Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, February 17, 2008

Bills to tighten late-term laws

February 17, 2008

Advertisement

Abortion hearings

Hearings on House Bills 2615 and 2736 will be at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday before the House Federal and State Affairs Committee in Room 313-South in the Capitol.

— The abortion wars continue in the Kansas Legislature this week.

The House Federal and State Affairs Committee will have hearings on two bills that anti-abortion advocates say will improve enforcement of late-term abortions.

"All Kansans have a right to expect that existing laws limiting late-term abortions in Kansas will be followed and enforced," said state Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe.

But abortion rights advocates say the measures constitute harassment of those trying to terminate their pregnancies.

"Once again, legislators are abusing their power and position so they can pry into women's medical records, as well as the records of reproductive health care providers," the group ProKanDo said in a statement.

The bills hit the Legislature as a grand jury in Wichita is investigating Dr. George Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers in the nation. Tiller has denied any wrongdoing. And in Johnson County, a grand jury is investigating Planned Parenthood's clinic in Overland Park. Planned Parenthood also denies any wrongdoing. Both grand juries were seated by petition drives spearheaded by anti-abortion groups.

On the legislative front, Kinzer has sponsored House Bills 2615 and 2736.

Among the numerous changes to the state's late-term abortion law, the proposals would require abortion providers to offer a woman the opportunity to view an ultrasound image of the fetus.

Another provision would allow prosecution for violation of Kansas' late-term abortion law to be brought by the attorney general, or district or county attorney where the alleged violation occurred.

Kinzer called the measures "common sense protective provisions."

But ProKanDo described them as "outrageous bills" that will affect "all women who come from across the country seeking reproductive health care, as Kansas is home to one of the few late-term providers in the nation."

Under Kansas law, abortions of viable fetuses are prohibited after the 22nd week of pregnancy unless necessary to save the mother's life or prevent severe harm to the woman's physical or mental health.

Comments

Flap Doodle 6 years, 10 months ago

snap writes:

finally, a thread where Nick Danger can rant to his hearts' content about abortion without having to do a threadjack.

BTW

,

still

having

a

wonderful

internet

life

.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 10 months ago

Grammar makes your argument weak. They are having a baby. They don't have a baby.

bondmen 6 years, 10 months ago

Those with murder in their hearts saw nothing wrong with slavery or the Jewish Holocaust and they see no, nor hear no evil with the practice of infantacide today. People don't really change, do they?

KDW 6 years, 10 months ago

Reproductive health care? How can people buy into that lie?

Here is one of the processes used to terminate pregnancies beyond 24 weeks:

"Used to abort unborn children as old as 24 weeks, this method is similar to the D&C. The difference is that forceps with sharp metal jaws are used to grasp parts of the developing baby, which are then twisted and torn away. This continues until the child's entire body is removed from the womb. Because the baby's skull has often hardened to bone by this time, the skull must sometimes be compressed or crushed to facilitate removal. If not carefully removed, sharp edges of the bones may cause cervical laceration. Bleeding from the procedure may be profuse.

Dr. Warren Hern, a Boulder, Colorado abortionist who has performed a number of D&E abortions, says they can be particularly troubling to a clinic staff and worries that this may have an effect on the quality of care a woman receives. Hern also finds them traumatic for doctors too, saying 'there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one's eyes. The sensation of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.'" http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/images/asmf8a.html

May God have mercy on the USA for allowing this atrocity.

bettie 6 years, 10 months ago

kinzer definitely does not support medically accurate sexuality education in schools. the groups opposing these bills tried to pass a new sex ed mandate a couple of years ago. curious...none of the prononents of these bills targeted at abortion clinics were interested in providing students with information proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies (and, in a lot of cases, preventing a trip to the clinic).

and as a sidenote, all clinics already do ultrasounds for patients to view. contrary to what seems to be popular belief, they want women to make informed decisions.

Steve Jacob 6 years, 10 months ago

And I thought the abortion issue would go away after the "moringing after pill" went O.T.C. Oh well.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 10 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says:

"Marion, it is not a baby until it is born."

