>> ^ShakaUVM:
Even if you can claim that wars such as the 30 Years War or the Crusades were over religion (which was only part of the motivation for those wars), they still don't pale to the notably atheist communist mass murderers: Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.


Hitler killed millions of Jewish people. There are modern wars about religion also.

I was speaking on an instinctual tip. Where is the value in preserving the unborn fetus of a stranger you'll never meet? What natural behavior could be extended to this extreme? ... leads back to the question as to why so many creatures are highly social.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:

As to preserving gene pool, I think that's too wide to even consider, if that was really the case then those very same pro-lifers would adopt African babies living in utter poverty to provide a chance for them to develop properly. That never happens. I find the whole movement to always possess an inability to see the issue beyond the sanctity of life, which even then is ironic for while one wants babies to live we support wars that kill so much more, yet had the conditions of rape or incest applied to them the tables turn.

I would have a very hard time believing anyone arguing that abortion is murder. To me it seems these people need to realize the sanctity of life doesn't end at birth.
Much like how I read Farhad's post, I submit that the people who protest a woman's right to do an abortion should instead of picketing clinics or killing doctors take responsibility for the birth they so want to defend. But that will never happen, will it? That would be a nuisance for people, having to go out of their way to uphold their view on the sanctity of life. Because as I hope everyone participating in the debate knows, by commiting yourself to the birth of a child you're commiting to the whole life of that child and not just the first 9 months. That's something I think many people who's never had to deal with a pregnancy fail to realise.

There is in fact a correlation between crime and living conditions, and this is where I think the real issue lies. By deciding to do an abortion the mother is taking responibility while the people arguing against it, however, do not. It's very easy to take the position of being against abortion when you don't have to worry about the consequences of the birth. Fact of the matter is that most women who go through with an abortion do so for a few very (in my mind valid) reasons, for instance:
- They'll be unable to love and provide for the child (as in the case of rape victims for instance).
- A pregnancy would cause the mother and/or her surrounding harm (as in mother and/or family getting murdered, mother and family getting banished or that a birth would put both the mother and baby at severe risk).

And it's never easy to do an abortion, never for a moment think otherwise. It'd take quite the psychopath to not fully grasp the implications of ending a pregnancy.

In closing, let me share a little something about my sphere of existence. One of my brothers work as a nurse delivering prematurely born babies. He's seen fetuses born several weeks too early, and they're simply not fully developed human beings at that point. They've had to turn off respirators and other life-support units when the babies were born with too many complications and as such would live extremely painful, short and straining lives. I think I need to mention that their hospital has got if not the highest, then pretty close to it, survivability rate for prematurely born babies in the world (as to not paint them up to be cold-hearted killers in the abortion opponents eyes). They do the most amazing things to save these children, things you wouldn't believe.

Roe Vs Wade has lead to the largest drop in crime rates in the US. Those who could not financially support themselves and a child could now abort their children, reducing those born out of wed lock, into poverty, into drug abuse, and eventually those who enter into crime due to inability of the parents to support them fully. Not to mention reducing burden on social services, foster homes and so on. Over the decades since Roe Vs Wade this had lead to the largest crime rate drop in the US, currently the only reason it seems there is more crime is because there is over reporting of what crime does occur due to the 24 hour nature of our news services.

As to preserving gene pool, I think that's too wide to even consider, if that was really the case then those very same pro-lifers would adopt African babies living in utter poverty to provide a chance for them to develop properly. That never happens. I find the whole movement to always possess an inability to see the issue beyond the sanctity of life, which even then is ironic for while one wants babies to live we support wars that kill so much more, yet had the conditions of rape or incest applied to them the tables turn.

My thought with regards to Pro-Lifers is always, if you would adopt, cloth and feed and provide an education for the aborted child then go ahead, I support you.

But don't mandate the abolition of abortion to the State and then refuse the increased costs in taxation in creating foster homes and other social services to support them.

Because thats exactly what would happen.

