Chris that logic extends to all of human life.

We abhor killing other adult humans too, unless they are trying to kill us first. Then it's ok and accepted. Our outlook on things changes based on the situation at hand.

Mike,
Thanks for the post, I'm with you, brother!

Don't know where you got your statistics. In the first case the number is in the range of 30 to 50 % under all conditions, not 1%. Certainly not a fringe number. The number rises to over 80% when the health of the mother is considered. Only the last percent may be in the ballpark. I have read the numbers based on acutal studies often enough to know the ballbarks, I do not profess to know the exact numbers off the top of my head.

Take Leslee Unruh, the South Dakota native considered the primary force behind the near-total ban on abortion in her state. Unruh is, in many ways, the perfect representative of the modern pro-life movement. She is lauded in pro-life circles as the president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, a group that promotes abstinence-until-marriage. Under Unruh's leadership, the Abstinence Clearinghouse has spearheaded campaigns to stop people from using the condom. On the organization's website, supporters of family planning are derided as the "safe sex cartel" and "condom-pushers." Her medical advisory board consists of physicians who pledge not to prescribe contraception to sexually active teens. The group's new project, "Abstinence Africa," discourages condom use in African countries like Zimbabwe, Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho where, on average, one in three adults is infected with HIV.

Unruh and her pro-life colleagues have moved beyond attacking the condom, too. For example, when pharmacists refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, the pro-life movement has responded with a favorite tactic: it has moved aggressively to welcome their deeds as acts of "conscience."

The movement has helped pass laws allowing pharmacists to refuse on moral or religious grounds to fill birth control prescriptions in South Dakota -- no surprise there -- as well as Arkansas and Mississippi. Additionally another 19 states have moved to protect anyone who decides to stand in the way of a woman getting birth control; this conceivably includes cashiers who could choose to refuse to ring up your prescription.

Over the past decade, pro-choice groups have tried to get contraception covered by health insurers as a sensible way to stop unintended pregnancies. Nearly every time, these initiatives have provoked intense battles in state legislatures. Right to Life chapters in Ohio, Delaware, Illinois, Oregon, Wisconsin, Nevada and Missouri all fought against state legislation to get birth control covered. Year after year the Pro-Life Caucus of Congress defeats federal legislation to require health insurers to pay for birth control.

President Bush has complied with almost all the requests of his pro-life, anti-contraception base. He's attempted to revoke contraception benefits to federal employees, slashed U.S. foreign aid programs that distribute birth control and appointed anti-contraception ideologues to the expert panels charged with approving new contraception methods. He's also appointed an abstinence-only-until-marriage crusader to direct the Title X program which delivers contraception to the nation's poor -- the majority of Title X clients are not married. It should come as no surprise that Title X's funding has remained flat, while its clientele has swelled. What's also not surprising is that the abortion rate among the most indigent in our country has been increasing.

Today, pro-life groups in the United States are reclassifying the most common contraception methods, including the birth control pill, the patch, the IUD, and the Depo-Provera shot, as "abortifacients" by claiming, with no scientific backing, that they cause abortions.

The American Life League explained, "We have been working to prove that prescription contraceptives have nothing to do with woman's health and well-being but are recreational drugs that prevent fertilization and abort children."

Some groups will use legal means to put pressure on candidates to adopt their anti-contraception view. For example, Northern Kentucky Right to Life will only endorse candidates who believe the use of the standard birth control pill constitutes abortion.

While the more extreme side of the pro-life movement hasn't yet advocated violence against those that distribute birth control, they do agree with the concept of "contraception=abortion." Most chillingly, Army of God, a pro-life organization that honors those who murder abortion providers as "heroes," also classifies birth control as an abortion method. On the "Birth Control is Evil" section of their website, they explain, quite threateningly, "Birth control is evil and a sin. Birth control is anti-baby and anti-child…Why would you stop your own child from being conceived or born? What kind of human being are you?"

Man...,

Talk about twisted logic.

If I understand correctly, the use of a condom to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is equivalent to an abortion?

Yikes.

And what about the father? He has no say?

ianc

I still am!

ianc

Correct.

Wow. I guess the dad had no part in conceiving the child or any role or responsibility in its upbringing, huh? That's great, I guess there's really no need for child support since it's totally the woman's responsbility?

ianc

No, once he's blown his load, he loses any decision over whether the woman decides to keep the child or not. He's not carrying it.

He IS however 100% responsible for financial support if she decides to carry to term and raise the child as her own.

When did I ever say any of the rest of the stuff you're so freely making up?

No need. What you said in your previous post is enough of a dichotomy to keep us all scratching our heads for quite some time...

ianc

How so? He can certainly make an appeal to her that she decide one way or the other, but ultimately the decision is hers. Are you that much of a sexist that you can't accept this or what?

Sexist? I would reserve that for you in disregarding the father! If the man is willing to accept full responsibility for the child and its upbringing with the woman, the decision obviously concerns him and he should be a part of it. Carrying the child for 9 mos. is small potatoes when weighed against raising it for ~20 yrs!

The man has no choice but to take pills that will make him sick every morning. Then he has no choice but to take pills that will swell his belly to the size larger than a basketball. The man will have no choice but to give up alcohol and cigarettes. The man will have no choice but to take pills that will swell his ankles and make it difficult to even walk by the end. The man will have no choice but to endure really bad backpain. The belly wil be so large he will not be able to sleep in any other position except his back. He will not be able to even bend over. The man will have no choice but to go to the doctor on a weekly basis to make sure everything's ok, tests, bloodwork, etc., as well. The man will have no choice but to endure many sleepless nights. Then, the man will have no choice but to get kicked in the nuts over and over for 24 or more hours.