A woman goes into early labor, say at 20 weeks. The less-than-fully developed fetus is born, and the doctor drops it on the floor, putting an end to its desperate attempts to draw air into its undeveloped lungs. Being post-partum, this was a baby, regardless of the fact that it would have lived for minutes at best, and the doctor is charged with negligent homicide.

Another woman has second thoughts and decides to abort her fetus the day before her due date - after all, if it's not a baby until it's born, there's no problem with late term abortions, right? A modern day vegamatic rends its limbs from its body and purees it for easy removal. Despite the fact that this would have been a living child 24 hours later, there's no problem with this scenario, it's just cosmetic surgery for the mother.

Yep, that makes perfect sense.

bondmen 6 years, 10 months ago

Have you seen Bella or Juno?

We should counsel the young mother who just had sex, but didn't want a baby, that she should give a full life to the new life she began by offering the baby to a family who will love and cherish it and who'll be forever gratreful.

For babys not as readily adopted the orphanage was a time tested success for many years and for many people - and can be again today if there were a sufficient number of children available, i.e., no longer aborted.

These are superior choices to the abortion choice!

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 10 months ago

Of course no one hear wants to address the very real situation of the woman in the article that accompanied this one in the paper. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/feb... In Marion's view this woman would be forced to carry this poor child to birth; although it would probably have died in the mother's womb before it was born, and most certainly would have died shortly after birth. This wasn't some young girl who suddenly decided she didn't want to keep her baby. But, of course, Marion can't get pregnant, so he would never be faced with deciding whether to carry a baby soon to be dead to term, or ending the pain quicker. I'm sure he would have wanted this woman to suffer until full term, even if the baby had died inside of here. Nine months or nothing.

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 10 months ago

I'm not sure why you are all so hung up on whether it's a "baby" or a "fetus." Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it is a "baby" and that it does have a right to life, it doesn't follow that a pregnant woman has a legal (or even ethical) duty to sustain that life. Let's say that I need an organ transplant in order to save my life. I'm a person. I have a right to life. And yet my mother has no legal (or ethical) duty to give me an organ, even though I will die without it. Similarly, even if a fetus is a person and has a right to life, it doesn't follow that a woman has to allow the fetus to use her body in order to sustain its life.

Let's say that I'm on my death bed, and that all it would take to save me is the touch of Angelina Jolie's cool hand on my fevered brow. I'm a person. I have a right to life. It doesn't follow that Ms. Jolie has a legal (or ethical) duty to save my life, even though it would take little effort on her part to do so. Sure, it might be morally praiseworthy for her to fly to Kansas and save me from certain death. But that doesn't mean we should pass a law requiring her to jump on the next plane.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 10 months ago

Again, none of the all mighty men who have all the answers and speak to god directly want to address real life situations. Of course, it's not a situation they will ever be in, but they can certainly tell others how to run their lives. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/feb...

pisafromthewest 6 years, 10 months ago

agtprovocateuse (Anonymous) says:

"Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it is a "baby" and that it does have a right to life, it doesn't follow that a pregnant woman has a legal (or even ethical) duty to sustain that life."

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that rich people have a legal or ethical duty to support the poor through their taxes? Or can we let them freeze/starve/die?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 10 months ago

pisafromthewest The most ardent supporters of making abortion illegal are those people who are against helping the poor. Make sure they get born, but after that it's a dog eat dog world, and if you ain't ruthless like us, you'll never amount to anything. And don't give me the tired line about if you work hard in the US, you too can be rich. My parents worked hard all their lives. I see young people working 2 jobs just to afford a place to live. I see rich people taking jobs out of the US, so they can make even more money. I don't see too much concern for people needing a job that pays a real wage. Maybe they just want more people at a lower price to mow their yards, drive their cars, and wipe their rears, instead of having to bring in all these illegal aliens to do it. Yes, rich people are the gods of our society. Give birth to their servents, now! Yessir massah.

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 10 months ago

pisa:

I understand the point you're making, and I think it's a valid one. Yes, I believe it's my moral and legal duty to pay taxes, and some of those taxes will be used to keep poor people from "freezing/starving/dying." That doesn't mean, however, that I think the government should be able to force me to invite a homeless person home for dinner. And it certainly doesn't mean the government should be able to force me to allow said homeless person to live in my house, eat my food, and generally make me miserable for the next nine months of my life. :-)

alm77 6 years, 10 months ago

agtprovocateuse, so the mother's choice to have sex and run the risk (every birth control tells of its risks of failure, so you are still assuming some risk) of becoming pregnant still leaves her with no obligation?

