America's Silent Holocaust

[Karafi]

Legalized Abortion in America since the early 1970's has cost as many as 42,000,000 unborn. Most of those infants were slaughtered in vain. Only a small percentage of them were born to rape or incest or birth defects. Forty Two Million is far more deaths than the Holocaust the worst attempt of genocide in history. The supreme court ruled that unborn babies weren't "persons" but then again the slave masters didn't think of their slaves as "people" so they raped them to create more slaves, they beat them, overworked them and shot them and did far more attrocious things. Jews weren't considered "humans" in Nazi Germany. There is a saying whatever is legal is moral but not in the case of abortion. The politcally Correct Media makes Prp-Lifers look like a bunch of psychos that kill abortion doctors. I din't believe that abortion doctors should be shot because I'm a true Pro-Lifer. The ones that shoot doctors are hypocrites because they kill. My mother adopted me and 6 other kids after all ready having one kid of her own. She also took care of countless foster kids too and she was perfectly happy doing it. She took kids from Nassau County. I wasn't born until 1985, when aortion was legal. If every pregnant mother had an abortion I wouldn't be here now and millions of other people born after 1973. A whole generation could have been slaughtered in the womb, not given a chance to live free in a country like America. Very few people speak out for unborn children. Someone should have the balls to challenge abortion on live tv, not being to scared to "offend" anybody. The unborn deserve civil rights just like every ethnoc minority in America gets now. Pro-Lifers don't believe women should be slaves or not have equal opportunities, they just want children to have a chance. There is many people willing to adopt kids out there. All unwanted children deserve a chance in life. Abortion should be classified as a "Hate Crime" against children
________
Zx14 Vs Hayabusa (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_bike_is_quicker_kawasaki_zx_-14_or_suzuki_hayabusa)

[Take the high road]

Your rambling comments make some pretty outrageous claims. Can you back these claims up with research references?
________
IOLITE REVIEWS (http://vaporizers.net/iolite-vaporizer)

[grassroots]

Right On !!!

[Karafi]

Any Pro-Life website will tell you approximately how many legal abortions took place. Also almanacs report abortions in America but I think the figures are grusomely higher than reported. I'm not some nuthead, but I think unborn children deserve rights. Sadly abortion will probably never be outlawed but I hope all Partial-Birth Abortions are outlawed because taking a 6 month old preborn baby and sucking it's head out is murder. I'm always going to be a Pro-Lifer until the day I die. Will it take another September 11th to realize that abortion is destructive? I sure hope not. Unborn children derserve to have the right to live in a free country
________
MAGIC FLIGHT LAUNCH BOX SMELL (http://www.vaporshop.com)

[Take the high road]

Yea, but it's legal so it is ok, then. Right?


________
DODGE (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge)

[h]

h

[Brett]

Yeah, you said that at least 42,000,000 children have been aborted since the 70's now i would like to point out that this planet already has a population problem so having 42,000,000 more people wasting resourses and destroying the environment really isnt going to do us very much good now is it. Because once we use all the resourses were gonna be pretty screwed up the poop shoot.

[Take the high road]

The world does not have a population problem. It does however have a political problem.

The fact is that the entire world population could fit inside a planned community the size of the state of Texas. So the myth of a population problem is just another pro abortion lie.

In this country alone we have tremendous resources, enough to feed the world and to teach underdeveloped nations to fend for themselves. Instead we pay farmers and dairymen and cattlemen, for example, NOT TO PRODUCE in order to keep domestic prices up. Thus surplus is not exported to where it is needed. In addition, when aid is sent to where it is needed, usually armed despots or rebels steal it to feed their troops or to sell on the black markets.

Brett, there is no such thing as overpopulation in the world today.

Brett, do you have some other justification for abortion or can I count you as a fellow pro lifer now?
________
Vermont Marijuana Dispensary (http://vermont.dispensaries.org/)

[Karen Marie]

I absolutly agree with you, Karafi! A couple of months ago, my family and I were having this exact conversation. My dad menchoned how we're,(America) really not that different from Hitler himself. He killed millions of Jews; America kills millions of unborn babies.