Then the man will have no choice but to stay in the hospital for a couple days recovering from his nuts being kicked forever and healing from the stitches on his scrotum. Then the man will have no choice but to give the hospital approximately $10,000.

Does that sound like small potatoes to you?

Precisely my point. Well-said.

Add to that the mood swings, potential for post-partum depression, the fact that your body is ravaged for months or years afterwards, the hellish lack of sleep that would be illegal even for Gitmo detainees for months to come, the loss of her career and advancement potential, etc. etc. etc. It ain't "small potatoes".

Here's a hypothetical for you:

Let's say Bob meets Mary and the two of them fall in love and get married. Over the next several months/years, the relationship sours a little and there is escalating fighting and quarreling between the two. Then one day wouldn't you know it - Mary ends up pregnant. Over the first 3-4 months, Bob begins stressing out more than usual at work (possibly exacerbated by the pregnancy at home) and drinking heavily to cope with his stress. There is even a little drug use sprinkled in for good measure. He becomes verbally and physically abusive to Mary. He plays mind games with her - cuts off her finances, sells her car on her and takes advantage of her incapacitation to maximize her dependency on him. He knows she'll soon be without a job and uses this to prey on her insecurity/fear. He threatens (and positions himself) to divorce her and obtain custody of the kid when after it is born - just to use as leverage against her and to antagonize her.

You're saying in this situation, Mary has no recourse whatsoever to change her mind and say "this isn't what I signed up for" and should simply play along with the beatings and abuse and frightening prospect of having to go through life-threatening childbirth only to be dumped right afterwards and left penniless and jobless by the roadside? You're saying the guy should have as much a role in the decision as her, right? Jackass. This scenario actually happened to someone I used to know (it was actually considerably worse than this). The woman, "Mary" had an abortion after many nights of emotional hell and agonizing over the decision. Only after telling "Bob" that there had been a miscarriage was she able to get the time, energy and flexibility to fight for and obtain restraining orders and ultimately divorce from her abusive (ex, I'm happy to say now) husband. Trapped in her situation, she would NOT have been able to get free of this guy.

But of course, you and your ilk will look down your nose at her and call her a "sinner" and a "whore" because she didn't "involve the guy" in the decision or "made the 'child' a victim". In this unfortunate case, the FETUS would have only afforded him leverage over her and placed "strings" on what ultimately became a complete and total break from him - much better for her and society in general. Think of the options:

Option A - she stays with the abusive guy, kid is born and he either dumps her and obtains custody or alternatively he divorces her and she gets custody but now has no way to hold down a job, care for the kid, etc. She'd have been on the welfare system and didn't want to be - it was a factor in the decision. He would have still been involved in her life - an enormously frightening prospect for a woman in that situation.

Option B - she does what has to be done to give her the flexibility to get the hell out of a horrible situation and get her life back. She rebuilds her career, (eventually) meets a much better and non-abusive partner and settles down and enjoys a more stable and normal family life with him. Total cost to taxpayers = $0.



All I'm saying is that there ARE situations in which it might be warranted. And the decision is and should be the woman's. The guy makes his decision the moment he blows his wad, far as I'm concerned. If she decides to short-circuit the process at any point after that, it's her call and ultimately up to her "moral compass" and conscience. I know from "Mary" and others that it's NEVER an easy decision and never without gut-wrenching difficulty. For people here to trivialize it and presume that women do this in wanton and reckless and "devil-may-care" manners is like holding up a banner that reads "I'm an ignorant fool".

I have not spoken to "Mary" in the above example in several years (we lost touch) but I can tell you that even years later the thought of what she went through and had to do tears her heart out. But she still feels (or felt) that it was the only way to ensure she got 100% free from the situation.

Sorry P-o-P I disagree with your viewpoint (I think it's the first time...).

How can you say that the man has NO say whatsoever in whether the woman keeps the child yet is 100% responsible for the support of that child IF the woman decides to keep it?

Here's a thought for you...when my wife and I decided to have kids it was a joint decision. I didn't carry the child, but I was involved with the pregnancy the entire time. We share our responsibility for our kids 50/50.

Oh wait, we were RESPONSIBLE about the decision to have kids and didn't have unprotected sex when we didn't want to get pregnant. Rare and shocking I know.

How do we know this guy who "has a say" is going to be responsible? He may "say" he will be, but 9 months is a long time....people are flaky sometimes......unless one makes a legal-binding contract with threat of incarceration if they go back on their word?

Uh CC, there are laws on the books for those people...deadbeat dad laws. They get jail time.

My apologies. I was thinking you were responding to those people that were talking about how men should have a say since they would physically take responsibility.

I WISH that was my only concern when it comes to this topic.....money..... You men are lucky.

SoCal P-o-P has already said he supports abortion at all costs, even abortion as the child is crowning seconds before taking its first breath.

I really can't fathom that position, really the only difference at that point is position. The child is the same, has the same capability to feel pain. The only difference is that it is in the birth canal one second and out of it the other.

Would you also support stabbing the child to death seconds AFTER it was born? Really, what's the difference?