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 10 months ago

Aim:

You make a good point, to which I have several responses. I'll start with this one: what if the woman is raped? And if you concede that a woman who is raped should be able to have an abortion, then aren't you admitting what I've suspected all along - that most people who oppose abortion do so not because of the "innocence" of the fetus, but because of the "guilt" of the woman carrying it? Does a fetus that results from a rape have less of a right to life than a fetus that results from consensual sex?

pisafromthewest 6 years, 10 months ago

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says:

"The most ardent supporters of making abortion illegal are those people who are against helping the poor."

As the most ardent supporters of "choice" are those people in favor of imposing obligations on others when it suits their purposes.

Before you get too worked up in class envy, my example was very narrowly limited to a specific question directed at a post made by agtprovocateuse, i.e. when a mother-to-be is under no legal or ethical responsibility to sustain life even if it is considered a "baby," then why should anyone be legally or ethically obligated to provide sustenance to anyone else who can't take care of themselves?

Incidentally, parental obligations are not without limits. You do not have to provide children with their own car, a cell phone, the latest pair of $300 athletic shoes, a swimming pool, a plasma TV in their bedroom, concert tickets, or private schools. Not everyone is going to be able to afford these things for their children. Some people can. Are they supposed to be obligated to see that other people's children have those things too?

You do have to provide your children with food, shelter, clothing, protection, medical treatment, and education. For those that can not provide those minimum necessities for sustaining life to their children (or themselves), our society has collectively decided that those who are capable of contributing to their welfare should do so. The liberals are the most adament in fighting for ever more ways to redistribute wealth, wanting to build a system where the government (funded by the taxes collected from the well off) should take care of everyone (e.g. nationalized healthcare). Yet at the same time they have decided that the unborn, the most helpless of creatures and those who have no one to speak for them, are SOL. So you see a contradiction in the agenda of conservatives; my post was intended to point out that the contradiction runs both ways.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 10 months ago

snap writes:

" Marion (Marion Lynn) says: beobachter, aka "Observer, ObservAr" wrote:"

Trying

to

out

people

,

Nick

?

You've

failed

at

that

before

on

this

board

.

jonas 6 years, 10 months ago

It seems that there are a few "slippery slope" issues on both sides that get people jumping out of their skin afraid that it's the first in an inevitable series of steps towards total restriction and control. Any possible restriction on abortion is viewed as just a matter of time until they are illegal. Gay marriage will lead ultimately to polygamy and even bestiality. Any registration of firearms will lead to totalitarianism. Have we simply forgotten how to maintain a moderate stance, or what?

sdinges 6 years, 10 months ago

Marion: "Why do they not tell folks that they are merely temporarily bloated with a churning chunk of protoplasm?"

This line is so going to go in my shower invitations when I end having a kid.

jonas 6 years, 10 months ago

That's pretty depressing, Right-thinker. Imagine a world where people thought, instead of just reacting to stimulus. Or where we did look for solutions, instead of dogmatic, impractical, unfeasible talking points that, in the end, accomplish as little as the actually mean in the first place.

No wonder the world sometimes seems like its going to hell.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 10 months ago

Enforcer got sent to sleep with the fishes again? Imagine that.

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 10 months ago

Marion writes:

"If that is the way that you realy [sic] feel about it go to the vet and get fixed as you should never become gravid."

Marion,

I'm a lesbian. Not really worried about getting knocked up any time soon. But thanks for your concern. :-)

yeah_right 6 years, 10 months ago

I think that you would find that almost ALL parents who debated having an abortion during pregnancy and did not are SOOOOO thankful that they did not.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 10 months ago

pisafromthewest says, "As the most ardent supporters of "choice" are those people in favor of imposing obligations on others when it suits their purposes."

Your comment has the situation 100% bass ackwards.

