Philadelphia Abortion Doctor

[youngterrier]

1) Abortion and Doctor being associated with each other is somewhat of a paradox, if not oxymoron.

2)I don't care about the pro-life/pro-choice discussion. As far as I'm concerned, RVW was wrong, and abortion should come down to states rights. I'm not a woman, nor would I endorse abortion in really any case. At the same time, I don't want a woman's right, or anyone's right, to PRIVACY violated for slippery slope reasons (yes it's weak sauce I know), and that's one tough cookie to crumble when dealing with abortion. It doesn't make a difference to me whether or not it is legal or not because if I father a child it isn't going to be an option so it's not going to effect me. Making abortion illegal won't stop it from happening, just like making drugs and guns illegal is unpractical. Legislatively it should be dealt with on the most local of levels as our federal government has proven incompetent any regulating anything

If I take your meaning correctly...

the flaw in this is to suggest that a woman in Orem, UT has, owing to "local control" less of a right than a woman in Milwaukee, WI...

the supremacy clause and the 14th Amendment are real, and apply to ALL Americans...

darn. It's almost as if that's true of every state legislature. I don't have as much right to use marijuana as the inhabitants of the states who have legalized it for medical use. Granted, it's somewhat of a different concept in saying that a woman in one state should have equal rights to a woman in another state, but I would think that the rights of all people should be equal in all states with that logic, meaning all legislation would fall under one rule--the federal government. I don't agree with that philosophy because the debate of abortion is a two-edged sword. On one end there is the rights of the child, on the other, the rights of the mother. The values of the culture of a state of say Massachusetts is different than Texas, so why make Texas obey the rules of Mass. or vice versa?

The 14th amendment was not written by the founding fathers. Granted, we shouldn't discard it, but we shouldn't expand it past its original meaning.

[youngterrier]

1) Abortion and Doctor being associated with each other is somewhat of a paradox, if not oxymoron.

2)I don't care about the pro-life/pro-choice discussion. As far as I'm concerned, RVW was wrong, and abortion should come down to states rights. I'm not a woman, nor would I endorse abortion in really any case. At the same time, I don't want a woman's right, or anyone's right, to PRIVACY violated for slippery slope reasons (yes it's weak sauce I know), and that's one tough cookie to crumble when dealing with abortion. It doesn't make a difference to me whether or not it is legal or not because if I father a child it isn't going to be an option so it's not going to effect me. Making abortion illegal won't stop it from happening, just like making drugs and guns illegal is unpractical. Legislatively it should be dealt with on the most local of levels as our federal government has proven incompetent any regulating anything

Rivers not on fire, the American Bald Eagle, the Trumpeter Swan, and Glass-Steagal would disagree.

and?

[kalm]

Rivers not on fire, the American Bald Eagle, the Trumpeter Swan, and Glass-Steagal would disagree.

and?

Government has proven competent at regulating many things.

[youngterrier]

and?

Government has proven competent at regulating many things.

well damn just say so

but seriously, if you think the government isn't capable of banning drugs, I don't see why you would believe they could ban abortions. If there are abortions they should be regulated to prevent stuff like this from happening, I'm not that loony. I'm just skeptical that the government can be capable of regulating anything at all on a large scale

[native]

If I take your meaning correctly...

the flaw in this is to suggest that a woman in Orem, UT has, owing to "local control" less of a right than a woman in Milwaukee, WI...

the supremacy clause and the 14th Amendment are real, and apply to ALL Americans...

darn. It's almost as if that's true of every state legislature. I don't have as much right to use marijuana as the inhabitants of the states who have legalized it for medical use. Granted, it's somewhat of a different concept in saying that a woman in one state should have equal rights to a woman in another state, but I would think that the rights of all people should be equal in all states with that logic, meaning all legislation would fall under one rule--the federal government. I don't agree with that philosophy because the debate of abortion is a two-edged sword. On one end there is the rights of the child, on the other, the rights of the mother. The values of the culture of a state of say Massachusetts is different than Texas, so why make Texas obey the rules of Mass. or vice versa?

The 14th amendment was not written by the founding fathers. Granted, we shouldn't discard it, but we shouldn't expand it past its original meaning.

Really good stuff, YT!

