killing babies is killing babies.

Posted by: Hank | May 20, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Does everyone posting here fully understand the procedure we're talking about? A viable fetus is delivered only to the point where the head is still in the birth canal. If the head slips out of the birth canal and the procedure is continued, the Dr. can be brought on murder charges so he's very careful to keep that head in the birth canal. He then inserts a needle into the base of the fetus's neck and suck the brain out. Oftentimes the fetus spasms at this point. If you all don't believe me, look it up on google-it's all there. Now I fully believe that if a woman's life is at stake, save the woman. However, anyone that believes that abortions aren't used as birth control oftentimes, is willfully blind. again ladies, keep the legs together or take the pill. It's simple and it would eliminate discourse like this.

Posted by: Kathy | May 20, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

The ban did allow exceptions for the LIFE of the mother, not the health. There's an important distinction between the two because if the health of a mother is justification for a late term abortion then all it takes is some liberal doctor to justify any sort of health issue associated with giving birth as cause for an abortion. Even mental health due to stress could be potentially reason enough. What these bans do is prevent would-be mothers from killing babies that could already live outside the mother's womb. It has NOTHING to do with the woman's body and everything to do with protecting life. Liberals may not see the difference between this and executing a murderer (in most cases only gruesome or repeat murders). But conservatives and centrists do.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

i (of course) bear no ill-regard toward those of you who appear to be making attempts at communicating with the brain-washed among us, but, though i am along with Mr. Obama a huge champion of communication, can we not agree that it is futile here? we know, for instance, the difference between a fetus & a baby; we know murder is a legal concept which does not apply to fetuses. they, however, cannot even see how the rhetoric drives their emotions and perpetuates their distortion fields. let us all be thankful our court systems and legislatures, though not without them, have not been overrun by the likes of them. i for one am not free from the oppression of the brain-washed masses that exists today, and am more enslaved than i would like to be (or care to admit?) by my fear for the day when that oppression has become the order of the day. i hope i do not live to see it. talk about hitler!

Posted by: c0nd3mn3d | May 20, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Read the decision, people--it has (almost) nothing to do with whether the law does or doesn't contain a health-of-the-mother clause. Instead, the judges decided that, although the Va. statute claimed that it was banning "partial birth abortions", the way it was written effectively banned ALL "D&E" abortions. And Va. isn't allowed to do that.

Posted by: Cabin John | May 20, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

You know, there were some good points made here, but what gets me is how quick Americans are to throw everything under the alter of "ME". This nation is just another example of a mega society that is deteriorating under its own pile of aberration. Do you think that Rome knew it was really failing as a society? No, the people in Rome kept living on however they wanted, and then they collapsed. Same thing with every other Empire.

Jesus was for every person being valued. The sinner, the prostitute, the money-grubber, and (VERY pointedly) the child. They are the most defenseless of all, and it's a sick and evil tragedy that anyone would choose to sacrifice a child's life for the sake of their own lifeSTYLE. I know there are medical issues to consider, but don't you think we ought to just take a look at what's motivating abortions? It would be wonderful if we would stop bickering over everyone's 'rights' and focus on what our 'rights' are costing other people. And this goes waaaaaay beyond the abortion issue.

Posted by: Mike | May 20, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Besides the life of the pregnant woman, here is another scenario to consider: Elisabeth Fritzl.
She was literally kept prisoner and raped repeatedly by her father. She bore 7 children, one which died.
She had no choice in her pregnancies and whether or not she had sex.
Is it her fault she became pregnant? Are you going to tell her that she should have kept her legs shut?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

"Abortion is a billion dollar business liberals will fight for. Planned Parenthood is in the business of murder, especially black babies."

Ah, what an absolutely hilarious troll...

Some useful points here: the "abortion rights" debate is not a racially motivated one and does not stem from racist motivations. The "black babies" remark doesn't add anything to this discussion, and will officially be ignored :)

Planned Parenthood (formally known as Planned Parenthood Federation of America) is a non-profit organization, receiving about 1/3rd of its funding straight from the government (1/3rd comes from clinic revenues, i.e. fees charged to clients; the rest comes from private donations). Abortion isn't a "growth industry" designed to turn a profit. Services are provided at cost. Whoops. There goes the "billion dollar business" notion. Also, it provides abortions, not murders. You may equate the terms, but the rest of us (along with the law of the land) do not.

Some conservatives support abortion. Some liberals oppose it.

Finally, we don't need to "fight" for abortion. It's already legal and will continue to be. The only fights left are in defending against nutjobs trying to force their religious beliefs on the behavior of others.

I guess your whole post misses the mark, eh?

Posted by: Willfe | May 20, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Wow. We are now down to the definitions of words.

"we know, for instance, the difference between a fetus & a baby; we know murder is a legal concept which does not apply to fetuses."

Okay, so a fetus is a fetus. Remove it. It is really just a "tumor" or a piece of waste. But, hey, once that fetus gets a wee bit older, then the law says we are committing a crime. Thank goodness again for the government to spell our our moral compass. And yes, for those of you who let these types of laws pass, these laws are your moral compass. Sad, sad, sad.

But hey, with great presidents like Clinton who "did not have sex with that woman" because a blow job doesn't constitute sex, what can you expect for our pathetic country?

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"And abortion is right because the government says so."

Paul: you really have problems, that's obvious, but here's what I replied to you earlier:

----------------
You, Paul, said:
"I am so glad that our government dictates to us what is right and wrong."

I, SteveCO, replied:
Actually, the government tells us what is the law, not what's right and wrong. You really *are* confused.

Yet, you come back with this, Paul: "And abortion is right because the government says so."
------------------------------------------

I mean...how uncomprehending can you be? I have a lot of fun with idiots like you, Paul, but it's time to move on. You can keep repeating yourself after I quit replying. Have fun.

"And you assume so much... I am not religious at all."

I don't believe you. That's the new tactic of the misogynist religious right: pretend abortion isn't solely about religious belief.

Nice try, Paulie. Bye.

Posted by: SteveCO | May 20, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

The "life of the mother" argument is a straw man. This late term procedure is 100% selective. The child has already been delivered so how exactly is the mother's health at risk?

Posted by: glenda | May 20, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

After a woman has become pregnant, she has crossed a line of no return. If a woman chooses to have sex , she has chosen to accept the risk of pregnancy. That is where the choice lies- whether to choose the risk or not. After the choice is made, the consequences must be lived with. I don't know how anybody can make the choice, then just rid a human life because it's not convenient.

An abortion that is necessary to preserve the life of health of the mother is extremely rare, at least 90% of abortions are for convenience sake. And, a fetus 21 weeks of age or later is viable, so anything after that is a premature delivery.

Posted by: Tara | May 20, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

"The "life of the mother" argument is a straw man. This late term procedure is 100% selective. The child has already been delivered so how exactly is the mother's health at risk?"

The 4th Circuit, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the nation, initially struck down the Virginia law in 2005 because it lacked an exception to safeguard a woman's health.

Gelnda did you ever bother to learn how to read? Guess not. Thats why you are a republican.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

People that are against choice might want to consider adoption instead of complaining, passing judgment, and trying to control others. And it seems most of the "pro life" crowd favor capitol punishment/death penalty. That seems to be a contradiction and hypocritical. Confusion of the mind shows a mind not free but bound by others.

Posted by: Ricky | May 20, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Nearly all respected physicians now concur that with modern medical techniques there really is no such thing as a "health" mandated abortion. The 4th's decision is founded on old political propaganda, and tragically, there's no way they could have overlooked that fact.

Posted by: Bill | May 20, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Its a tragedy that the poeple who are most opposed to abortion are the ones in the most need of one.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Please be advised that your comments on this particular issue provides all insight on the nature of your heart.

Posted by: willdill78 | May 20, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

"Nearly all respected physicians now concur that with modern medical techniques there really is no such thing as a "health" mandated abortion."

Name them. Name one. And Pat Robertson does not count.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Ah Stevie-

A question to you then- is abortion right? Or is it wrong? Or is it just a choice, nothing more or less?

And just because you don't believe my religious status means nothing. Your beliefs are only that- beliefs, truth to your set of standards. They mean nothing to me or anyone else. Yet you feel your beliefs are correct. Beliefs based on "laws" set by a corrupt and inconsistent group of politicians. Those who pass laws that suit your beliefs are good and those that don't are bad. It is no different from anyone posting on here...

You have a lot of fun with idiots like me huh. Interesting how name-calling seems a huge part of your replies. But that is okay. You haven't done anything to answer my questions or those posed by the so-called "pro-lifers." You sit back with a Roe vs Wade card in your immoral pocket thinking that pulling it out in the abortion game with give you the trump you need to win. You haven't won. The only thing killing of unborn has done is killed the unborn. Verbiage and the sort doesn't soothe the guilty being very long. And you are guilty my friend, very guilty.

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"Pro-abortionists do the same with the unborn."