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 10 months ago

yeah_right:

Don't you think that there are plenty of women who have had abortions and are "SOOOOO" thankful that they did?

yeah_right 6 years, 10 months ago

agtprovocateuse:

Perhaps, but the only women that I know of who have had an abortion have been affected emotionally and spiritually in a negative way. The guilt has not left them.

tvc 6 years, 10 months ago

The person I know does not regret it.

agtprovocateuse 6 years, 10 months ago

yeah_right:

I'm not disputing that some women may regret having abortions. However, I would argue that many of the women who regret having abortions are women who had STRONG moral qualms about the procedure to begin with. Women who are ardently pro-choice, who believe that a fetus is not a person, or who believe that a woman's right to choose trumps any rights a fetus might have, are less likely to have lingering feelings of guilt. I would never suggest that a woman have an abortion if she feels it is in any way unethical, but the fact that some women do so despite such beliefs certainly does not make me any less supportive of the rights of women in general to abort.

I would also suggest that the reason you know women who have regretted their abortions, but that I know women who feel no guilt or remorse about theirs, has something to do with the fact that I am (I'm assuming) a stronger supporter of abortion rights than you are. Isn't it possible that we surround ourselves by like-minded people, and that the women you know who have had abortions fall into the first category discussed above, while the women I know fall into the second?

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 10 months ago

tvc (Anonymous) says:

"The person I know does not regret it."

Same here.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 10 months ago

So, I guess the bill being considered needs to be amended to make guilt a crime, because if you feel guilty, then you must have done something wrong and our goverment can't allow any wrong to go unpunished.

Heck, I had a plant die because I forgot to water the poor thing for awhile. I was guilty, no doubt about it. So, I guess I should march my butt down to the police and turn myself in right away.

Doin' it right now...NOT!

pisafromthewest 6 years, 10 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"As the most ardent supporters of "choice" are those people in favor of imposing obligations on others when it suits their purposes."

-

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm:.

The pro-CHOICE people are the ones imposing?


a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says:

pisafromthewest says, "As the most ardent supporters of "choice" are those people in favor of imposing obligations on others when it suits their purposes."

Your comment has the situation 100% bass ackwards.


Gee, both of you, nice way to take comments completely out of context. Try reading back to the posts that the part you quoted developed from and maybe you'd have some glimmer of an idea of what I had been referring to.

A brief recap: One poster (agtprovocateuse) made a comment to the effect that even if a fetus is a "baby" the mother is under no obligation to sustain its life. I questioned that poster as to whether he believed the rich are under any ethical obligation to support the poor through their taxes, and another poster (dorothyhr) responded "The most ardent supporters of making abortion illegal are those people who are against helping the poor." The line you quoted from my post directly followed and was in response to that comment, referring to taxation to redistribute wealth, and having nothing to do with imposing rules like preventing abortion.

Please try to keep up before you comment.

jonas 6 years, 10 months ago

"yeah_right (Anonymous) says:

Perhaps, but the only women that I know of who have had an abortion have been affected emotionally and spiritually in a negative way. The guilt has not left them."

How many women have you known of who have had an abortion? More to the point, did they all immediately come and tell you after they were done?

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 10 months ago

pisafromthewest says, "Gee, both of you, nice way to take comments completely out of context."

Nice try, but no points for you. I read and re-read the related posts and your statement, and although you try to paint it within an alternate context, your quote appears to have the same meaning whether in the context you describe or standing on it's own.

Support of social welfare programs and support of parental (pre-parent) obligations, even if you try to connect them, as some have attempted, still reflects an attitude of "we will tell you what you must do and then bear no responsibility for the result". That's where it is wrong-headed; forcing a decision against someone's will with no accountability or responsibility for the outcome of the decision. Kinda pisses all over the freedom thing some of us rather enjoy.

There's your recap with a little context peppered in.

"Please try to keep up before you comment."

You might try that, pisa. I'm content to let others read and decide who is not keeping up.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 10 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says:

"Nice try, but no points for you. I read and re-read the related posts and your statement, and although you try to paint it within an alternate context, your quote appears to have the same meaning whether in the context you describe or standing on it's own."

Let's see ... my comment was in direct juxtaposition and response to, and even paraphrased, dorothyhr's comment about obligations to the poor. So I can see that it obviously must have been about abortion choice. Genius, pure genius.