[Col Hogan]

1) Abortion and Doctor being associated with each other is somewhat of a paradox, if not oxymoron.

2)I don't care about the pro-life/pro-choice discussion. As far as I'm concerned, RVW was wrong, and abortion should come down to states rights. I'm not a woman, nor would I endorse abortion in really any case. At the same time, I don't want a woman's right, or anyone's right, to PRIVACY violated for slippery slope reasons (yes it's weak sauce I know), and that's one tough cookie to crumble when dealing with abortion. It doesn't make a difference to me whether or not it is legal or not because if I father a child it isn't going to be an option so it's not going to effect me. Making abortion illegal won't stop it from happening, just like making drugs and guns illegal is unpractical. Legislatively it should be dealt with on the most local of levels as our federal government has proven incompetent any regulating anything

If I take your meaning correctly...

the flaw in this is to suggest that a woman in Orem, UT has, owing to "local control" less of a right than a woman in Milwaukee, WI...

the supremacy clause and the 14th Amendment are real, and apply to ALL Americans...

Tell that to honest people in Illinois or Wisconsin who are denied certain rights that the liberal left feels is A-OK...

[Col Hogan]

I will do that...but with your permission, I'd like to give it in your name...

I would like you to donate it in then name "Peter James" if it's all the same to you my friend.

[JoltinJoe]

To be honest with you, I think you should lay off the pro abortion thing because it pushes reasonable people away from what you say. I don't fit it tightly on either side I guess but I don't know anybody that pushes getting abortions. I'm all for using straight language to make a point but it just doesn't fit.

We would like to see the same end game. We all know that making abortion illegal wouldn't work. But it is something to argue about whether it should or shouldn't be so we spend our time doing that.

The goal of emphasizing the term "pro abortion" is to emphasize that no one wants to embrace that term to describe their outlook, even though the fact is that "pro choice" is really a "pro abortion" position.

The pro choice label allows people who are personally opposed to abortion an opportunity to avoid evaluating what it really means to be personally opposed to abortion. As more people who are personally opposed to abortion come to self-label themselves as "pro life," it becomes easier for them to accept reasonable (and necessary) restrictions on the availability of abortions.

The Supreme Court has already held that states may limit abortions, and do so constitutionally, so long as it does not outlaw abortion entirely. In other words, there is some right to an abortion, but it is not a fundamental right. After a generation of Supreme Court decisions, this seems to be now settled constitutional law. So the battle today is about what limitations are justified on the availability of abortion. The battle has essentially moved from the courts to the state legislatures.

If more people self-label themselves "pro life," they will eventually support what, in my opinion, are reasonable and justified restrictions: 48-hour waiting periods to consider the decision; counseling regarding certain biological facts about the development of the fetus.

Yes, these laws will reduce the frequency of abortion, but isn't that a good thing? Even "pro choicers" say abortion say that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Do they really mean rare? Once you self-label yourself pro life, it becomes easier to hold "pro choice" to their stated goal of making abortion "rare."

The "pro choice" movement has too long successfully managed to make people embarrassed to say they are "pro life" because they know the consequences of such self-labeling. So they have painted pro lifers as extremists, and then argue that restrictions like waiting period laws are favored by extremists. Believe me, this works.

In the end, though, why do "pro choicers" try to avoid saying they are "pro abortion?"

[89Hen]

Would be great if you guys dropped the birth control nonsense that ironically creates many of these problems.

The nonsense isn't as strong as you think. I know plenty of Catholics who use birth control and I know plenty of Catholics who I'm sure don't use birth control and don't get pregnant.

[kalm]

To be honest with you, I think you should lay off the pro abortion thing because it pushes reasonable people away from what you say. I don't fit it tightly on either side I guess but I don't know anybody that pushes getting abortions. I'm all for using straight language to make a point but it just doesn't fit.

We would like to see the same end game. We all know that making abortion illegal wouldn't work. But it is something to argue about whether it should or shouldn't be so we spend our time doing that.

The goal of emphasizing the term "pro abortion" is to emphasize that no one wants to embrace that term to describe their outlook, even though the fact is that "pro choice" is really a "pro abortion" position.