What the hell are all you internet kids doing? Ron Paul is not a good idea.
Sure he's anti-war and anti-drugwar but are any of paying attention to his other ideas? It seems that everyone seems to ignore the fact that he's pro-life.
He not only voted for but, in fact, introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 that would define the beginning of life at conception and has even called himself an "unshakable foe of abortion."
Ron Paul is opposed to any individuals "not related by blood or marriage" adopting children and, in conjunction, is opposed to same sex marriage thereby preventing gay couples not only from getting married but also from starting any kind of family. Although, to his credit, he did oppose the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Congressman Paul is also opposed to any form of national healthcare. He would like the United States to remain the only western industrialized nation to not provide free healthcare to it's citizens. If you ask me, that's about as ridiculous as allowing the fire department to send you a bill after saving your life and your home from a devastating fire, or worrying about calling the police when your house is broken into because you can't afford to pay the "cop bill."
But it seems that, despite all this, Ron Paul has gained an immense amount of support from communities of people on the internet. I can't hit my stumbleupon button or check videosift without seeing some Ron Paul zealot blindly pushing a candidate that I suspect holds views that directly oppose his supporters. This is really weird too, considering that he opposed Bill HR 5252 Amendment 987 which would have legally protected network neutrality.
Ron Paul doesn't want the government to fight in these wars or spend so much money fighting the drug war but he also doesn't want the government to do anything else for you like allow you to get stitched up at the hospital without worrying about a giant bill or even protecting your precious internet.

"I guess the sanctity of life ends when the child is born, eh?"

that's a good one

prolifers should maybe spend more time on contraception education than on shouting about murder. if they just dished out a few condoms they might have more effect, and show that they REALLY care about life, as opposed to caring about protests and self righteousness. How many prolifers would dedicate their whole life to caring for the unwanted product of a rape instead of just standing around with a sign on weekends?

Criminalising abortion just hands the industry to nasty people with dirty tools, it doesn't actually stop abortion. The comparison to homicide is not valid, it's just convenient for prolifers to equate abortion to murder when clearly they are not the same thing, with totally different motivations.

The government has the right to draft citizens to go and die in illegal wars, but a woman shouldn't be able to control her own womb?

I think there's priorities, and the "sanctity" of unborn children is below many other things on my list.

i have personal experience btw. but i'm not chatting about that here.

I think some people who try to dismantle the pro-choice movement by applying the choice argument to other, real if you will, offenses need to give a second thought to the reason why women look to abortion.

In earlier posts I've seen the thought that prematurely born babies should be terminated aswell as the fetuses women choose to abort.
"I'm sure if I wanted to, I could find a few pro-choicers who would like to extend the law to allow the termination of prematurely born babies. After all, they're the same age as those in the womb normally right?". Wrong, but that's not the point.
To me, this looks like a person who haven't really considered why women decide to abort, and this person also doesn't seem to fully grasp the difference between a prematurely born baby and an undeveloped fetus, so let me try to explain my point.
A prematurely born baby is saved and kept alive because the mother did not have an abortion, obviously, but also because it's wanted and have developed enough to have a chance at surviving. You'll be surprised to know there are some fetuses who are so prematurely born that they're unable to survive no matter how much the parents would want it to. A woman having an abortion usually does so for a reason, of which there are plenty good enough to stop a life from starting.

Consider the reason before anything else, like the offspring of a rape, the parent/s being unable (for a plethora of reasons) to support the child in any or all ways. For these reasons women will have abortions regardless of the law, which makes it toothless and in effect meaningless unless of course you want to legislate morality (in which case we could come up with lots of fun laws).
In conclusion, I feel having a baby is a huge undertaking, and writing off abortion as murder is to me completely unacceptable. To make a similar stupid generalisation for everyone to ponder, torture comes in many more forms than just the ones used in Abu-Ghraib, like for instance raising a child in an unsafe, financially- and emotionally barren enviroment. I guess the sanctity of life ends when the child is born, eh?