A woman who has a loving partner or a young woman who has loving parents is in a far different situation than a young woman who was – oh say – date raped. Or one who isn’t in a relationship and her birth control failed her. Oh yeah – that .0031% or whatever the failure rate is on those contraceptives translate into women with names and lives.

If the father isn’t involved and isn’t interested in being involved – why shouldn’t the woman own that situation?

If the family isn’t supportive and her parents don’t care about supporting their daughter and grandchild – leave them out of the conversation as well.

I felt “crushed” under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn’t about ‘products of conception.’ It wasn’t about ‘missed periods.’ It was about children being killed in their mother’s wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.”

In 2005, she petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, and supports Ron Paul for his anti-Roe v Wade position.

Didn’t know about her until tonight.

Yes – I know – statistics are easy to fudge, etc. In the pro-life community we know to add 20 to 30% to any numbers coming out of Planned Parenthood, the Guttenmacher Institute or the CDC just because they don’t like to report these things accurately – or they use other terms for the medical procedures that don’t alway get reported as “abortions”.

And don’t get me started on the number of abortions through the use of the birth-control pill alone. Those numbers aren’t reported by ANY agency. Heck, most people don’t even know that the 3rd line of defense for the birth control pill (altering the lining of the endometrium) is an abortion – coming 5 to 7 days AFTER conception. With the huge use of the birth control pill – the number of chemical abortions that happen this way can rival the number of reported abortions through the other medical procedures.

So – yes – I agree – this issue can be complex when we don’t rely on the most basic of human tenants – do no harm and do not kill others. When we add to that – we get all sorts of complexities – and then we claim it is too hard to solve so we try to ignore the issues….

To agree on the stats, one needs to understand who’s stats they are, and what purpose do they serve.

Here are some stats from the CDC,

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

The underlying point of the contentious issue, seems to be does the woman have the right to make a decision about the choice of an abortion.

Some quote religious text, as saying this or that, the language is vague at best and some quote the frame work of the country and the wording is vague at best and some people kill people to stop people from killing other people.

I cannot understand why the issue is so contentious when it really, to me, is a matter that is between the mother or couple to make and we as a nation of freedoms seem to want to restrict freedoms.

And yet we want less government interference on all levels.

We could perhaps start to agree that we shouldn’t at least kill the baby “just because doing so would make our life easier” – as is done in 98% of the cases – NC’s case not withstanding. If we said that we could remove the abortion cases that are not medically necessary – how many lives would we save. I agree not all are done strictly as birth control measures – but we should all agree that most (98% if I read the statistics right) are. What’s 98% of 1.2 million abortions a year? Quite a lot.

“When does the baby have life?” Right – we can’t know that FOR SURE – but I think most have to agree that “at conception” is the basic standard that would apply. Any other answer seems to cause more debate than answers. And – viability outside the womb is moving closer and closer to conception time if we used that as a measure….

And – if we don’t know FOR SURE – why don’t we apply the same litmus case we do in court systems – and side on the side of LIFE. It is amazing to me that if we don’t know FOR SURE – BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in our court systems – we all agree we should not convict. But – where a newborn baby’s life is at stake – we can easily say …..”well – we don’t know when life begins, so we think it is OK to just kill it – if the mother decides so”. Talk about your double standards.

Same argument goes for a soul….gee…if we don’t THINK that the cells in the petri dish have a soul – so it is OK to run experiments on them….because we really don’t know – so maybe we have plausible deniability!!!!

Again – if we choose to come down on the side of life – which we do in all sorts of other – less dire decisions – why not when dealing with life-and-death issues of our babies?

We seem to have this misguided notion that a baby’s “life” doesn’t start as a separate entity until birth – when – medically – scientifically – we know that the baby is separate at the moment of conception. Calling the mother the “host” and the baby a “parasite” just seems to cheapen the meaning of life – but it does help us ease our conscience when we want to think about whether abortion should be OK or not.

Becuase the SC made their blanket judgment, out stepping their legal boundaries, ignoring the 10th amendment.”

A state is free to alter its constitution to address an issue.

If a state constitution is silent on the issue, some take it to mean that something cannot be done.