Congradulations for being obtuse. There is clearly a difference between enslaving a person and a medical rpcedure that may save the life of the mother. But being that you cant tell your mother from your sister I do not expect you to figure things like that out.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Tara misinterprets U.S. law:
"After a woman has become pregnant, she has crossed a line of no return."

Um, no, in the U.S., she can get an abortion is she wants to. Sorry you're so confused.

Take your stinking morality and stick it, Tara. Don't have sex if it bothers you so much. Keep your petty mind out of other peoples' business. What miserable lives you and your ilk must live - worrying more about women's sex lives than our war criminal president and his murderous policies.

It's OK if it isn't fetus, huh, Tara?

Posted by: SteveCO | May 20, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Nothing obtuse Andre...you obfuscate. The issue is in the rights of those being dehumanized. Slave owners did it with slaves...you do it with the unborn to ease your conscience.

Posted by: P. Henry | May 20, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Fetus is a Latin word which means offspring or in English unborn young. By the way my guess is that you support seatbelt & helmet laws to protect people from their personal choices. Yet have no compassion for the unborn or just born who are at the mercy of others. The real problem remains that to many are selfish & not enough are selfless in our world. Your faith that there is no God to have to give an account to is great. But if you are wrong.....the stakes can not be higher, think about it.

Posted by: Roger | May 20, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I go to church and I believe in God and yet I still think that my doctor should be allowed to perform an abortion in order to save my life. Without that provision in legislation like this my doctor is not allowed to make that choice. He/she would instead be legally required to sit by and watch me die. Sure it's a hypothetical and it doesn't happen as often as other late term abortions, but even if there is a.001 percent chance of it happening to me I want that safeguard written into the legislation. Seriously, if you call yourself pro-Life don't you care about my life too?

Posted by: JH | May 20, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Birth control efficacy:
Condom: 85%
Pill: 92%
Abstinence: 100%

Abstinence works every time it's tried.

Posted by: jimbob | May 20, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Good arguments. The world is overpopulated therefore abortions are a good thing. You know we should start killing, all the mentally challenged, the elderly, and just those who are weaker, then we will have lots more room on this earth.

Congratulations to those who are ignorant enough to blame a political platform. It's a lot easier to blame another group for the problems with the world, rather than seeing the problems and personally doing something to make things slightly better.

You are not a better person because you vote Democrat, or Republican for that matter.

I just thought of something interesting concerning late term abortions.

38 weeks is the average time for a baby to come after conception. It's normal to have a child slightly earlier or later and not be consider pre or post mature.

Scenario: Two women get pregnant at the same time, one has a baby in 36 weeks, baby is healthy and alive. One week later, both women decide they don't want to be Mothers. One mother has a late term abortion, the other sticks a pillow over her baby's face for a couple of minutes. Babies are the same age, but only one was murdered.

I just wish everyone saw children as a blessing, rather than an inconvenience.

Posted by: Seth | May 20, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

"The issue is in the rights of those being dehumanized. Slave owners did it with slaves...you do it with the unborn to ease your conscience."

Dont choke on that red herring your serving up. This decision was about allowing an exemption for the health of the mother. Should the courst outlaw a medical procedure or should we leave it to DOCTORS to figure out. How in the hell you tie slavery into this is a pretty large leap of logic. But you are a Bush voter so I do not expect logic from you.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I think it is unfortunate that TOM3 and others are of the opinion that because a person is from a rural upbringing or lifestyle that they are somehow "ignorant, inbred, rednecks". I grant you there are indeed differences between urban and rural lifestyles and beliefs. But to suggest that anyone not from the "city" or the elite "north" has lower intelligence is another perfect example of TRUE ignorance.I was raised on a soybean and poultry farm in Southeast Oklahoma, yet I have a Bachelors from University of Arkansas and currently working on my Masters. I can talk "hick" with all of my neighbors, but don't dare for a second think a person is stupid or ignorant because of their accent of morals. I too, long ago, would have been of the opinion that someone from "Yank" country would be like someone from another planet. But 6yrs in the Army Airborne and 2 combat tours soon dispelled that notion. You need to get out more (away from the computer) and travel the country. You might learn that us backwards hillbillies might learn you a few things. You are true ignorance and arrogance at it's finest. No wonder my ancesters attempted succession. EAD!!

Posted by: JROD | May 20, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

You know what Steve? Have fun-make big big whoopee. Spread your sperm all over the place. Most people really don't care. Just be responsible and use a condom or make sure your partner's protected against pregnancy. You seem to think that's asking way too much. Why? Seriously, why?

Posted by: Kathy | May 20, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

I'll listen to a man's opinion about abortion when ALL men wear condoms (correctly!) EVERYTIME they have sex.

Statistics show that when used correctly, condoms are at least 95% effective in preventing pregnancy.

If you accept that there are 1 million elective abortions a year, that simple (selfless!!) act by mankind would prevent HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of abortions every year.

Posted by: Late to the Game | May 20, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

You mislabel me. I am not opposed to all abortion just this unnecessary late term procedure. It is entirely selective and has never been used to save anyone. So the life of the mother argument is false. I agree that abortion in general is sometimes needed but I can find no legitimate use for this procedure in a civilized society.

Posted by: glenda | May 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse


"In today's 2 to 1 ruling...."

Well that's an overwhelming legal consensus.

As for the conservative bent of the 4th Circuit, in this case
two of the judges are Clinton appointees. The third was appointed by Bush 1. I'll let you guess who voted what.

These same three judges voted the same way back in 2005. The case went up to the Supreme Court, which vacated the judgement and kicked it back down to the 4th Circuit, because in the mean time, the Supreme Court and had upheld a similar law banning partial birth abortion.

It appears that these two judges can't take a hint.

Posted by: WylieD | May 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Hello republicans! yea, its jesus here. I keep reading things like this...

"One mother has a late term abortion, the other sticks a pillow over her baby's face for a couple of minutes. Babies are the same age, but only one was murdered."

Yea, please read the article and figure things out. Late term on demand abortions do not exist and this is not what the ruling was about.

And while you are out waving my name around please do me a favor and oppose the war. Real nasty stuff. Very un-christian.


Posted by: Jesus | May 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Thank you JESUS!!

Posted by: Let me be the first to say... | May 20, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Its wrong to kill an unborn fetus,baby,etc. But o.k. to kill Iraqi's. That seems to be a common attitude among some "americans". But they justify it through there own logic. Please explain how its O.k. to kill through military, and capitol punishment, but not o.k. if a woman wants an abortion.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

It is so ridiculous for these courts and the men that run them to be making rulings concerning women's bodies because this is something that they no longer can control. Any woman who really wants an abortion can travel anywhere in the world and obtain one and there is nothing that any U.S. court, these anti-abortion fanatics (who aren't doing anything for all of the living children in foster care, that that need to be adopted and those children still in other abusive settings in this country (as we can see with the polygamists cults operating for several generations without anything being done until now and all the others still going on as usual). Seems to me that they would be more productive in saving lives if they focused on the thousands of kids and runaways already here instead of wasting their money, time and energy trying to control other women's decisions about their own bodies which is impossible to do in 2008. Laws as we are taught in law school are only good if they can actually be enforced!!!

Posted by: gpope | May 20, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Notice the most fervent defenders of abortions here are men. Many men like the idea of not being responsible for their offspring. If this isn't mysogyny I don't know what is.

Posted by: P. Henry | May 20, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to bring up yet another good reason for pro-choice laws/protections that no one else on this thread has (although a few have touched on it). These conservative anti-abortionists are all about saving that embryo which is no larger than a tadpole, but don't care one iota for the kid after he/she is born. There are sooo many babies born into horrible, abusive/neglect ridden environments, and there aren't nearly enough families willing to adopt them. White babies are more in demand, but most babies of most other ethnic backgrounds aren't given a second thought by would-be adoptive parents. Take a look at our foster care system sometime. It's chronically understaffed, overburdened, and underfunded. I wish some of you fred phelps followers would just THINK about THOSE babies once in awhile instead of that one bible verse from Leviticus.

Posted by: ndtovent | May 20, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

As much as I don't care for late term abortions or any kind of abortion, it's not my body therefore what someone else does with their own is their decision. They are the ones who will have to live with the choices they made, we nor our government have a right to tell others what they can and can't do with their own body.

Posted by: Pandora | May 20, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

"You might learn that us backwards hillbillies might learn you a few things. You are true ignorance and arrogance at it's finest. No wonder my ancesters attempted succession."

I believe your ancestors wanted to succed was to continue enslaving, beating, and raping my dark skin children. Again very un-christian. So are combat tours. Howver, sometimes people are put in situations where hard uncofortable choices have to be made. You had a choice of joining the military. You made a choice and lived with its consequences. but you had the choice. If a mother has to make a terrible choice then that is between her, her doctor, and my old man. Please stay away.

Posted by: Jesus | May 20, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

"Notice the most fervent defenders of abortions here are men."

Wrong! Try again!