The pro choice label allows people who are personally opposed to abortion an opportunity to avoid evaluating what it really means to be personally opposed to abortion. As more people who are personally opposed to abortion come to self-label themselves as "pro life," it becomes easier for them to accept reasonable (and necessary) restrictions on the availability of abortions.

The Supreme Court has already held that states may limit abortions, and do so constitutionally, so long as it does not outlaw abortion entirely. In other words, there is some right to an abortion, but it is not a fundamental right. After a generation of Supreme Court decisions, this seems to be now settled constitutional law. So the battle today is about what limitations are justified on the availability of abortion. The battle has essentially moved from the courts to the state legislatures.

If more people self-label themselves "pro life," they will eventually support what, in my opinion, are reasonable and justified restrictions: 48-hour waiting periods to consider the decision; counseling regarding certain biological facts about the development of the fetus.

Yes, these laws will reduce the frequency of abortion, but isn't that a good thing? Even "pro choicers" say abortion say that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Do they really mean rare? Once you self-label yourself pro life, it becomes easier to hold "pro choice" to their stated goal of making abortion "rare."

The "pro choice" movement has too long successfully managed to make people embarrassed to say they are "pro life" because they know the consequences of such self-labeling. So they have painted pro lifers as extremists, and then argue that restrictions like waiting period laws are favored by extremists. Believe me, this works.

In the end, though, why do "pro choicers" try to avoid saying they are "pro abortion?"

You make very persuasive arguments in general, but Ursus is right on this one - it turns off people who might otherwise move in your direction. You are in love with your gotcha meme, but in reality it's just building a fence.

[Chizzang]

The goal of emphasizing the term "pro abortion" is to emphasize that no one wants to embrace that term to describe their outlook, even though the fact is that "pro choice" is really a "pro abortion" position.

The pro choice label allows people who are personally opposed to abortion an opportunity to avoid evaluating what it really means to be personally opposed to abortion. As more people who are personally opposed to abortion come to self-label themselves as "pro life," it becomes easier for them to accept reasonable (and necessary) restrictions on the availability of abortions.

The Supreme Court has already held that states may limit abortions, and do so constitutionally, so long as it does not outlaw abortion entirely. In other words, there is some right to an abortion, but it is not a fundamental right. After a generation of Supreme Court decisions, this seems to be now settled constitutional law. So the battle today is about what limitations are justified on the availability of abortion. The battle has essentially moved from the courts to the state legislatures.

If more people self-label themselves "pro life," they will eventually support what, in my opinion, are reasonable and justified restrictions: 48-hour waiting periods to consider the decision; counseling regarding certain biological facts about the development of the fetus.

Yes, these laws will reduce the frequency of abortion, but isn't that a good thing? Even "pro choicers" say abortion say that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Do they really mean rare? Once you self-label yourself pro life, it becomes easier to hold "pro choice" to their stated goal of making abortion "rare."

The "pro choice" movement has too long successfully managed to make people embarrassed to say they are "pro life" because they know the consequences of such self-labeling. So they have painted pro lifers as extremists, and then argue that restrictions like waiting period laws are favored by extremists. Believe me, this works.

In the end, though, why do "pro choicers" try to avoid saying they are "pro abortion?"

You make very persuasive arguments in general, but Ursus is right on this one - it turns off people who might otherwise move in your direction. You are in love with your gotcha meme, but in reality it's just building a fence.

By all reasonable observation:
Building a fence is the desired goal

Measured calm language and sensible conversation is no longer a part of the abortion debate...
When I was in college not too long ago there was a series of interviews and polls done that were very telling and from that point forward I decided it wasn't really safe to discuss in public "ones opinion about abortion"

Over half of the "pro-life" abortion debaters felt that the killings of these abortion clinic doctors was "fine" for lack of a better word... and way more than half felt that the destruction of the clinics was "fine" also



we've seen that here on this site as well... the numbers RIGHT HERE support that

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

To be honest with you, I think you should lay off the pro abortion thing because it pushes reasonable people away from what you say. I don't fit it tightly on either side I guess but I don't know anybody that pushes getting abortions. I'm all for using straight language to make a point but it just doesn't fit.

We would like to see the same end game. We all know that making abortion illegal wouldn't work. But it is something to argue about whether it should or shouldn't be so we spend our time doing that.