Reality shows us that there are actions in states that have no amendment or clause and laws are made and when conflicts arise a court decides the matter. If there is no clause or langauge then the court uses the intent of the language of the law to decide and precedent to on the ruling.

Oh, but, what would it look like if we applied such strictness to all around us.

I mean heck there is nothing in the constitution about me picking up a gun and shooting someone, is there? So, I should be free to pick up a 9 and blast away, but we have laws against that.

The courts look at the issue of abortion and the question revolves around the right of a person to have an abortion.

Is it my business if my neighbhor decides to have an abortion? To me, no, it is none of my business.

Point of reference,

“Ohio
The State of Ohio requires a mandatory 24 hour delay and provision of state-directed counseling prior to obtaining an abortion. This information must be obtained in person from a physician at least 24 hours prior to an abortion.
This law also requires patients to get copies of two state-mandated publications at least 24 hours in advance of the abortion procedure.

The Law: Requires that one parent/guardian has to sign a consent (or the minor can try to get a judicial bypass. For the correct information on Ohio go to: http://www.plannedparenthoodcentralohio.org

\Judicial Bypass – If a parent will not consent to an abortion, the minor must:
• convince a judge that she is mature enough to make her own decision without involving a parent
or
• that the abortion is in her best interests.
If a minor is interested in obtaining judicial bypass, Planned Parenthood will offer assistance with the court bypass procedure. The judicial bypass process is completely confidential no matter what the judge decides.”

http://www.coolnurse.com/abortion_laws.htm

There are those want all these laws overturned to suit themselves.

The literal meaning as far as the 10th amendment?

“Abortion is also not mentioned in state constitutions.”

Becuase the SC made their blanket judgment, out stepping their legal boundaries, ignoring the 10th amendment.

The basis to your question surrounds another basic question, when does life begin. If life is not considered to yet exist or the life could not exist on it’s own it’s felt that the decision is with the host – the mother.

When life begins at the actual moment of conception or the actual moment of viability where the baby would be able to survive on it’s own or the moment when the baby would be considered to have a “soul” which is also biblically debated is part of what makes the abortion issue so difficult. If you ask 20 different people when they feel life begins, you could very well get many different beliefs.

People are not property.

“2) If not property – but a free person – how can we decide to kill the baby”

Has a baby the same rights as another, some would say yes, the basic right to life and then lump all abortions and use some statistic to prove the point. How can we decide? Simple the decison is made on the grounds before the people.

“3) If we can kill the baby for medical/financial/emotional reasons before birth – why not after?”

It happens, doesn’t it? How many stories do we read that show us how people or parents act.

“4) If OK before birth – but not after – what changed?”

“(even NC agrees he shouldn’t be able to kill “someone else”).”

I should not be able too, quite, but I can if I want too and I would live with the decision and when the time came to atone for my past actions I would have to deal with it.

Just as I came to terms with the premature delivery of a son, it was our decision and not a matter for others to decide.

Is it really okay at any time to terminate a life? That is decision, in my opinion as it relates to abortion to be made between the couple or single person and a doctor and the persons own mind to make up.

It is not for me to tell others what they can or cannot do, as I can only control what I do and am responsible for.

As to the intent, one should be aware that not every abortion procedure is for nefarious means or corrupt means.

First – abortion is a medical procedure – but so would be cutting off someone’s arm, removing their heart, and a thousand other procedures – but it is the intent behind the medical procedure that is at question here. My contention is that abortion is a “medical procedure” whose intent is to kill another person – even for the most humane of reasons.

There have been lots of replies since my first post – and yet no one has even tried to tackle my questions. Here they are again – in a shortened form:

1) Is the baby in the womb the “property” of the mother (or father)?
2) If not property – but a free person – how can we decide to kill the baby (even NC agrees he shouldn’t be able to kill “someone else”.
3) If we can kill the baby for medical/financial/emotional reasons before birth – why not after?
4) If OK before birth – but not after – what changed?

Anyone care to try to respond to these questions?

I contend that they are at the heart, the very heart of this debate – way before we get to stuff you are debating above.