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps our counterfeit "jesus" might catch up on his bible reading:

Romans 13:3-4 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Posted by: P Henry | May 20, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

If you dont like ignorant christians then dont go to the south.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

SteveCO - boy I bet you are the life of the party. Droning on and on with an undoubtedly shrill and superior tone, blathering to anyone within earshot about your stances on various issues, then shouting them down when they dare to disagree. You are "that guy", right down to the inflated sense of self-importance. Your delusion likely leaves you with the honest belief that no one with a differing view could POSSIBLY be right.

I bet you consider yourself a real badass of the blogosphere, don't you? Yet I would wager that you've done absolutely nothing tangible for this country in your entire miserable life, save for flaming people on a message board. You've accomplished exactly nothing except for a bunch of big talk that very few people have read or are even vaguely interested in. Good for you.

Posted by: RL Smith | May 20, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Where do I go to donate to get a chimp aborted?

Posted by: I like PP | May 20, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Yes and my old man will take care of the Bush's when its their time.

Posted by: Jesus | May 20, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

As one of those hated evangelicals, I could not agree more with most of the ultra libs. I am not in favor of killing Iraqis at all. But, we kill 3,000 unborn babies in the US EVERY DAY. What is it in the womb? If its not a human being, then treat it like a tumor. Those who hide behind court decisions are like those who hide behind Dred Scott, and said its the law of the land that African-Americans are not fully human. Thank God Christians led the fight for those "unhumans." Lets hope God opens the eyes of those who want to choose death over life. If its a human being in the womb we should protect it. The most unsafe place in America for an child is inside its mother. If 3,000 babies died from anything else there would be outrage. On a scale of evil, abortion is much worse than war. America will be judged. God judges people groups as well as individuals. The US will lose its blessing if it has not already. Watch as our economic house of cards collapses and we become a 3rd world country. You can at least know you still have a right to "choose."

Posted by: evangelical | May 20, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

ZZ hits the nail on the skull, so to speak. Fetuses aren't people, toddlers aren't people. This isn't late term abortion, it's early. Abortion should be available AT LEAST until the little tumor can read, preferably until it can vote.

Posted by: Lex | May 20, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Tara and others, Do you honestly believe that most women who chose to terminate their pregnancy do so lightly? Do you honestly think that it doesn't come with an extreme sense of the gravity of the choice? This is a decision that is agonized over by most who chose it, and it is a decision that is usually arrived at through a belief that it is what is best. You may disagree or arrive at a different conclusion, or you may just say that the world is black and white and it isn't for people to make those decisions. But whatever you say, you should avoid the characterization of this being a petty decision by heartless people as a matter of lifestyle or convenience. The more you use that terminology the more you get away from the real issue.

Posted by: Chris | May 20, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

"Yet I would wager that you've done absolutely nothing tangible for this country in your entire miserable life, save for flaming people on a message board"

And what the hell have you done? Vote for good 'ol boy from Connecticut and slap a yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your pick up truck? What the HELL have you done to make such bold accusations?

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

If you don't want your dark skinned children raped, don't have any.

Posted by: Ha | May 20, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

The line keeps moving...and when it slides over to late term abortions; the killing of viable, thumb-sucking, toe-wiggling children with developed nervous systems and brains, and every bit as much capacity to feel pain as you or I, what possible argument could be made for abortion other than to save the life of the mother?

As for those who start up with the "right to do what she wants with her own body" jazz, sorry. The baby NOT her body. She's a temporary host, but the baby is not the mother.

Posted by: Over the Line, By Any Estimation | May 20, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Hi False Jesus,

I didn't mean to offend, I used the harsh words to show how late term abortions are horrible. I am also aware of the fact that late term on-demand abortions are illegal. I was just trying to make the point, that a baby doesn't become a human when it exits the womb, it happens at some point within the womb.

I did indeed read the article and wasn't reacting against that, but reacting against the user responses to the article.

Sorry if I offended you.

Also I don't like being grouped as a republican. I didn't vote Bush in the last election and won't vote McCain in the next. I understand you disagreeing wiht me and all but if you quote me could you at least quote the context as well.

I'm actually for a Democracy, a smaller government, I'm against abortions, and I am a non-interventionist (that means I don't like the war strategy of a good defense is a good offense, or the Iraq war). I'm kind of a mix of things.

I just wish people saw unborn children as children, rather than inconveniences. I don't care if they put it up for adoption so that two gay men raise the child, I would just like to see them put their life on hold for the nine months required for the child to be born.


What is your view, if i may ask?

Posted by: Seth | May 20, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

"Those who hide behind court decisions are like those who hide behind Dred Scott, and said its the law of the land that African-Americans are not fully human. Thank God Christians led the fight for those "unhumans.""

PLEASE! The people who supported the Dred Scott decision are the ancestors of the bible thumping republican crowd today. Southern white christians. Get your own house in order before you start dictating what happens in mine.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

What a farce...if the mother's life is in danger there is a medical necessity and then the choice occurs by the mother if she is able. Beyond ectopic pregnancy I don't see anything medically necessary about any abortion... if any of you MDs posting here wish to explain to us what is "medically necessary" beyond that I can't wait to hear it.

"Choice" isn't snuffing an unwanted child because you can't afford vcast on your cell phone unless you do. Shame on you.

Posted by: P. Henry | May 20, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

My comments about "my ancestors attemped seccession" were in no way directed at slavery. I am in no way a racist. How dare you sit on your pretty little pompous ass in a country who's freedoms are bought and paid for by the blood of it slain heroes over the last two hundred years and tell me that my choice to serve my country is "Un-Christian". I served faithfully and honorably, as do the vast majority of our nations FINEST. And any individual who volunteers his/her life in the service of another has the right to be labelled as such. Back to the original issue, this is not about a "right" or "choice". YOU, NOR DOES ANY PERSON, REGARDLESS OF SEX OR CIRCUMSTANCE, HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE LIFE OF AN INNOCENT CHILD. Now that I'm calm, if you haven't seen the atrocities of war, or experienced the horrible feeling of loss, or ever done anything for your country other that "blog", then sit down, shut up, and pay respect to those who have paid for you to have the freedom to critique a veteran about his military choices.

Posted by: JROD | May 20, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

One more time --

(1) Late-term abortions are only legal in the case of health issues. Roe v. Wade applies to abortions in the first trimester.

(2) The argument that a first-trimester fetus is a human being is a religious one: there is no scientific or practical standard under which such a fetus can be considered a functioning body. Essentially, believers are arguing that a fetus has a soul, and that the soul is what makes it human. Because this belief is religiously-based rather than scientifically- or practically-based, it is therefore an infringement of First Amendment rights to impose that religious belief and its concomittant restraints on those who don't share it.

Posted by: Barrayaran | May 20, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I am perplexed by those who fight for abortion rights but want abortions to be rare. It shows a particular confusion in their minds and a pride in their hearts. I can't think of any other "right" to which this logic applies. Can someone explain that?

Posted by: Rick | May 20, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

We must fight for the right to molest children, at least for the first few months when they aren't really people.

Posted by: Go Abortion | May 20, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

ALL the leaders in the anti slavery overturn the Supreme Court crowd were Christians. Check your facts. You won't find out about that in government schools though.

Posted by: evangelical | May 20, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Barrayaran wrote: The argument that a first-trimester fetus is a human being is a religious one:

What is your definition of a human being?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

abortion actually helps society because it keeps black babies from becoming welfare queens

Posted by: Margaret Sanger | May 20, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

The argument that a toddler is a human being is a religious one.

Posted by: Barry | May 20, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Barrayaran-

Why is it always assumed that religion is the culprit behind those who think abortion is wrong?

So, the first three months of pregnancy the "thing" in the womb is just a "thing?" Gosh, that makes sense. But this "thing" magically, mysteriously, if left alone, transforms into a human? Amazing!

I bet that if I went out and killed some rare species of animal that was pregnant all you "pro-choicers" would throw up your arms a scream that I not only killed the mother, but should be held responsible for the "unborn" also. What a crock of crap you guys serve each other.

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

The creature inside the mother has fully developed male DNA totally separate from the female DNA of its mother. If left alone will live to be 80 years old. But its not a human being. huh? When does this creature become a human? Should we not err on the side of letting it live? Oh yea, that would be a drag if you get some girl pregnant. I get it.

Posted by: evangelical | May 20, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Sorry all, not sure what the heck happened there.

Posted by: JD | May 20, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Why do unborn polar bears get more protection than unborn humans?

Posted by: just wondering | May 20, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

No, if you don't want AIDS, don't have sex with gays or black people

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

SWEET! Abortion on demand, without apology. Let the religious hypocrites run their own lives, without forcing their beliefs onto others.

Don't want an abortion? Don't get one. Otherwise, shut your mouth and keep your religious beliefs to yourself.

Posted by: LH | May 20, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Bush is a chimp because he is not black but looks white, Barack Hussein is not a chimp because he is part white but looks black. Any questions?

Posted by: Tom3 | May 20, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Here are my views:

I'm actually for a Democracy, a smaller government, I'm against abortions, and I am a non-interventionist (that means I don't like the war strategy of a good defense is a good offense, or the Iraq war). I'm kind of a mix of things.

