I'm confused on why the religious right want to deny equal rights to people. Even if it is a sin, it doesn't effect anyone but themselves. Jesus spent His whole time hanging with sinners and ministering to them. He wouldn't be arguing against them having equal rights under the law just because they sin differently than others. He taught again and again that Love was the greatest Commandment, that being all self righteous and showing how holy you are was bad. Modern Christianity has turned from love to a denial of equal rights under the law based on people sinning differently than they do. Let they without sin cast the first stone... and yet they cast their stones in the form of votes and denying products/services with their business and so on because they don't like the sin, as if they are so holy and sin free theme selves. Not only did Jesus say let those without sin cast the first stone, He Himself, with out sin didn't cast any stones. These holy crusaders ask, "What Would Jesus Do" but then ignore what He'd actually do... Why this obsession over people sinning differently than they do? If that sin doesn't hurt anyone else directly, then who cares? If God wants to convict them of their sin, then let Him do it, not us... it's almost as if the Christian Right don't think God is doing enough convicting and are trying to do it themselves, as if God isn't strong enough to do it, or it upsets them so much they don't want to let go and let God...

And why does Sodom get the rap for gay stuff and sodomy? The Bible specifically says the sin of Sodom was being a land of plenty without enough concern for the needy and the poor (basically full of Republicans). "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." - NIV. "This is what your sister Sodom has done wrong. She and her daughters were proud that they had plenty of food and had peace and security. They didn't help the poor and the needy." - God's Word... all versions equal to the same basic thing... People blame the gays on correlative texts, mostly relating to what happened to the angels when they arrived to rescue Lot's family... where Lot offered his betrothed daughters to be raped instead (which by Biblical law meant they'd have to be stoned to death as well as their rapist, though one could perhaps argue that Deuteronomy 22:23-24 comes after the story of Sodom so that law might not yet have applied). Anyhow, the Bible speaks that the Sin of Sodom was not helping the needy and the poor... why God, who knows every single secret thought you have ever had or ever will have before you were even formed in the womb (before the foundations of the world were even formed) and yet needs angels to see if there are good people???

And a million and one more rants...

Babies know how to swim from the womb. Most westerners are too terrified (of everything, generally) to allow babies to try though. So they loose the skill and learn the fear.

Happy wishes on this anniversary of your eviction from your mothers womb.

Do I have a womb? No. Do I have the innate ability to provide the female care that a mother is able to when nursing a child? No. We are different. Accept it and enjoy the differences. You're not inferior and in that sense you're right. We're the same.

another strawman and appeal to emotion.

See that's the great thing about choice. If you choose to have the baby, fine. If you choose to not have the baby fine.

Again....NOT YOUR DECISION. It's theirs...not you...get it? Yours is an ego-driven argument. what you would do is not superior...it's just different.

It's already been decided that a fetus doesn't have rights as it is not human. that's why it's called a fetus. see, words have meaning and that's why we call it a fetus...because it's not human.

you can recite all these anecdotal stories...but that's all they are...anecdotal. The experiences and struggles of an entire population are just a tad bit larger than your self-centered viewpoint.

There are plenty of times I would not approve of an abortion. Especially if the parents are financially and emotionally secure to have a child. There's just no reason for it. But again, I am capable of thinking beyond my self and beyond my ego.

you should try to do the same.

besides, you can't really wrap yourself in the flag of "pro-life" since the policies of the right are very hypocritical. save the fetus at all cost, but once the kid is out of the womb, cut education, cut gov't services that would enrich it's life and give it a better chance at success.

A human is to humanity, as an elephant is to elephanty.....a collection of cells contained with a womb, not yet born, not yet given rise to conciousness, the ability to think cognicent ideas, the ability to understand, language, comprehension, maths, compassion, empathy, society etc...this is what dictates humanity, not just the species by which the genome belongs.

The ability to participate.

These fetuses are not human, not yet. They are still developing.

Their brains have not developed enough to even breathe, let alone have cognitive thinking.

This is no more 'murder' than killing a common house fly is 'murder'.

To let it continue to grow, to force a woman to term given negative outcomes for both the child, the parent, and society in general as a result of not being ready or prepared, either due to finance or social circumstance, all in the name of your religious or political beliefs, is such a massive irony filled injustice on our society....and its a shame that you cant see it.

There was some very interesting research released just last month about autism, it found that the problem begins in the womb with tiny patches of badly developed cortex. The important thing is that these patches can be nearly anywhere, so the effects it can have can be really varied. Here is a summary if anyone's interested.
http://www.wlns.com/story/25082941/patches-of-cortical-layers-disrupted-during-early-brain-development-in-autism

Let's look at the scripture in a little more detail:

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

This scripture is at the tail end of a conversation Jesus had with a young rich man. The young man had inquired of the Lord how he could have eternal life. The answer Jesus gave was simple, "sell your possesions and follow me." In the rest of the scripture we see that the only requirements for salvation is a confession of Jesus as Lord and a belief that He was raised from the dead. So, why did the Lord give the additional requirement to the rich young man of selling all of his possessions? We see why in the next verse:

Matthew 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

This man, even knowing that Jesus could instruct him on how to attain eternal life, could not follow after the Lord because he loved his wealth more than God. This is what Jesus said in Matthew 6:24

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

His riches were the stumbling block preventing him from following the Lord, and that is why the Lord dealt with it there. The Lord knew He was a slave to his wealth and could not bear to be parted from it, even at the expense of his eternal life. This is a reason why the Lord warned us in Matthew 16:26

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Which is to say, that if someone laid all the wealth of the world at your feet, and you traded your soul for it, you would have made an unprofitable deal. The wealth of this world is perishing and will pass away, and we along with it, but those who do the will abide with Him forever. So, let's look on to what Jesus said to His disciples after the young rich man parted:

Matthew 19:23-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

You'll notice that Jesus only said it was impossible for men, but with God all things are possible. The problem with the young rich man was not his wealth but his heart condition before God. He wanted the gift more than he wanted the giver of the gift. When Jesus put his loyalties to the test, the true condition of his heart was exposed. There is nothing inherently bad about money, but there is something inherently bad about putting it before God. That is the sin of idolatry, and that is what Jesus is condemning, not money itself. Take Joseph of Arimethea for example:

Matthew 27:57-60 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus.
He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.