The goal of emphasizing the term "pro abortion" is to emphasize that no one wants to embrace that term to describe their outlook, even though the fact is that "pro choice" is really a "pro abortion" position.

The pro choice label allows people who are personally opposed to abortion an opportunity to avoid evaluating what it really means to be personally opposed to abortion. As more people who are personally opposed to abortion come to self-label themselves as "pro life," it becomes easier for them to accept reasonable (and necessary) restrictions on the availability of abortions.

The Supreme Court has already held that states may limit abortions, and do so constitutionally, so long as it does not outlaw abortion entirely. In other words, there is some right to an abortion, but it is not a fundamental right. After a generation of Supreme Court decisions, this seems to be now settled constitutional law. So the battle today is about what limitations are justified on the availability of abortion. The battle has essentially moved from the courts to the state legislatures.

If more people self-label themselves "pro life," they will eventually support what, in my opinion, are reasonable and justified restrictions: 48-hour waiting periods to consider the decision; counseling regarding certain biological facts about the development of the fetus.

Yes, these laws will reduce the frequency of abortion, but isn't that a good thing? Even "pro choicers" say abortion say that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Do they really mean rare? Once you self-label yourself pro life, it becomes easier to hold "pro choice" to their stated goal of making abortion "rare."

The "pro choice" movement has too long successfully managed to make people embarrassed to say they are "pro life" because they know the consequences of such self-labeling. So they have painted pro lifers as extremists, and then argue that restrictions like waiting period laws are favored by extremists. Believe me, this works.

In the end, though, why do "pro choicers" try to avoid saying they are "pro abortion?"

JJ, I can't speak for anyone else but I will tell you this. There is not a fucking thing you can label me as that would make a difference to me in the decisions I make. I'm not driven in one direction or the other by you or Pro lifers. You can call me "pro vacuuming little legs out of a pussy" if you want to.

I come to my own conclusions on things through discussions and a little learning. I am happy to learn perspectives and facts from you. I don't even mind getting your opinion on things. The thing is that people are less receptive when you purposely use the language you do as if you are really telling it like it is. You can think what you want but the spiteful nature of pro lifers like yourself completely works against your stated goal. IT IS people that act as you do that hurt your numbers with people like me that are truly of two sides on the matter.

I would think you would know something about trying to persuade someone to your way of thinking and in spite of that you make the mistake of a rube. That leads me to believe that you just want to argue it from a philosophical standpoint instead of working towards your stated goal. Good luck, it'll be interesting to watch.

[Grizalltheway]

Would be great if you guys dropped the birth control nonsense that ironically creates many of these problems.

The nonsense isn't as strong as you think. I know plenty of Catholics who use birth control and I know plenty of Catholics who I'm sure don't use birth control and don't get pregnant.

Good for them. It doesn't work for everybody.

[GannonFan]

Over half of the "pro-life" abortion debaters felt that the killings of these abortion clinic doctors was "fine" for lack of a better word... and way more than half felt that the destruction of the clinics was "fine" also



we've seen that here on this site as well... the numbers RIGHT HERE support that

Huh? Where did this come from? Where have you seen evidence that any, let alone half of the people who consider themselves pro-life on this message board, are "fine" with murdering doctors or bombing clinics? Unless you can back it up, it just sounds completely made up.

[Chizzang]

Over half of the "pro-life" abortion debaters felt that the killings of these abortion clinic doctors was "fine" for lack of a better word... and way more than half felt that the destruction of the clinics was "fine" also



we've seen that here on this site as well... the numbers RIGHT HERE support that

Huh? Where did this come from? Where have you seen evidence that any, let alone half of the people who consider themselves pro-life on this message board, are "fine" with murdering doctors or bombing clinics? Unless you can back it up, it just sounds completely made up.

Do you recall the thread where catamount posted about a doctor getting shot...
on this board many of the posters stated something to the effect: Live by the sword die by the sword... and displayed an "oh well, he asked for it" kind of attitude

Let me pull a Joltin' Joe here:
No I don't have any detailed findings about this site and it's users - but - I have a suspicion that if most pro-lifers were honest (completely honest) they would admit it doesn't bother them at all when abortion doctors are killed... and that's not a shocking reach or assumption because when people being polled are allowed to remain anonymous the numbers show that to be the case...