I'm equally content to let others judge the context of my comment. Not all of them think they know what a person is saying better than the person who said it.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 10 months ago

pisafromthewest says, "Not all of them think they know what a person is saying better than the person who said it."

Not our problem that you have issues expressing yourself there, pisa. Good luck with that. In your attempt to clarify, you still say,

"referring to taxation to redistribute wealth, and having nothing to do with imposing rules like preventing abortion."

But, yet, you describe it as direct juxtaposition. If it has nothing to do, then your juxtaposition lacks context and target, and there's the problem. Your attempt to explain it away fails.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 10 months ago

"I'm with flock on this one."

Birds of a feather:

Not my problem that you two have issues reading English. Good luck with that.

So let me get this straight : I made a response to a particular poster's comment : since both of you insist on placing your own meaning on my response to her comment, you have issues with what you thought I was saying. Maybe I should point out the last line of the post you quoted from: "So you see a contradiction in the agenda of conservatives; my post was intended to point out that the contradiction runs both ways." Sorry if you two weren't bright enough to figure out that "my post" referred to the one Dorothy responded to (i.e. the question I posed to agtprovocateuse about ethical responsibilities). This should have been obvious, except to the two Kreskin brothers who know what people are thinking. I find it very, very amusing that your argument is that other people are trying to force their beliefs on others, yet you object to my comment because of what you (incorrectly) believe I was saying.

Again, genius, pure genius.

jonas 6 years, 10 months ago

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

Exactly, 'live' being the operative word. Whilst some are deep in endless self-debate and thought, death swiftly swoops in like a chicken on a Junebug, and the stimulus reactorerererers are still breathing. I just want to help you guys out a bit, that's all."

So. . . you're prepared to state that your methods have or will substantially reduce death? How's that been working out for you?

pisafromthewest 6 years, 10 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"Hmmmm, two unrelated, independent posters had issues in understanding the meaning of your post, and the first place you look for the source of the problem is our reading comprehension?"

Wow. Two. Gee, guess that proves it.

There's 73 posts to this thread, and you two are the only ones who had a difficult time understanding what I said. Take it from there.

"The only component of your statement that I did not take at your literal expression was the use of "choice", which I took to mean "abortion choice"."

Which was also the part you took issue with. Gee. In other words, you're arguing with the only part of my post you put your own meaning on.

Well, you guys have been great ... do you rehearse this comedy act? You do realize, don't you, that you're arguing with yourself, not me? That your entire objection is predicated on the assumption that your interpretation of someone else's words is more accurate than the person's who wrote the words? And it's not what I said, but your interpretation of what I said, that you find objectionable?

"you must first demonstrate that the pro-choice movement does indeed seek to impose obligations on others. You have yet to do so."

And the desires of the "most ardent supporters" of abortion ... aka liberals ... to increase taxes only on the "rich" to pay for handouts to the poor isn't "imposing obligations?" Glad you don't have a problem with English.

And yet one more time, genius, pure genius.

jonas 6 years, 10 months ago

"And the desires of the "most ardent supporters" of abortion : aka liberals : to increase taxes only on the "rich" to pay for handouts to the poor isn't "imposing obligations?" Glad you don't have a problem with English."

You are, of course, assuming that anyone who believes in one of those issues HAS to believe in all of them. That could, perhaps, not be the case all of the time.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 10 months ago

pisafromthewest says, 'And the desires of the "most ardent supporters" of abortion : aka liberals : to increase taxes only on the "rich" to pay for handouts to the poor isn't "imposing obligations?"'

AHA! It comes out. Your smokescreen couldn't hide the obvious.

"And yet one more time, genius, pure genius."

Looks like some of us are paying attention. If that rises to the level of genius in your book, well...OK. Thanks for the compliment. Just keeping it real.