Anway, hello everyone! I'm new to this board. I'm Karen, pro-life, and a republican/conservative.

I'm *very* opinionated on the abortion issue. Here's some of my views if anyone agrees.

I believe the sentence "Abortion isn't murder because fetuses aren't real humans" is terribly flawed. I'm a human. I have eyes and legs and hands and a soul, and guess what? I was a former fetus! We all were former fetuses. Sure the baby doesn't have human characteristics in the womb, but he/she will eventually grow into a living, breathing human. I believe once any form of life is formed, it's murder to kill it. I don't believe it's right to take the joy of life away from anyone, no matter how old.

Also, I hate how all republicans/conservatives are labled "Uncaring", "Arrogent", "ignorant", etc...I've heard several times that we republicans are unfeeling jerks that don't care about wemons' rights or anyone but money, when that couldn't be farther from the truth. I love all people, and I support wemons' rights, because I'm a woman myself, but I don't think abortion has hardly anything to do with wemons' rights. To me, abortion is more about human rights. Most pro-choicers I've heard from are pro-choice because they don't want the woman to have to go through an unwanted pregnancy. Well, I too feel very bad for wemon who have unexpected and unwanted pregnancies, but I also take the unborn baby's life into consideration. I feel for the woman, but I don't believe nine months will ruin her life, as many people say. It's just nine months of carrying a baby, then if you're not ready to be a parent, you can give them up for adoption, to a family that will take care of them. You can always go back to school and you can always get your life back. I believe that a little bit of pain from an already living human is worth another human's life, you know?

I've also heard that some people's reason for being pro-choice is because they don't think getting stretch marks and going through nine months of pregnancy is worth a baby you'll just give up for adoption. Well, all I have to say is, maybe you don't think the baby's life is worth it, but I'm sure they'd like to live! And as to the stretch marks comment, well, I'll just keep my comments to myself.

Anways, glad to meet everyone and hear your views! Take care and God bless!

[Sassy]

There is something terribly wrong in a society when mothers are killing their own children (around 42 million in our country). Many women, though, are pressured by their boyfriends, family and, of course, the abortion industry (as they get very, very rich).

A pregnancy crisis center hotline is 800-848-LOVE. A post abortion counseling # is 800-723-8331 (which shows pro-lifers ARE compassionate and care about both).

Mother Theresa said the United States would be punished because of abortion. I don't know where she got her information from, but if there are any living saints, she would have been one.

The best way to end abortion is through prayer, education and voting. (Maybe we can get Karafi to run for political office when he's old enough; it's a nice thought ).

God bless!

P.S. Also, welcome Brett as a brand new member of the pro-life movement!!!!!!!!


________
TSX (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Acura_TSX)

[4life]

I am a young woman who is a Pro-Lifer. I have a question.... what happened to responsibility for our actions? Why can't we make responsibile decisions NOT to get pregnant? I think we need to teach our children that there are no short cuts in life.
If you have unprotected sex, you can get pregnant and killing the baby is a "easy" solution for most people. But it is still killing a baby!
It has become birth control for some people.
BE RESPONSIBILE and do not get pregnant! It is that simple.
And if you are not responsible than you have to face the consequences.
If you drive drunk and get caught, you go to jail. You pay heafty fines, you loose your license.
If you have unprotected sex, you get pregnant you have to raise a child or let someone who can't have children of their own raise your child - adoption!
These days, parents teach their children to lie, find the easiest way to win no matter who you hurt, they even lie for them!
Lets go back to teaching MORALITY to our children. RESPONSIBILITY! FAMILY VALUES!

[Sassy]

Please sign petition to stop partial birth abortion on www.aclj.org. The vast majority of Americans are against the gruesome partial birth abortion procedure and even the American Medical Association (who is NOT pro-life) wants to ban this procedure.