Sound familiar? I love democracy. It allows for the standard of living to improve. People with higher standards of living can make better choices with their lives. This usually leads to women's rights. This allows for better family planning which leads to smaller more stable families that do not require vast resources to survive.

I would love a smaller government. I am just like everyone else. I want clean functioning sewers and want to pay as little as possible.

I am an interventionist in the sense that I want to send our best and brightest overseas where they are wanted and needed. And I want them sent without guns. Its the best PR ever.

And I hate abortions.
Conservatives somehow get this idea that women are marching up 3000 at a time to get them while planning what they are going to wear that night at the disco.
No. They don't. At best they are gut-wrenching decisions made with the support of loved ones. At worst they are done alone save for a doctor and perhaps a friend. But they will be done. Therefore its best that it stays where it is. As a medical procedure in medical office. And if it comes down to a decision of life and death for a mother then that is between her, her doctor, and her god. How do you argue against this? How do people argue against the women's health safeguard?

Posted by: False Jesus | May 20, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Don't like child molestation, don't molest your child. It's that simple.

Children are property.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Jews

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Don't want to kill gays. Don't kill gays, but don't force your views on me!

Posted by: Dummy | May 20, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

99% of abortions are not a matter of life or death. If the 1% justifies the 100%, then the 1% of children who want to be molested justify child molestation. It's a victimless crime really.

Posted by: Mr Garrison | May 20, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Dummy, feel free to kill gays, they can't get pregnant anyhow so they are of no use to the abortion industry.

Posted by: Margaret Sanger | May 20, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Toddlers can be a real pain. They wake you up in the middle of the night, they're messy. Having a toddler could drive someone to suicide. That makes it a matter of life and death. It is better to kill a toddler than to have to raise one.

Posted by: Hey | May 20, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"human beings who should never have been born" and "We want to exterminate the negro" are just the beginning words of Planned Perenthoods' founder, Margaret Sanger. Her leftist views are well known as well as her free-love amoral attitude. This is truely at the very heart of the ultra-left. It's no secret but the baby killers apparently do not care. Todays P.P. rejects abstinence, chastity, and celibacy yet totally supports government abortion and indoctrinating children. The "free-love" craze characterizes the leftist religon; so the only truely religous "nutjobs" (as one poster so gracefully said) are the self-centered, hedonistic leftists and their lap-dog followers. Baby body parts are high dollar "toys" for todays Frankensteins; doctors who want to believe they are humanitarians. The average cost of a babies brain stem and spinal cord is $1000.00 and no body part goes unsold. Yes, it's quite the big business and again, apparently, the baby killers do not care. Somehow they allow themselves to overlook all this and much more just as slave ownership could be justified; someone always dies in an abortion. The health of the mother is important and there will always be some far-fetched exceptional scenario to any law, so let's earnestly hope that justice will tuely be served for the greatest good.

Posted by: Reed | May 20, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

JROD

"then sit down, shut up, and pay respect to those who have paid for you to have the freedom to critique a veteran about his military choices."

Wow both of us are veterans. Whats the difference? I dont shove it in peoples face and try to use to butress a weak argument.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

if you don't like slavery, don't own one

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Andre, I was impressed by your arguments until you told us that you are the kind of baby killer that is a real problem.

Posted by: Matt | May 20, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

If you don't like drunk driving don't drive drunk

Posted by: Jill | May 20, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Wow Reed

I'm beginning to think that you people really think this stuff is true. I mean I only sold one baby for its parts. I didnt know I could get TOP DOLLAR!

Come on get a grip. You people really take this stuff to a whole new fantasy land level. At lest when we call your type inbreeds we are not making stuff up.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

You're right. I can't argue against the women's health safeguard. But that is the problem, so many women don't get abortions just for health reasons, and the safeguard, is just that, a safeguard. It allows those who are willing to abort their baby, say they support abortion only because they care about the mom's health.

And I know because of that, sadly, other abortions will probably always be legal.


"Conservatives somehow get this idea that women are marching up 3000 at a time to get them while planning what they are going to wear that night at the disco.
No. They don't. At best they are gut-wrenching decisions made with the support of loved ones."

Actually I was thinking it was more about 3700 a day. And no I do not think it is anywhere near an easy decision. I just think the right decision is to not have one (except for women's health safeguard). I think more people would make the right decision, if they were illegal, or they would be less likely to get pregnant in the first place.

AND by the way, the problem isn't just with atheist liberals, its evangelicals as well.

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

Posted by: Seth | May 20, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

The only babies that I killed where the one in defence of my country. But hey, they hated our freedoms!

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Posted by: Seth | May 20, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.


How about this for a law, Abortions are legal, but when you get one (except for Health and Rape safeguards), you and the father (if they can find him) must be sterilized. Makes sense if so many of the people who have abortions don't learn the first time to be more careful.

Posted by: Seth | May 20, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

I am generally against abortion (but all people don't want to see abortions done, more of a necessary evil), but I especially hate late-term abortions. However, I give Planned Parenthood much more credit than those on the right. Pro-life people can honestly argue for the end of abortion when they give REAL options besides abstinence. here's how to stop so many abortions:

-Sex Education in middle school (when kids start developing into adolescents)
-If a kid is going to have sex, encourage them to use condoms (abstinence-only education simply does not work, and we've all been teenagers before)
-spread of the morning after pill (conception into a fertilized developing egg doesn't happen in the first 24 hours, and so using this is not "killing a baby")
-any future bills on abortion include a provision for the woman's health. If you truly care about having less abortions, stop trying to make bills for the sole purpose of getting them into courts

Until those on the right do this, well then, id rather have my kid taught by someone at planned parenthood and then explain my views then let him be taught by those on the right.

Posted by: Andrew P | May 20, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Great post by Jen. It makes sense, is thoughtful and works to build a bridge between both extremes on this highly unpleasant issue.
Sigh ... yet another "culture war" issue to keep us divided and screaming at each other for the rest of the year.
Hurry up, November!

Posted by: vegasgirl | May 20, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Good Point Andrew P

Posted by: Seth | May 20, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

How about instead of a GI bill we pay the returning vets to go around and perform post birth abortions so the welfare programs won't bankrupt america in the next few years.

Posted by: zero population growth | May 20, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Great post by Jen. It makes sense, is thoughtful and works to build a bridge between both extremes on this highly unpleasant issue.
Sigh ... yet another "culture war" issue to keep us divided and screaming at each other for the rest of the year.
Hurry up, November!

Posted by: vegasgirl | May 20, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Fathers should have the right to an abortion too. Women should not be able to decide that the fathers of these masses of cells have to pay for years of child support without having their chance to make their reproductive choices.

Posted by: fathers rights | May 20, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

ANDRE

What a sad day it is our country for a former member of the military to spew such hate. Vets like you are the reason the rest of us get a bad name. By the way, I was replying to "JESUS". If that was you, then touche.........

Posted by: JROD | May 20, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Yes vegasgirl, hurry up November so that when our Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama, who we all know is Jesus Christ reincarnate, can unite us all just like he did 2000 years ago when he brought eternal peace to Palestine.

Yes we can!

Posted by: I like arugula | May 20, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Medical necessity is all that matters in the decision to abort a foetus. Legal intervention is simply imposition of a religious viewpoint on greater society for religious reasons. There is no state religion in the United States of America. See the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | May 20, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

"Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
"

Wow, somebody that can disagree with yet still talk to! Yes, women WILL get abortions regardless of the law. No matter what your point of view is this point will remain. They will get them. So how do we want to do it? Legally or illegally. If a women was against abortion I would fight to make sure that no undue pressure was put on her to have one. That is her choice. Abortion is a moral choice and you cannot legilate morality. We once tried to make alcohol illegal because we thought it was immoral. Human nature found a work around. Give the people the right to make immoral choices but the ability to chose morality. This is what I thought the American experiment was about.

Posted by: False Jesus | May 20, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Children will be molested regardless of law. Roe v. Pedarast will make this a right!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Good point father's rights. I would definitely argue this point if i were for abortion rights. The woman is obligated to tell the father she is pregnant. If the father writes a formal request for the pregnant wife to get an abortion and she refuses then he is absolved of all future child support. If he knows she is pregnant and doesn't request it then he will be responsible for child support later on.

I think the only flaw with that argument is that the father made the choice when he chose to have sex with the mother, so he knew he was taking that risk.

Posted by: Seth | May 20, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Seth,

When wrapping yourself up with that flag make sure you do not choke yourself.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

To "Zero population growth"

Wonderful idea! How about just ending the welfare system altogether, or an even better one...........how about everyone who collects a welfare check or public assitance take mandatory drug screenings to collect the benefits that are paid for by the rest of the non-drug using workforce. Either way, the result would be the same. No more welfare program.

And.......just because you are a vet doesn't mean you are a merciless killer. Quite the contrary.