It's the old "fight fire with fire" attitude... and it's not uncommon or unusual

[Wedgebuster]

Yup, always had a healthy population of zytgote zorros around these parts.

[blueballs]

zytgote zorros .

[GannonFan]

Huh? Where did this come from? Where have you seen evidence that any, let alone half of the people who consider themselves pro-life on this message board, are "fine" with murdering doctors or bombing clinics? Unless you can back it up, it just sounds completely made up.

Do you recall the thread where catamount posted about a doctor getting shot...
on this board many of the posters stated something to the effect: Live by the sword die by the sword... and displayed an "oh well, he asked for it" kind of attitude

Let me pull a Joltin' Joe here:
No I don't have any detailed findings about this site and it's users - but - I have a suspicion that if most pro-lifers were honest (completely honest) they would admit it doesn't bother them at all when abortion doctors are killed... and that's not a shocking reach or assumption because when people being polled are allowed to remain anonymous the numbers show that to be the case...

It's the old "fight fire with fire" attitude... and it's not uncommon or unusual

So you're saying you have nothing but a suspiscion? So my suspiscion that your's is wrong is equally valid. Super.

And heck, now you've gone from saying half of the pro-lifers to now saying most have this viewpoint. If you make another post or two you might have yourself convinced that every pro lifer feels this way and that they are also responsible, collectively, for the JFK assassination. You're doing a great job of convincing yourself.

[Pwns]

JJ, I can't speak for anyone else but I will tell you this. There is not a **** thing you can label me as that would make a difference to me in the decisions I make. I'm not driven in one direction or the other by you or Pro lifers. You can call me "pro vacuuming little legs out of a pussy" if you want to.

I come to my own conclusions on things through discussions and a little learning. I am happy to learn perspectives and facts from you. I don't even mind getting your opinion on things. The thing is that people are less receptive when you purposely use the language you do as if you are really telling it like it is. You can think what you want but the spiteful nature of pro lifers like yourself completely works against your stated goal. IT IS people that act as you do that hurt your numbers with people like me that are truly of two sides on the matter.

I would think you would know something about trying to persuade someone to your way of thinking and in spite of that you make the mistake of a rube. That leads me to believe that you just want to argue it from a philosophical standpoint instead of working towards your stated goal. Good luck, it'll be interesting to watch.

So I take it you also condemn the use of the term "anti-choice" by groups like NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood? And I'm not just talking about fringe elements, you don't have to look very long to find the term used on their websites.

I for one don't think "pro-choice" folks (at least their top organizations) are really all that interested in reducing the numbers of abortions, and there are some good reasons for that.

1) More than half of women who have had at least one abortion have had multiple abortions. Yet they tell us it's a decision that no one takes lightly, or that it just happens when the condom and pill fail concurrently, or they're all rare cases where medical conditions made the abortion necessary.

2) PP, NARAL, NOW, et al do nothing for pregnant women who don't want to get an abortion but don't want cannot keep the baby. They don't help them find adoptive families. They don't advocate making the adoption process easier which keeps many capable people from adopting American babies. They would rather complain about the foster care system and use it as a reason why abortion is better option than having women simple give up the babies after birth. They claim to be about reducing child poverty and maximizing the number of kids living in stable homes but don't act like it.

3) They fight any and all restrictions on abortions, even those that are perfectly reasonable. A 14-year-old can't get many medical procedures without parental consent, but the militant pro-abortion crowd thinks they should be able to get abortions. They b*tch and moan at simple waiting periods (I thought it was a big decision?) or any requirement for doctors to tell the truth about the physiology of their developing baby. They claim to oppose the born-alive protection act because of what it could lead to yet want to pass the freedom of choice act which is very vague and would give the pro-abortion side more leverage than the born-alive act would the pro-life side.

All this while they not only don't try to find any common ground with the pro-life side. All they can do is play the gender card (even though there's very little of an opinion gap between the sexes on abortion) and say that this isn't a conflict of one human right versus another but rather human rights versus religious beliefs. The "pro-choice" movement needs to get off their high horses and do some soul-searching.

