Druggie Whitney Houston I'm sad for you....BUT

[kimba1]

the solution is something that pro-life is not exactly willing to try. Make having sex and having a child out of wedlock acceptable. one member awhile ago said there are isolated places in the U.S.  that has this and no abortion has occur. just making it veiwed bad so far has gotten little results. I brought up it may encourage abortion.

[sirs]

I'm not sure what you mean "willing to try", Kimba.  This anti-abortionist (as opposed to the term pro-life because who isn't "pro-life"?) could care less what others do, behind their doors.  There should NEVER be a law dictating when or where a person can have sex (as long as its not a public spectacle)

The issue becomes the child.  If folks don't have the where-with-all to either keep things zipped up, or at the very least, use BC & condoms, should that translate into punishing, and murdering the unborn child?  How was it there fault?  and look at the statistics.....those women having children out of wedlock consistently place those children at a grossly unfair advantage, broken home, no father figure, ususally financially unstable, with the results being those children hanging around the wrong click of "friends", and the downward spiral is perpetuated, by their childrens' bad, and usually irresponsible, if not criminal decision making

So, no, making out of wedlock actions "acceptable" misses the whole point.  That of personal responsibility and dealing with the repercussions of one's actions

[Plane]

The fact is, whether a woman has a child or not is ENTIRELY HER BUSINESS and NOT ANY OF YOURS. It is that bloody simple.

   You know that whole civil war misunderstanding could have been avoided if more people had of had this attitude twards slavery.
     Is it appropriate for the government to intervene in any other sort of murder?

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, the government has no business interfering with a woman's control of her own body. this is nothing like the Civil War.

[kimba1]

all the point you made sirs is all true but also some of the reasons why abortion is considered. the point is to remove the factors that causes abortion to be considered. Making pre-marital sex shameful is not a reliable system so far.

[sirs]

To try to remove the stigma of something that is wrong, on so many levels, isn't the right tact in trying to "make it right".  Excuse my bluntness, but dog food, is still dog food, no matter how you package it in, or how many cloth napkins you painstakingly try to surround it with

That said, people can do whatever they mutually want with each other behind closed doors.  The issue is when an innocent 3rd party is brought into the equation.  Then all bets are off, and that life becomes sacred, regardless of some pc fetus label one might want to put on he or she, as if that supposedly removes the overt indecenscy of supporting the murder of that unborn child

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is no such bloody thing as an unborn child.

[sirs]

Wrong, yet again

[kimba1]

I think I see your point the life of an unborn child is not worth changing ones ethics.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is not a child, it is a fetus.

Again, a woman has a right whether to bear a child or not. It is NOT UP TO YOU.

[sirs]

That is not a child, it is a fetus.

LOL....see what I mean?  Anything to take the spotlight of how could one is at supporting their murder.   As if the poltically correct term maks the actual act.  Then *poof*, magically it becomes a child.  Amazing trick

ITS AN UNBORN CHILD which is the SAME as a Fetus.  You claimed there was no such thing as an "unborn child".  Surprise, you were wrong again

Again, a woman has a right whether to bear a child or not. It is NOT UP TO YOU.

Deflection alert....no, not "again", as no one is claiming a woman shouldn't have a right to have a child.  Never has been the issue

[Xavier_Onassis]

A woman has an absolute right, pregnant or not to have a child or not have one. It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor ever will it be, any of your beeswax. It is immoral for the government to prevent her from doing whatever she wishes.

[sirs]

A woman has an absolute right, pregnant or not to have a child or not have one.

Absolutely.  Maybe not smart...maybe even stupid, if not wrecklessly irresponsible, depending on her financial and housing circumstances, but yea, she has that right to have one or not to.

It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor ever will it be, any of your beeswax.

It becomes beeswax, when an innocent 3rd party is involved.  THAT's where the immorality reigns, with those who try to coat their immorality in a more politically correct blanket, like fetus ( = AN UNBORN CHILD)

It is immoral for the government to prevent her from doing whatever she wishes.

She can do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body....just so long as it doesn't interfere with anothers, outside of any potential death to the woman, if the preganancy isn't averted

[BT]

The state claims otherwise. The innocent third party is not a third party in the states eyes until they are viable.

The state does funny things. They claim personhood for a corporation but don't claim personhood for a fetus until they reach a certain stage of development.

And it is the states definitions that we have to work with.

All the more reason to vote for the recently converted pro-lifer Mitt Romney to be the nominee.

Well that and Ann Coulter likes him since her first choice didn't run.

[sirs]

The state claims otherwise. The innocent third party is not a third party in the states eyes until they are viable.

I guess we're starting to play semantic games now, since courthouses across the country, will recognize 2 deaths, with 2 counts of murder, in that of a pregnant woman.  Then again, we've already gone down that road, so "the state" can see an innocent 3rd party, especially when the stage that an unborn child is viable is, can be as young as 23weeks.  Then again, we've already gone over that as well.  I'd prefer "conception" as the marker for personhood, but I'll settle for 23weeks, if that's where "the state" wants to draw the line, and I'm guessing that this unborn child is well beyond 23weeks, which kinda blows xo's tactics right out of the water

And not sure what Ann Coulter has to do with anything, either