GeraSchmidt 6 years, 10 months ago

~ Prisons are packed with murderers who have no guilt. Never did, never will. ~ 2 million couples are on 12 year waiting lists for adoption of NEWBORNS. ~ Foster care system is extremely corrupt. Children are from DRUG ADDICTED, criminal parents. ~ Teens see constant smut media EVERYWHERE!: Sex, violence, demeaning of males, drugs, demonic lyrics and logos, and the encouragement and promotion of artificial contraception. Teens rarely have wholesome role models or mentor. Many have no father figure in home. ~ Why is the female suicide rate leaping by 35%? Why is meth a 71% female substance of abuse? The media won't tell you it's related to ABORTION! 47 million abortions create a troubled web of invalidated forbidden grief. ~ Some say a handicapped child will ruin your life and abortion is recommended. Many "perfect" and "gifted" children have "ruined lives" of families. A handicapped child can't ruin your life anymore then the next kid. Unless you are some kind of amazing woo-woo future psychic, there is no way to predict the future for yourself, or any human being's life. Period. (Rich become poor; poor become rich; Healthy become sick; sick become healthy; winners become losers; losers become winners).

~ Debate OVER! Abortion kills an ACTUAL HUMAN. Humans are dependent of others throughout lifetime. Each stage of life requires different levels... In the beginning, womb; later, people delivering a plant or cow, air and water. We are dependent creatures. The more natural life one lives, the better. Pollution, chemicals, artificial contraception, and animalistic sex drive desires fulfilled, hurt the human physically and spiritually.

~ "You reap what you sow! (...and never in the same season)." is the basic fundamental rule. How about you? Got Karma? Denying a guilt is a greater guilt. Eventually something gives; be it health, character and your very life's destiny. Purity rules. Always has. Always will.

~ Abortionists are considered the washed-up, low-life, bottom-feeders of the medical profession. They perform a blind surgery, and sell the human body parts. Vile. They don't want minor's parents to know; don't want to show the patient a vision of what they are removing; nor do they want to show you the fingers, arms, face, genitals, legs, chest, feet, and blood of the human they removed. Neither do they show you the body parts price list, and what your fetus brings to the money mill. ~ Let's look at creating solutions for a woman and man involved with an "unexpected surprise":

Send the pg woman to a gov. funded private hush-hush school/care facility. Also end the "father" away until the baby is born . There they can learn life's lessons and choose a life path for all that will best empower them. Fund it with government money that is currently going for artificial birth control (joke) and abortions.

I have to end here today. Thanks. God Bless the cursed, and God bless you!

Tanya Spacek 6 years, 10 months ago

Boy, it sure got quiet when adoption was brought up. So, how many ardent pro-life people are out there snapping up available kids?

I don't mean blue-eyed, blonde-haired infants, either, as OF COURSE there's a waiting list for THOSE.

How about all the other kids who are currently in need of a good home?

GeraSchmidt 6 years, 10 months ago

LuckyNun:

There are no newborns to adopt. You've promoted and encouraged their pre-born destiny in death, remember?

Foreign adoption is foreign government run and outrageously expensive with years of waiting and miles of paperwork. Their agenda is to age out the child and then have them in the child sex slave industry.

Tanya Spacek 6 years, 10 months ago

I'm not talking about newborns. I'm talking about the kids who need homes and who can no longer rely on being little and cute.

Do pro-lifers care about kids once they're no longer nuzzly little newborns?

GeraSchmidt 6 years, 10 months ago

Oh, I get it! You're another one of those de-population people-haters, right? "Unwanted" humans are little more than vermin? If you had your way, should these older kids, in the foster care system due to criminal parents, be murdered, too, like murder of the pre-born? Your retarded question, "Do Pro-Lifer's care about older kids?" doesn't dignify an answer. Stoney hearts that exhibit one excuse and objection to life after another, endless muss, rob the world and everyone around it of sunshine and treasure. Vile vs. Virtue. What a concept.

Tanya Spacek 6 years, 9 months ago

No, you don't get it. The question does dignify an answer, either yes or no. Then the following question would be, "What are they personally doing for already-born children who aren't their own, all of these unwanted children they're working so hard to make sure are born?" I'm not a de-population people hater, but the world is not in danger of de-populating anytime soon, except through the various catastrophes that will result with overpopulation. But that is another, unrelated issue. Abortion is not going to wipe out the human race. Since you are not willing to directly answer the queston and ainstead you attempt to deflect it with name calling, I will have to assume that I struck a nerve, that you, in fact, don't care much about what happens to women faced with unwanted pregnancies or the unwanted children that result. Where's the commitment? Are you willing to become an adoptive parent and take in a bunch of unwanted kids?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.