[Chizzang]

Do you recall the thread where catamount posted about a doctor getting shot...
on this board many of the posters stated something to the effect: Live by the sword die by the sword... and displayed an "oh well, he asked for it" kind of attitude

Let me pull a Joltin' Joe here:
No I don't have any detailed findings about this site and it's users - but - I have a suspicion that if most pro-lifers were honest (completely honest) they would admit it doesn't bother them at all when abortion doctors are killed... and that's not a shocking reach or assumption because when people being polled are allowed to remain anonymous the numbers show that to be the case...

It's the old "fight fire with fire" attitude... and it's not uncommon or unusual

So you're saying you have nothing but a suspiscion? So my suspiscion that your's is wrong is equally valid. Super.

And heck, now you've gone from saying half of the pro-lifers to now saying most have this viewpoint. If you make another post or two you might have yourself convinced that every pro lifer feels this way and that they are also responsible, collectively, for the JFK assassination. You're doing a great job of convincing yourself.

Thank you for helping me prove a point...
And Ursus you're welcome

Please read JoltinJoes stupid point about Pro-choice advocates - then - see reverse psychology post by me
then see reactions (match)

[GannonFan]

So you're saying you have nothing but a suspiscion? So my suspiscion that your's is wrong is equally valid. Super.

And heck, now you've gone from saying half of the pro-lifers to now saying most have this viewpoint. If you make another post or two you might have yourself convinced that every pro lifer feels this way and that they are also responsible, collectively, for the JFK assassination. You're doing a great job of convincing yourself.

Thank you for helping me prove a point...
And Ursus you're welcome

Please read JoltinJoes stupid point about Pro-choice advocates - then - see reverse psychology post by me
then see response

Which is odd because this thread has had plenty of actual civil debate, despite your position. Wonder why?

[Chizzang]

Thank you for helping me prove a point...
And Ursus you're welcome

Please read JoltinJoes stupid point about Pro-choice advocates - then - see reverse psychology post by me
then see response

Which is odd because this thread has had plenty of actual civil debate, despite your position. Wonder why?

My point was that JoltinJoe made a ridiculous assumption based on no real information
So I created one too
It garnered the same types of responses

(that's all)

I don't care about abortion
It has ZERO effect on me and never will

[JoltinJoe]

The goal of emphasizing the term "pro abortion" is to emphasize that no one wants to embrace that term to describe their outlook, even though the fact is that "pro choice" is really a "pro abortion" position.

The pro choice label allows people who are personally opposed to abortion an opportunity to avoid evaluating what it really means to be personally opposed to abortion. As more people who are personally opposed to abortion come to self-label themselves as "pro life," it becomes easier for them to accept reasonable (and necessary) restrictions on the availability of abortions.

The Supreme Court has already held that states may limit abortions, and do so constitutionally, so long as it does not outlaw abortion entirely. In other words, there is some right to an abortion, but it is not a fundamental right. After a generation of Supreme Court decisions, this seems to be now settled constitutional law. So the battle today is about what limitations are justified on the availability of abortion. The battle has essentially moved from the courts to the state legislatures.

If more people self-label themselves "pro life," they will eventually support what, in my opinion, are reasonable and justified restrictions: 48-hour waiting periods to consider the decision; counseling regarding certain biological facts about the development of the fetus.

Yes, these laws will reduce the frequency of abortion, but isn't that a good thing? Even "pro choicers" say abortion say that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Do they really mean rare? Once you self-label yourself pro life, it becomes easier to hold "pro choice" to their stated goal of making abortion "rare."

The "pro choice" movement has too long successfully managed to make people embarrassed to say they are "pro life" because they know the consequences of such self-labeling. So they have painted pro lifers as extremists, and then argue that restrictions like waiting period laws are favored by extremists. Believe me, this works.

In the end, though, why do "pro choicers" try to avoid saying they are "pro abortion?"

JJ, I can't speak for anyone else but I will tell you this. There is not a **** thing you can label me as that would make a difference to me in the decisions I make. I'm not driven in one direction or the other by you or Pro lifers. You can call me "pro vacuuming little legs out of a pussy" if you want to.

I come to my own conclusions on things through discussions and a little learning. I am happy to learn perspectives and facts from you. I don't even mind getting your opinion on things. The thing is that people are less receptive when you purposely use the language you do as if you are really telling it like it is. You can think what you want but the spiteful nature of pro lifers like yourself completely works against your stated goal. IT IS people that act as you do that hurt your numbers with people like me that are truly of two sides on the matter.