Also ask your state senators and assemblypersons to support S. 403 and A. 693 which protects women AND their babies from assailants. More about this on www.nysCatholicconference.org, click Action Center to the left. Even many pro-"choice" folks support this.
________
mac game (http://macgame.org)

[Sassy]

be interested in the above.
________
silversurfer vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/silver-surfer-vaporizer)

[Karafi]

Finally someone agrees with me on this Abortion Issue. New York sadly was the first state to legalize Abortion. In 1967 Abortion started to become an issue in the State Legislature and in 1970 by just 1 vote the State Legislature Passed Abortion On Demand. Rockefeller signed the bill. From July 1, 1970-December 31, 1972 there were about 334,000 Abortions in New York State alone. There was a Repealer Bill in '72 that was Vetoed by Nelson Rockefeller. Then in November '72 enough Pro-Lifers were elected to the assembly to override the Veto. Then a few months later Roe Vs. Wade came. Since the New York has been a graveyard for Pro-Life Legislation. Sadly so.
________
Z series (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_Z_series)

[Pro Choice]

Karafi,

As pro life as you are you certainly make a strong case for the pro choice side for the simple fact that if you were aborted we wouldn't have to listen to your rants.

Abortion should be legal up to 18 years. There are enough stupid teenagers in this area that maybe parents should have the choice much longer than the current policies, it would really make for a more peaceful and moral society.

[Sassy]

Pro-"Choice" - you are a COWARD to say such sickening things even in anger. Makes us pro-lifers realize we are on the right side. BTW, are you really Hillary Clinton?????

Karafi - Keep up the good work. I have learned some information from you. You are probably the youngest on the board, but none of us have more sense. I look forward to reading your postings. I would be so PROUD to have a son like you!!!!!!!!!!
________
Chevrolet Corvette C4 (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette_C4)

[Karafi]

On April 9, 1970 Abortion was discussed in the NY State Legislature. One Assemblyman from Auburn, New York named George Michaels changed his vote from "Nay" to "Yay" at the last minute. Then Governor Rockefeller signed the bill into law. The law was so Liberal it allowed abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. Abortions could be performed anywhere, even in doctor's offices. There was 7 abortion related deaths from 1970-72, so legalizing abortion still killed women.
________
Fix ps3 (http://fixps3.info/)

[My View]

I'd like to thank karafi for calling attention to a brave act, by a largely forgotten state politician. Mr. Michaels courageous act of concience has allowed millions of woman to have safe medical procedures, rather than risk their lives having illegal abortions. Mr. Michaels gave woman, in this State, the right to control their bodies. Ultimately, the Supreme Court followed New York's lead and gave the same rights to woman nationwide.

April 9th Should be George Michaels Day in New York. On that day we can commemorate all Americans that played a role in liberating American Woman from oppressive mores of the religious right -including George Michaels and his colleagues in the NY State Legislature and Nelson Rockefeller, Bill Baird, and Harry Blackman and the Supreme Court Majority.

[Reality check]

Legalizing abortion did not result in "liberating American Woman from oppressive mores of the religious right." What it did was make them more subject to blackmail from selfish men.

If you think that most women who obtain abortions do so out of a well thought out free choice and not out of pressure from their boyfriends ("Unless you do this, I'm out of here") or family ("What are we going to tell the neighbors?") you are terribly naive.

Abortion on demand has allowed men to exploit women for sex without fear of the consequences of their actions. A much greater objectification of women in our society has been the result, not a greater amount of freedom.
________
Novana Residence Condominium (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[My View]

What are you smoking. Its 2003. Woman are in control of their bodies and thoughts. You right like its the 50's - which I suppose is when you were first force fed the crap you're spewing.

[Take the high road]

TO: "my view" and "reality check" ;

A question I have asked once before (not necessarily to either of you) and to which I never got a reply. Please respond to it:

The pro life view is that a female is entitled to her own body. (Something the pro abortion arguement seems to be hinged on). So, is it also fair assertion that a male is also entitled to his as well? A simple Yes or no answer will do.
________
DODGE CHARGER (B-BODY) (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_Charger_(B-body))

[My View]

I don't understand your question.