And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.

Joseph was a disciple of Jesus yet He did not require Joseph to sell all of his possessions. Indeed, if he had Joseph would not have been able to provide the tomb that Jesus was buried in, ultimately fulfilling the prophecy about Jesus in Isaiah 53:9.

So, to conclude, what God is most concerned about is the heart. If your love for your possesions is what is keeping you from the Lord, He may ultimately require you to sacrifice them. I think is especially difficult for the rich man to realize his need for salvation because he is so self-sufficient. He believes he is in control of his life because his money insulates him from many of the cares of this world. He does not realize that his very breath rests in the hands of the Lord. He may not confess, as Job did, that his riches are all blessings from on High, and at the disposal of the Almighty to do with them what He may.

Job 1:21 And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I'm going back to the womb. Technology wins. It takes me an hour to get a decent red eye reduction. And now this.

In general I agree a person should [for their own sake at the very least] shut the fuck up and do as instructed by police.

However, that is secondary to the well-being of the [real or fictional] fetus in the suspect's womb.

Many people, regardless of race, gender, or station in life, have little control over their temper and go ape-shit nuts ignoring the authority of law enforcement. In 99% of the cases, I'd say the officer is right to tase or use force against the offender to achieve compliance, however this is the 1% where I feel someone has to be concerned with the safety of the unborn child.

Even if the mother is too dipshit crazy to be able to put her baby's safety ahead of her outrage, at least the sanity of an officer should come into play and beat her up in a way that they won't be jeopardizing the safety of the fetus.

Don't obey an officer's orders repeatedly and dare to resist? Get tased. Get wrestled to the ground. Get kneed in the back. Hell, even get into a choke hold.

But pregnant, unarmed, and presenting no physical threat? Break her arm and punch her in the face if you have to, officers. Just avoid the taser and physical trauma to the uterus region in general.

(I know; radicals will say the baby doesn't deserve to be born into the world with a mother who is too dipshit to obey officers, but I think it deserves a fair chance at life [or at least not to be potentially murdered for its mother's disobedience].)

Up here in Canada our laws on abortion are the dream of everyone pro-choice, at least in theory. That is to say, we have absolutely no laws against abortion in any way, shape or form. In practice, we are starting to hear complaints from women's rights groups. Sex selective abortion is starting to become a concern to them and they aren't quite sure what to do about it.

Call me a right wing fanatic, but I disagree with my country's position on this. The reality is, our laws make abortion at 8 months and 3 weeks completely legal. Our laws also list it as murder to terminate that same infant at that same time should they have been born 2 weeks early and were no longer in the womb at 8 months and 3 weeks.

I guess my point is the insistence from the pro-choice side that this is a simple matter that demands choice be allowed for the good of all is flatly false. I really do believe the debate needs to center on when life begins, and talking around not liking the implications or resulting difficulties is just so much emotional bullying.

There are things that are not accepted by all but that just have to be tolerated as the alternatives are way worse. On abortion that means providing access to safe abortion cause if you don't, theyäll happen anyway.. And what then.. when a mother dies from illegal abortion, doesn't that mean we lost two lives instead of one. Personally don't consider fetus living, i'm teetering on whther it's the amount of brain capacity, heart pumping or is it simply the point when a child can be brought out of womb and it has some level of survivability, i don't know. That is not the point.

One things that is not discussed here is THE point of her talk: prevent the unwanted pregnancies in the first place. That doesn't mean abstinence but condoms, pills, counseling, info and abstinence (i do believe that not all youngsters should be having sex, abstinence is the BEST choice for those early year, no doubt in that. But instead of giving all single people, young, old or between, only ONE choice, and if that fails you have failed your life, why not give them access to the second best and so on.. Religion....

Keep religion out of this and just look at things in neutral manner. Some don't like gay sex but have no problem with gay marriage, just like some don't like carrots but have no problem other eating it.Banning either will not make them go away, if carrots were made illegal, people would still eat and grow them. So get out of that shell and try to look the big picture, ten try to look at things from the perspective of people who are actually going thru with it (most pro-lifers never had to do abortion, they have no clue on what's going on that persons head who makes such a choice; they have zero sympathy and are essentially sociopaths when dealing with this issue. No understanding, no caring, just pure judgement..

Plus human society has changed, we live healthier lives and longer so it only makes sense to have some variety when people want to procreate. The best possible time, place, resources, partner.. when all that falls in place wouldn't you think that is the best time to bring new people in? Not when your time is spent trying to gather those things, having a kid then might just slow that progress to a halt and we have yet another generation living in poverty and diminished options in life (we are talking USA here, where you have very limited social mobility, basically the more equal society, the less there are reasons for abortions... Most abortion occur simply because the mother can not provide a good life to a new human. More equal societies tend to take care of the societys main building blocks a lot better.

The most dangerous place to be is in the womb.