I would think you would know something about trying to persuade someone to your way of thinking and in spite of that you make the mistake of a rube. That leads me to believe that you just want to argue it from a philosophical standpoint instead of working towards your stated goal. Good luck, it'll be interesting to watch.

I don't think I'm spiteful. I've never said, "abortion is murder," or "abortionists are murderers," etc. But to me "pro choice" is a euphemism. Really, taking out all the loaded language (and perhaps "pro life" is, at least politically, a loaded term too), you are either "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion." I really believe, at least on a personal level, that most people anti-abortion. I'm just trying to say that it's ok to acknowledge what you believe and that you should be comfortable identifying yourself as such.

[JoltinJoe]

Which is odd because this thread has had plenty of actual civil debate, despite your position. Wonder why?

My point was that JoltinJoe made a ridiculous assumption based on no real information
So I created one too
It garnered the same types of responses

(that's all)

I don't care about abortion
It has ZERO effect on me and never will

I didn't make any assumption, let alone a ridiculous assumption.

You should read the writings of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was once the most prolific abortionist in this country and a leading and early advocate of the abortion-on-demand "right." My statements about the goals and tactics of the "pro-choice" movement are accurate in fact.

[Vidav]

JJ, I can't speak for anyone else but I will tell you this. There is not a **** thing you can label me as that would make a difference to me in the decisions I make. I'm not driven in one direction or the other by you or Pro lifers. You can call me "pro vacuuming little legs out of a pussy" if you want to.

I come to my own conclusions on things through discussions and a little learning. I am happy to learn perspectives and facts from you. I don't even mind getting your opinion on things. The thing is that people are less receptive when you purposely use the language you do as if you are really telling it like it is. You can think what you want but the spiteful nature of pro lifers like yourself completely works against your stated goal. IT IS people that act as you do that hurt your numbers with people like me that are truly of two sides on the matter.

I would think you would know something about trying to persuade someone to your way of thinking and in spite of that you make the mistake of a rube. That leads me to believe that you just want to argue it from a philosophical standpoint instead of working towards your stated goal. Good luck, it'll be interesting to watch.

So I take it you also condemn the use of the term "anti-choice" by groups like NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood? And I'm not just talking about fringe elements, you don't have to look very long to find the term used on their websites.

I for one don't think "pro-choice" folks (at least their top organizations) are really all that interested in reducing the numbers of abortions, and there are some good reasons for that.

1) More than half of women who have had at least one abortion have had multiple abortions. Yet they tell us it's a decision that no one takes lightly, or that it just happens when the condom and pill fail concurrently, or they're all rare cases where medical conditions made the abortion necessary.

2) PP, NARAL, NOW, et al do nothing for pregnant women who don't want to get an abortion but don't want cannot keep the baby. They don't help them find adoptive families. They don't advocate making the adoption process easier which keeps many capable people from adopting American babies. They would rather complain about the foster care system and use it as a reason why abortion is better option than having women simple give up the babies after birth. They claim to be about reducing child poverty and maximizing the number of kids living in stable homes but don't act like it.

3) They fight any and all restrictions on abortions, even those that are perfectly reasonable. A 14-year-old can't get many medical procedures without parental consent, but the militant pro-abortion crowd thinks they should be able to get abortions. They b*tch and moan at simple waiting periods (I thought it was a big decision?) or any requirement for doctors to tell the truth about the physiology of their developing baby. They claim to oppose the born-alive protection act because of what it could lead to yet want to pass the freedom of choice act which is very vague and would give the pro-abortion side more leverage than the born-alive act would the pro-life side.

All this while they not only don't try to find any common ground with the pro-life side. All they can do is play the gender card (even though there's very little of an opinion gap between the sexes on abortion) and say that this isn't a conflict of one human right versus another but rather human rights versus religious beliefs. The "pro-choice" movement needs to get off their high horses and do some soul-searching.

Do you have a law mandated waiting period on most other medical procedures? Are doctors required to provide specific information that isn't actually needed to perform the procedure?

Why treat it differently?