Posted by: JROD | May 20, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

JB writes: "I've never understood this "what they can or can't do with their own body" argument -- correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't YOUR body that's being killed, is it? It's A BABY'S!!."

Allow me to correct you, then, JB. The baby is alive inside it's mother's body because the mother is GIVING IT LIFE. Proof of this is very easy - let us remove the fetus through precise surgery and place it gently, intact and unharmed, in a basinette. Do you believe a fetus at 12 weeks gestation, when the majority of abortions are performed, will still be alive at that point?

To rant and rave that women are killing something because they choose not to give it life is a nasty, egotistical notion. You are simply claiming that men create human life when the sperm enters the egg, as though a microscopic fully formed person has thus been brought into the world. In your hateful little mind, nine months of pregnancy is nothing more than women acting as incubators. You deny women their full role in human reproduction, which is true misogyny.

But even if women's reproductive roles were as limited as you'd like to pretend, women would still have a right NOT to act as an incubator for someone else. Kind of like you are not required to give blood, bone marrow, or a kidney to save others, even though you could. Why doesn't the law require you to give life to others? Because it's YOUR BODY and you have a right to choose what happens to your own body. Without that, you do not have rights to liberty, freedom of religion, and, last but not least, privacy. Just for starters.

Without the right to control your own body, you are a slave.

Come on JB, you selfishly refuse to give life to someone, somewhere, every day you walk around with two kidneys inside you. And all because giving one up would be, well, inconvenient. And possibly dangerous.

Bearing and giving birth to a child is far beyond "inconvenient" and can be life threatening... so, yes, women have a right to control the functioning of their own bodies.

As for this "oh we are so morallly superior to the pro-choice crowd", as far as I'm concerned, people who would force a woman or girl to carry a pregnancy to term against their will make rapists look like Sunday school teachers.

Posted by: Cat | May 20, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I won't

Posted by: Seth | May 20, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

If you can't legislate morality, then you can neither lock criminals up nor let them go free. If you can't legislate morality, you can neither recognize gay marriage nor prohibit it. If you can't legislate morality, you can neither allow for prayer in school nor prevent it. It is a ridiculous notion to say you can't legislate morality. I say you can't NOT legislate morality.

Posted by: Rick Perry | May 20, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Seth.

Wrong guy.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Put your grandma unharmed, in a basinette and just watch her shrivel up and die.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

If you don't want to get AIDS, don't have sex with a chimp.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Good point false Jesus about the moral choice. Just curious, what about Jen's point

she said

Don't like slavery, don't have a slave,

in response to

Don't like abortions, don't have one.

That could be considered a counter argument to what you said, although it is a bad one.

Posted by: Seth | May 20, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

This website is awesome, you empty headed nerfherders think you're going to convince anyone of anything? Nobody cares!

Posted by: haha | May 20, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Dear ha ha

Look people in this country do not like one another. This is our way if taking it out on each other. Let us have it.

Posted by: Andre | May 20, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Saying that a slave is a person is a religious determination.

Get your religion off my plantation.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

that's alright andre, i never take blogs serious anyways. I'm outta here, had a good time arguing,

I hope you all see how everything I said was the actual right answer and if you disagree with me you're wrong. :) lol. Actually I said probably at least four really stupid things during my arguments here, oh well, i'll try better next time.

Posted by: Seth | May 20, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

It is long overdue that religious Conservatives admit to themselves that, for nearly 40 years, they have been duped by the GOP into believing that the GOP was serious in taking aggressive action to overturn abortion laws including Roe vs Wade.

If the GOP was serious about it's claims that they are opposed to abortion & the laws which make it possible, aggressive action would have been taken to overturn such laws 30 years ago.

It doesn't take 40 years to change a law in this country. (About one year is much closer to the truth.) The GOP likes this issue exactly as it stands (as they can use it for political advantage while taking no action) & has no plans to change the status quo.

Posted by: book134 | May 20, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to go abort the neighbor kid now, bye.

Posted by: Tootles | May 20, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

book134, Congress can't even pass a budget in a year, how do you expect them to get the 3/4 majority necessary to pass a constitutional amendment overruling Roe v. Wade?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Sex-education? We know more about sex than any time in history. Doesn't fix a thing does it?

I wouldn't know who to believe on statistics as everyone has an agenda, but one sites are these: • At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45[4], and, at current rates, about one-third will have had an abortion.[5,6]

Abortion is used as birth control. And all the education in the world didn't stop it. More education and condoms. What a crock. And all of the out of control sexual behavior and its consequent cost are - rich- my favorite part - blamed on people who do not support this behavior. If of all my neighbors only one had the decency to tell me to stay out of the road when I was a small child, how is it I blame that one person when I'm hit by a car? Everyone's got their agenda.

All the liberalistic teaching of all my college professors was typically liberal towards sexual behavior and typically they made an attempt to see if their views could be tried out with me. As I said, everyone's got an agenda. And personally I think I'd side with people are not trying to seperate me from my clothing.

and on the other hand - if you are SO against abortion, please, tell me how many adopted kids do you have? If the answer is zero - you are nothing but noise.

Posted by: SnottyNozeBratt | May 20, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Say it loud --

I had an abortion and I'm proud!

Clearly the most important right we have, and if you don't like it, don't have an abortion.

Great! Virginia is growing up.

Posted by: jeff wagner | May 20, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Put your 1 month old baby human in a basinette and watch it die. Or how about your one month old baby seal?

Posted by: dummy | May 20, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

The arguments are as old as time, as are the prohibitions against killing an innocent, even for the sake of another. Some may claim that ethical pluralism is the normal consequence of ideological pluralism; there is a difference between the two: the first is of action, the second only of opinion. We are free to think as we wish. We are not free to act as we wish, especially when viewed in the light of eternal consequences. We never can claim freedom of opinion as a pretext for attacking the rights of others -- most certainly not the right to life. Our laws should not simply describe the behavior of the powerful. They must promote the improvement of our society. Society is not improved by sanctioning the killing of an innocent.
Thank you for the article and for this forum. Because of this article, I was moved to investigate more fully the opinion I held. In that effort I discovered a work from which I have borrowed extensively in this reply, for I found it succinctly dispositive. For your study, please see the Declaration on Procured Abortion found easily on the Internet.

Posted by: Kenneth Jones | May 20, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

There is no shortage of adoptive parents in America. There is a shortage of children, that's why you hear so much about people going to Africa and China to find unwanted children. The unwanted children in America are dead.

Posted by: about adoption | May 20, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

1 month old babies ARE NOT HUMAN

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

If you believe your God would want a child to be born in severe pain, having to live on with this pain for minutes, hours, days, even months until it finally dies in agony. Then your God is not my God of Compassion. You cannot legislate morality! Morality like faith must be a choice. And who are we, pray tell, to judge others? Who are we to even try to make a choice, which we really cannot make, for someone else? If you are Christain or Jew then shame on you! You know better! Your God has already told you exactly how He feels about your judging your fellow man or woman! Judgement is Mine says the Lord God of Host! He who is without sin let him cast the first stone! Judge not least you be judge! First remove the splint from your own eye so you may see better to remove it from your brothers. Wow, seems pretty straight forward to me!

Posted by: Uzamati | May 20, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Neither are baby seals. Why can't I club baby seals. They are not human. If left on the ice they would die anyway.

Posted by: Dummy | May 20, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

If one month old babies aren't babies, pray tell... what are they?

Posted by: beans | May 20, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Uzamati, if it's so straightforward to you, follow it and STFU.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing wrong with clubbing baby seals they are not human they are just balls of fluff. You can't tell me what to do with a baby seal. Same goes for 1 month old babies. If I can kill it before its born there is no notable change afterward that says I can't kill it then too.

Posted by: kill kill kill | May 20, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Then don't judge me when I kill baby seals. Keep your judgment off me when I drive my SUV and live in my 10,000 sq ft house at nice 80 in the winter and 68 in the summer and don't judge me when I kill non human little animals, have sex with girls who consent and marry all four of my boyfriends. OK!

Posted by: Dummy | May 20, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

I mean I CAN kill it then. And even more so for premies. If it's born at 6 months that's 3 months of anytime abortion before it's even at the birth age.

Posted by: kill kill kill | May 20, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm... seems to me that some of you have no regard for life. Period. Including your own. How incredibly sad you are. Truly.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Dummy, are you John Edwards?

Shouldn't you be out campaigning for our Dear Leader?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Yea, if I can kill a unborn baby at 6 months prebirth than why not at 6 months post birth. What's the difference????

Posted by: Dummy | May 20, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

ooh, the self-abort, that's an interesting question

If a seven year old comes to you and asks to be aborted, would you do it?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

The Practical Advantages of Post-Birth Abortion: A Swiftian Proposal
by Jessica Cantelon
23 November 2004

Unlike pre-birth abortion, post-partum abortion is natural-selection-friendly, and would provide an effective filter for society by sifting out the "bad eggs" before they become full-fledged adults.



Why is the abortion debate so restrictive?

I mean, considering the ever-present saliency of this issue in our country, why is the debate restricted to unborn babies only?

People make abortion out to be an impossibly irresolvable issue -- a war of combative values that, like the fighting between the Turks and Kurds, will continue as long as those values exist. Intelligent people fall into uncontrolled episodes of great emotional distress and wild fervor when someone mentions abortion, casting off any semblance of reason that once existed.

Fearing complete loss of control, people generally avoid bringing the subject up at all in order to prevent things from getting out of hand. The issue has become so touchy that journalists refuse to touch it; media "discussion" has deteriorated to commercialized public service announcements complete with such buzz-words as "pro-life" and "pro-choice."

It's time to cut the emotional rubbish.

Let's step back and consider this volatile issue objectively. It only seems prudent that, to make a sound argument, one has to rely upon rationale and consider the practical advantages to each side.

With the sensitivity training behind us, I will, in my humble way, attempt to approach this debate from a purely practical vantage point -- without letting my personal beliefs get in the way. Although I hope to alienate no one, I apologize if anyone should be offended by what I say; I only hope to point out the pragmatic case that can be made.

Consider first that abortion is entirely about rights: an unborn baby's right to live versus a mother's right to choose. The question lies in ascertaining which person's rights should circumvent the other's. Just as in any other persuasive discussion, however, there is always middle ground that can be mutually agreed upon by both parties; finding it is a simple game of logic. Beginning at a point of common agreement is the first step.

There exists general agreement, for example, that human rights exist to the point that no one individual's rights interfere with those of another. When questions arise as to where to draw the line, each side presents his or her case in court and leaves it for a judge to decide.

What if the plaintiff is a pregnant woman and the defendant is an unborn baby? The pregnant woman can present her case just fine, but who will represent the fetus?

Let's fast-forward, say, ten years. Now we're dealing with two people who can speak for themselves: the mother and the adolescent. The woman has now had a whole decade to get to know her child and thus better ascertain whether or not she still wants to exercise her abortion rights.

This is clearly advantageous; the would-be mother escapes the gnawing curiosity of what the child might have been like. Furthermore, in spite of the late proliferation of Planned Parenthood and other women's clinics committed to the good cause of preventing parenthood, pesky feelings of culpability plague abortion patients. But this would be considerably lessened if women at least had direct experience in raising a child, to see whether they are cut out to be moms. If not, they can go ahead and file a complaint to get rid of the child as originally planned. At least they'd have the satisfaction of knowing they'd given motherhood the old college try before deciding it just wasn't their thing.

Of course, if it works out, great -- keep the kid. It's like a college student choosing a major; one sometimes relies upon "trial and error," along with the process of elimination, in making a sound decision.

Among the perks of post-birth abortion for the kid, the most obvious is that he would have the means to defend himself prior to death -- which is far more than he would have in a pre-birth abortion. It's simply not constitutional to put an individual to death without a proper trial, so the same should hold true for abortion situations. Just as in any other case, the judge can weigh each side to determine where lies that fine line between the mother's right to choose and the child's right to live.

Depending on his conduct, the kid may be allowed to live -- which presents the added benefit of a strong incentive for children to be on their best behavior. Falling crime rates, an end to school violence, an improvement in grades ... the possibilities are endless.

I think, too, that the realm of scientific evolutionary theory is not without its say on this issue. Darwin would be quite proud of such a concept as post-partum abortion. Unlike pre-birth abortion, it is natural-selection-friendly, and would provide an effective filter for society by sifting out the "bad eggs" before they become full-fledged adults. Indeed, there would be reason to believe that serial killers, terrorists, sadists and other such problematic people would be properly done away with before any serious crimes are committed -- in essence, much of today's societal dilemmas would be nipped in the bud.

In addition, this kind of thinking opens up myriad new doors for discussion. Why, for instance, shouldn't men, as well as women, be allowed to exercise their right to choose whether their offspring live? For that matter, it now seems silly and discriminating to restrict abortion to offspring only. Perhaps it's time to ask ourselves why people don't argue over aborting the life of other kinds of unwanted people, say, loud mothers-in-law, or unruly teenagers. And heck, why stop at humans? Annoying pets, for example, would be perfect candidates for abortion.

Notice how a practical approach to understanding abortion makes the issue more approachable and less inflammable.

It's just a modest proposal.


Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

reed, give it a rest, there is no trafficking in fetal parts. Abortion is not baby-killing. The fetus is not born, so it is not, in fact, a baby. In China, they tell you only to have one child. That is wrong. By the same token, no government should tell me or my wife or anyone else how many kids we must have. Don't like abortion, don't have one. That is the meaning of pro-choice. The great majority of our parents were pro-choice as they chose to have us. I am sure others were forced to have some because of religious or social pressure. Am I happy that my mother chose to have me? Yes. Would I be upset if she didn't? Don't know. I wouldn't be here. You want to have ababy, I am happy for you. You don't want one, then I respect your decision, one not made lightly.
Question (and pro-lifersnever answer this one truthfully): how come anti-abortion bills only punish the doctor, not the woman? She gets off. Same as if I ask you to rob a bank with me and we get caught, I get off and you go to jail. Want a real anti-abortion law, then psuh to have the woman just as guilty. Of course that would never pass because women aren't smart enough or in control of their emotions enough to make a tough decision. Right?

Posted by: mike l | May 20, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

how come anti-abortion bills only punish the doctor, not the woman?

They're easier to pass, probably because there's some misplaced sympathy for women who realize they had their children's brains sucked out... and the doctor is the one that actually does the crime.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I've read the Web sites that say that what we would call partial-birth abortion was once used, long ago, before the successful development of Caesarian section, to save the lives of women in labor.

What is the justification now?

If anyone saw a baby in the road, in our way, we would try to stop the car, or at least go around. There is no other option. But if whatever-you-want-to-call-it is in your way and inside, bloodshed can be considered one option. Hello?


It is not a religious question. Any rational human being knows that what happens today affects the future, that what one does affects another, simple concepts of fairness.

Posted by: Cutting open the skull | May 20, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Ultimately, the woman makes the decision. The point of contention is if her life is in danger... and that happens infrequently when compared to the "choice" abortions that happen by the thousands on a daily basis.

Posted by: beans | May 20, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I've noticed the liberals asking how a conservative so against murdering unborn children how they can then support the war in Iraq.

I ask the liberals, so against the killings in the war in Iraq, how can you then support the murder without cause of unborn children?

Posted by: AWWNats | May 20, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

because abortion kills Americans and liberals hate America

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

No big deal...the Supreme Court will take care of this and reinstate the law, as it should.

Posted by: Ed | May 20, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Can we at lest stop calling it "partial-birth abortion"? That is a political term invented in the mid 1990s. The correct term, recognised by the ENTIRE medical profession, is "intact dilation and extraction". Sure, it doesn't sound as evil, but that is what it is properly called.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

same goes for slavery, it's "property use and resale"

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Ed, I hope you're right and the Supreme Court reinstates Plessy v. Ferguson and Dredd Scott. There were BLACK people at the FRONT of my bus today. What nerve.

Posted by: Sheets | May 20, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't read through EVERYone's comments, but one at the beginning from P.F. Johnson caught my eye. "To suggest that courts are consciously 'flaming the culture wars' implies that a court bases its decision on a public reaction as opposed to sound law." OH MY GOSH! Do you suppose that they might actually sit in chambers and discuss the political ramifications of their decisions and um...(oh golly, I hope not!) then make a choice based on what seems the LEAST offensive while still allowing them to pat each other on the back and exclaim over how they've avoided "turmoil" once again????Can you imagine living in such a world where the courts do NOT make decisions based on the law, but based on something that lets them make US think that they're "DOING SOMETHING" while, in fact, Nothing changes? I think that would be just awful...oh wait...that's what they do now! Bless the hearts of everyone like P.F. Johnson who really believe that they don't do that to us...as unfortunate as it is, I hope that your naivete will continue to protect you from the realities of "the way things work." I wish I STILL was that naive!

Posted by: Katrina | May 20, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Clearly we have two societies struggling with each other. Seems to me we are approaching a moment of separation. Just as in the days of Noah, when evil totally eclipsed the land.

Posted by: E Brandt | May 20, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

See my blog article "Diploid Dave..." at bgladd.blogspot.com.

Posted by: BGladd | May 20, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

INFANTICIDE plain and simple

How many Doctors quit performing abortions because of severe mental distress?

We have to import Doctors from around the world and constantly churn out new INFANTICIDE doctors from medical school because doctors after a few years of baby killing have such guilt and remorse they leave the procedure to the uninitiated.

Recognize this evil for what it is, stop and repent and you will be able to sleep and lose the painful guilt.

Posted by: Stars and Stripes Forever | May 20, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I guess it's okay to kill people as long as they are very little and don't fit the standard of person set by the liberals.

Posted by: JJ | May 20, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

There is a silver lining to Abortion...

disclaimer: I am only in favor of abortion to save the life of the mother, not to make life more comfortable.

The silver lining on abortion is: at least abortions are in large measure done by Liberals on Liberals.

Posted by: Stars and Stripes Forever | May 20, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Mike, Please, don't twist the words around; it's not traffiking of baby body parts, it's legal sale of baby body parts to licenced medical doctors who experiment on people who were alive only moments ago. I know, to most people it sounds hard to believe, and that's a good sign. But what's really disturbing is that when some find out it is in fact true(medical doctors buy dead children to experiment on them), it doesn't change their mind. They make excuses like "they are only three/fifths human" or "let's just segragate them". Check it. To the other name callers; get a life.

Posted by: Reed | May 20, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

"I guess it's okay to kill people as long as they are very little and don't fit the standard of person set by the liberals."

Exactly.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHAHAHA, you guys are all funny. I've had a great time reading these comments.

Good point Stars and Stripes, why do you Conservatives get so mad it's all liberals doing it anyway. That just means less of them. And besides the ones that live are all going to hell anyways.

And liberals why do you get so mad, conservatives are stupid, ignorant, close minded morons, who don't even practice what they preach.

Oh well, it is pretty entertaining to see how much both sides hate each other.

Posted by: me | May 20, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is baby killing. Call it a fetus if you need to; say it is not born yet, so it is not a baby. But that human being is alive no matter the excuse. That little person feels pain, hears music, and is happy and content when mom is. When a violent attack on a pregnant mother causes the pregnancy to terminate, the attacker is rightly charged with the charge of man-slaughter up to first degree murder. Murder!

Posted by: Reed | May 20, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Since abortions are totally acceptable. How about everyone stop using any form of birth control. The pill gives people unwanted hormones, condoms make it so sex isn't as good, and you might as well just get an abortion every other month, that way you don't have to be inconvenienced at all by the fact that sex leads to babies.

Or wait do people actually feel guilt about having abortions? Maybe they have some built in moral compass, which is why they inconvenience themselves at all with using birth control, and it's just that their compass isn't strong enough to forgo inconveniencing themselves to not kill a fetus.

Posted by: Billy bob cletus joey bob | May 20, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Haven't you guys learned that liberals are superior, and always know what is right, and never do anything wrong. If the liberals say killing babies is OK we just need to accept that. They're right, we're wrong. And if they tell us there is no God, we better trust them, because they went to community college and took a sociology class. I can't believe all you people trying to defend the lives of babies when liberals out there tell us it's OK to kill them.

Posted by: Marty | May 20, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Jon. I would like to comment on "my child with Anencephaly and my wife dying" reasoning. Unless you neglected tellings us something else about your wife's health, everything I can find on anencephaly clearly says that all the danger is to the child. I've checked many medical sites and all lead to one thing, and one thing only: the child will most likely not survive child birth (be stillborn) or in most cases die hours - at most days - and then nature will take it's course (he'll die). So from where I stand, all you decided to do is murder an innocent life, rather than to craddle your baby before he died on his/her own! Abortion is a horrific act. I'm willing to bet, had this been your pet, your compassion to the animal would have been greater but you could care less about your own offspring. Sorry but I feel no pity for your or your wife.

Posted by: NR | May 20, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Those !!$%## Repbulicans can't tell me what I can do with my body! It's my life I'll do what I want- its my choice. Well, except for what kind of light bulb I can use, what kind of car I must drive, how much food or transfats I can eat (BHO's & Nanny Bloombergs orders), and where to put all that extra money that currently goes into govt run social security/payroll taxes. Other than that (and school choice) don't try to restrict me from doing whatever I want.
At least be consistent - if you want the govt out of your life, stop voting for socialists that want the government to make all of your choices for you.

Posted by: Saraco | May 20, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

It has struck me as very interesting that a very large number of posts, written exclusively by men, I imagine, contsin such helpful suggestions as "she should have held her legs closed" or "you should have thought of that before you hasd sex". There is a tremendous force of misogyny among all these morality champions. Ask them about sex education and advice about birth control, and all of them start hemming and hawing. They want to punish women for having sex (especially premarital sex) by forcing her to give birth against her will. Idiots. More than half the women who get abortions are married with children, who cannot afford or do not have the strength of raising another child. And adoption is not a choice for most; why bring a child of your own to the world, only to give it up to strangers?
Gentlemen, ther is no such thing as an unborn baby, as there is no such thing as undead people. Yes' it is life; yes it is human. It is a human zygote, then a human embryo, then a human fetus. It is not a person. It becomes a person when it is born, either naturally or by caesarean, and after the umbilical that connects to the placenta is cut. End of story

Posted by: macedon51 | May 21, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm not a beliver in abortion or late term abortion by any means but I do recognize that there are times these procedures are needed. If the Virginia law did not have a clause for the health of the woman then I believe it was the right call.

As for those women that keep saying "It's my body and I'll do with it what I want". well I can understand that argument but the truth of the matter is, no matter how much you try and deny it, it is not just YOUR body. You are destroying another body, not your own, that happens to be growing within you. Sorry but that's how it works. Life starts within you and you give birth to new people. At some point those little people deserve protection. Question to be asked is when does that little person get all the protections, rights and civil liberties as you? It's a tough question and not easily answered. The answers run from conception to birth. Finally, if the baby is born during a late term procedure then the instant he/she is removed from your body he/she is no longer your body so killing him/her is at that point is just plain murder.

Posted by: Rman | May 21, 2008 6:29 AM | Report abuse

Unborn babies are not human. So kill em all. There are too many people in the world already. In fact, I am going to kill myself to lower population. After I give all my money to the government since the conservatives will not raise taxes.

Posted by: Christ killer | May 21, 2008 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States said that there is no medically known instance or condition that would require the procedure known as "partial birth abortion" to be performed for preservation of the life of the mother.
As a woman, I would not want to have to go through the whole procedure of delivery, knowing all the time that all the effort, pain, etc. was just so the Dr. could terminate the results just prior to actual birth. A simple "C" section would suffice.
Remember that the reason this whole procedure was started was that no one wanted to deliver a live baby and then kill it. By devising a method whereby it would be dead prior to full delivery (i.e. while part of the body--the head--hadn't been delivered yet) they came up with a way to abort way past any legal limit.
Sincerely,
Marcia Gravely

Posted by: Marcia B. Gravely | May 21, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Although most people do not realize or give it much thought, the results and consequences of Southern defeat and surrender in 1865 which ended the War for Southern Independence (War Between the States or Civil War) affect us on a daily basis.
One of the many consequences was the destruction of States Rights. America was founded primarily by Southern gentlemen from Virginia as a Constitutional Federal Republic composed of a limited Federal Government and sovereign states. The 10th Amendment states "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The Federal Government has forced the "Right to Abortion" upon unwilling Southern states. Christian Confederate leaders would never have voted to allow the mass murder of unborn children and they would not have appointed renegade activist judges to the judicial system.
It is estimated that 50 million babies have been murdered under the U.S Flag (Old Glory-The Stars and Stripes). In order to make abortion socially acceptable to the American public they have perpetrated two big lies. Lie #1- A woman has the right to do anything she chooses with her body. This is not consistent with other laws. A woman cannot legally ride a motorcycle without a helmet. She cannot legally prostitute her body (except in Nevada). She cannot legally inject or ingest illegal drugs into her body. Lie #2- An unborn baby is not yet a living human and it is not murder to terminate its life.
Dehumanizing has long been a brainwashing tool used by politicians and tyrants for political gain. Hitler convinced the German people that the Jews were less than Human and therefore it was acceptable to exterminate them. America used the same mentality to carry out the genocide of the American Indians. The Jews exterminated the inhabitants of the land of Canaan according to the Bible. The Islamic terrorists who crashed planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11 consider gentiles as less than human and therefore fair game to murder. Saddam Hussein dehumanized the Kurds in Northern Iraq and gassed them with weapons of mass destruction.
There are only four differences in an unborn child and a person who has been born: #1-size , #2-development , #3-Environment , #4-dependency. Does this mean that unborn babies, children, and adults should have different levels of Constitutional Protection based upon these differences? Most women are smaller than men. Does this mean they should have less Constitutional protection? Children are smaller than grown adults. Should they have less Constitutional protection? The brain of a teenager is not as developed in its ability to make rational logical judgments. Does this mean a teenager should have less Constitutional protection than a mature adult? The difference in the environment of an unborn child and a child that has been born is only separated by a few inches of birth canal. When a person goes from inside a house to the outside of a house they change environment. Should a change of environment lessen or increase Constitutional protection? An unborn baby is dependent upon help and assistance. Children and many older adults are dependent upon other individuals. Should this dependency decrease their level of protection under the Constitution of the United States of America?
Most liberals apparently believe unborn children have and deserve less Constitutional protection than those who have been born. It is my opinion that unborn children deserve the same Constitutional Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as individuals that have been born. As far as I can determine, everyone that believes in abortion has already been born. Liberals who strive to deny Constitutional Rights to unborn children seem to have a mental dysfunction that prevents their brain from processing information in such a manner as to arrive at rational logical conclusions therefore they cannot determine fantasy from reality. Is this lack of mental development adequate reason to deny liberals the same Constitutional Rights as rational individuals? I do not think so. I believe that all individuals( born and unborn, liberal and conservative) deserve the same Constitutional Rights and protection, however, I do not believe that certain individuals or groups deserve special rights( Gays, minorities, etc). I think Americas Founding Fathers and the leaders of the former Confederate States of America would agree.
James W. King
Past Commander Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp 141
Albany Georgia
229-436-0397
jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net

Posted by: James W. King | May 21, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who suggests that abortioni s an affron to the rights of women because it's "their body" are sadly mistaken. Do some reading and understand the truth. A fetus is, by definition, a parasite..a separate LIVING life that is completely distinquishable from your "BODY". Get over yourselves. Abortion is the result of greed, self centeredness and the love of pleasure. Abortions would not be needed if women would not lay down and spread their legs any more than a man who chooses to stick his weeny in the woman. NO exceptions. If you fear being rqaped so much, you should take hormones that prevent pregnancy or you should be FORCED to have the child to full term. Life of mother arguments are bunk too. The number of real cases where the life of a mother was in danger are almost zero. It's just another slippery slope excuse to hide from your self centered greed. You will all be held accountable before God for the MURDER of the unborn. He doesn't acept excuses, he just meetes out your just punishment. Use your time on earth to reflect on this truth..you don't have much time.

Posted by: Flawed argument | May 21, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

One bright side, as a Christian, I was thinking... I lost four older brothers or sisters in miscarriages. Accidental deaths. They are alive in Heaven by sheer default- never having had to make the decision to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

Cross our accidental death and write murder, they still go to Heaven.

I am told Mom made a deathbed conversion.

The dead? My late father? Probably died unsaved.

The living, the born? I fear for various family members living who think God is a fairy tale.

Satan, ironically, is losing quite many millions of people to Heaven on this deal, which is the opposite of what he wants.

Bummer dude.

Posted by: chris marsh | May 21, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Who's having abortions (marital status)?
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Someone said abortions are half done by married women, that was a false statement.

Posted by: Alex | May 21, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

and flawed argument is wrong as well. 7% is not next to none.

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Posted by: Alex | May 21, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

My son was stuck in the birth canal for 14 hours and nearly died. I nearly died. An emergency C-section and a lot of twisting, tugging, and pulling, and I have a terrific 3 year old boy. We are both alive. Don't give me that S^%T about saving some woman by murdering her child. That dog DON'T hunt. Murder is murder. Want to live with that? Then have an abortion. Don't want to live with that? Then don't. Get over your flippant, crude, patronizing characterizations of pro-life people. I am not religious. I don't have a husband/lover. I am a single mom by choice (IVF). I have three advanced degrees. I am a professional. I make my own decisions and I live by them for good or bad. Put that in your anti-life pipe and smoke it, baby killers.

Posted by: CanAmTJMom | May 21, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Better dead than poor!

Posted by: Barack | May 21, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Billy bob cletus joey bob:

besides the funny name, heres the real shocker: people do feel guilt. This is not about whether people who have abortions are 'ecstatic' they got one. The point of birth controls like condoms and the pill is to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies, and hence lowering the number performed.

I have also not heard another point countered yet by those that think abortions should be outlawed. If the child is alive, then the mother IS an incubator, and as someone on the right above put it, the baby is effectively "a parasite". To show a similar situation: You woke up and found yourself attached to another human being. He/she relied on you for their life, and the doctors said if you stayed connected to the person for 9 months, you would save his/her life. What do you do?

The correct answer is: you can do either. You can stay attached, and perhaps be seen as a hero to that person (and I would hope its the choice), but you'd have every right not to stay attached. It is the very basis of medical ethics that the patient has the right not to stay attached to machines, IVs, or for that matter, other people.

If the baby can survive outside the womb, then let it, but an abortion, no matter how abhorrent I see it, is still a woman's choice when it comes to her body. Does this justify late-term abortions? No, at that point, I do not believe it does. But one must ask, if you are not required to give a kidney unknowingly or get hooked up to another person without any choice, why should the woman have to be the incubator for the fetus?

Posted by: Andrew P | May 21, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

500 years from now historians will say about us: "back in the 20th Century the US Supreme Court said it was constitutional to abort babies. Thankfully our practices have evolved and we are now a civilized society".

Posted by: JJ | May 21, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The thing that gets me is that late-term abortions are the LEAST likely to be whimsical. They are not the morning after pill. They tend to happen when something is seriously wrong - so wrong and so scary that a woman who has spent months planning for a baby suddenly has to reverse gear.

Nothing is black-and-white. A woman who has been pro-life for years can change her mind, when facing her own mortality. The court is right to give her that option.

Posted by: Jenny Chang | May 21, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

If a baby can't live on its own, then let it die. Would that be neglect? So a unborn baby is a kidney. NOT, its a human being with its own DNA completely separate from the mother. A mother who lets it die or kills it is guilty whether in the womb or outside the womb. What is the difference of 1 month old baby outside the womb and a baby 1 month prior to birth? Don't tell me the one in the womb is actually a kidney.

Posted by: dummy | May 21, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Back to Cat, who posted at 8:10 on Tues. night -- you said, in part:
" . . . women would still have a right NOT to act as an incubator for someone else . . . Because it's YOUR BODY and you have a right to choose what happens to your own body."

Oh, so right -- you DO have a right NOT to become pregnant -- you do have the right to choose what happens to your own body -- as in NOT to become pregnant!!! This is the ultimate responsibility of a human -- male or female.

Now listen here -- I haven't cast aspersions at anyone else in my posts and it would seem that some civility would be in order. You, Cat, have also jumped to some pretty amazing and misconceived (pardon the pun) assumptions. This is the first time in my life I've ever been accused of misogyny!!! FYI -- I truly exercised my "women's reproductive role" and never limited it -- I married at 19 and waited 12 years before becoming pregnant with our child. It's called birth CONTROL and not once in those 12 years did I EVER think I was pregnant before I wanted to be!! Yup -- I recognized the right to "control" my own body and was NOT a slave. I did NOT "selfishly refuse to give life to someone" -- I gave life when I was mature enough and financially sound enough to take care of that life. Being pregnant and giving life was never an inconvenience to me -- it was a gift, and when I got very ill in the last month of pregnancy, I did what needed to be done to protect my life AND my much-adored child's, who was already very real and very much alive (not a tumor or a growth or a parasite or any other term used in these posts by others!).

By all means -- exercise your "right to control the functioning" of your own body -- I did. Just don't assume that I am a misogynist because I believe everyone should be more responsible in their choices!! Wow -- were you ever off the mark.

And I'm done posting where the uninformed can make such idiotic assumptions! "Hateful little mind" my eye -- I think that would better be applied to you, Cat -- I love and am loved -- I CHOSE to become a mother in my time by exercising my brain, not my hormones -- and have been a good mother to a perfectly wonderful girl-child who, at 22, is also exercising her RIGHT to CHOOSE when to become pregnant!! Get off your high-horse and get real -- the ultimate "pro-choice" is the informed, educated, thinking woman like me -- who exercises her CHOICE NOT to get pregnant until it is appropriate -- and NOT the one who gets pregnant out of carelessness and then KILLS that creation because it is somehow "legal".

Posted by: JB | May 21, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

What is the difference of 1 month old baby outside the womb and a baby 1 month prior to birth?

Skin.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Who can dispute that toddlers are tumors too, and probably a worse kind

Posted by: Maggie | May 21, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

To James W. King
Past Commander Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp 141

I am so glad my ancestors burnt and pilliged your ignorant pig humping kin. May your bible thumping racist kind burn forever in hell.

And the next time you ignorant jackasses try to 'rise again' I will be there to finish off what the the Union troops should have done along time ago. Put you and your kin down forever.

Posted by: Andre | May 21, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Andre, I must call you what you are . . . a complete coward . . . not to mention that you are also a poor speller. Obviously, you are a product of our nation's public school system, and you are finishing yourself off, while we all watch!!

Posted by: Doug | May 21, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

If you abort a baby you are a murderer. Very simple.

Posted by: Jim McMurtry | May 21, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Pig humping? Why is the Democrat National Convention an issue here?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Choice? I'm all for choice. However, when a couple (it does take two to make a baby) finds themselves pregnant they have already made their "choice". Although they may wish that the baby hadn't been created, through their conscious "choice" they WILLED it to happen by engaging in the very activity that creates children. All subsequent "choices" need to focus on being responsible and accountable for the "choice" that was already made. Abortion doesn't keep you from becoming a parent - it simply makes you the parent of a dead child.

Furthermore, can someone please give me a concrete example of when an abortion is "medically" necessary? When a Mother's life is at risk (ie: pre-eclampsia, toxemia) the usual cure is to deliver the baby, not kill it.

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." --Mother Theresa

Posted by: Jose | May 22, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

What's the deal with liberals? I have the right to kill my children, but not to smoke?

Posted by: Marie | May 27, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company