The pro life view is not that a woman is entitled to her own body. The pro life view is that the state (or the church) can limit what a woman can do with her body, when she can do it, and how she can do it. since I dont agree with your premise even a little bit, I'm not going to answer your moronic question. Perhaps thats why you don't receive a response.

BTW you expose your leanings when you call any group pro-abortion. Although, I support a woman's right to choose her own health care decisions in all aspects, and virtually without limitation until the fetus is viable, I do not consider myself pro-abortion. My View -Abortion, unfortunately is a necessary evil. The only way to eliminate it would be to become an extremist religious state and stone those (male and female) that engage in in extramarital and premarital sex - and even then, we would still have to address married couples too poor to raise children. We'd sure have alot less abortions, and teenagers, and mothers, and fathers......

The only viable solution is for you to go to church and pray for us that don't share your views...

BTW how many kids have you adopted. Hypocrite.

[Take the high road]

First of all, I have four children aged 9 thru 22 including one college student and one Suffolk County homeowner. I do not desire to adopt a child but I would agree to do so in order to save the life of that child in the event there were no other resources available. But the fact is there are many resources which represent alternatives to abortion. I respect those who do adopt and donate a substantial amount of time and money to organizations which promote family values especially adoption. I have many friends who are adoptive parents (both so called "mainstream" as well as "alternative" lifestyle couples who in my view (i.e. the ones I personally know) make excellent parents. Some monitor this web site.If this makes me a hypocrite, well then I plead guilty as charged.

However I think just the opposite is true.

But let's address what seems to be your understanding, or rather misunderstanding of the Pro life view of a womans right to her body. Perhaps this will help illuminate or rather expose the absurdity of the pro abortion arguement. Once we get past this, then perhaps you will agree that the premise is a valid one and that my question is not, what term did you use? Oh yes, "moronic".

THE PRO LIFE VIEW IS THAT A WOMANS BODY IS A SACRED PLACE; THAT WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF DOING UNIQUE THINGS THAT MEN CANNOT DO. FOR EXAMPLE, BEAR A CHILD. I can't do that. No man I have ever heard of can do that. (Yes, including the Raelians). Even Jesus never interferred other than reportedly raising a child from the dead. Yet, women are capable of pursuing any discipline and/or performing any job that a man can do. The fact that women have traditionally taken on different role is primarily a society influence rather than based upon capability. Admittedly, domineering men have had a lot to do with that over the centuries. But true pro lifers do not.

True pro lifers believe that a womans unique capability to bear a child (ensure the survival of our species) is something which should not be trampled upon. It should be supported even encouraged where and when possible. Part and parcel of this is encouraging health care access and fostering a chivalrous respect for these special members of the human family. In addition. it is the pro life community which is always there to provide the help necessary for families in need. Need I go on? (Further details are on other posts on this site).

THE PRO LIFE POSITION IS THAT A WOMAN IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN BODY.

Even if you do not agree with this premise, for the sake of a logical arguement would you not accept the premise and then answer the question based upon the premise?

By the way, on the issue of viability (since you brought it up) how long do you think you would last if you emerged from your home today (ostensibly a place of comfort and safety) in a wet and naked state? My guess is not too long. Me either. But my point is that under the circumstances none of us are truely viable, are we? The fact is the whole viabilty arguement is not worth the paper it is often printed on.

Ok ok ok let's try this. Forget the pro life arguement for a second. Forget the original premise. Let's just say for a moment that the so called "pro choice" premise that a woman is entitled to her own body is the prevailing premise and that the pro life position does not apply.
THE QUESTION: If a woman is entitled to her own body, is not a man entitled to his? Answer Yes or no, please.

________
XV1600A (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_XV1600A)

[My View]

"Ok ok ok let's try this. Forget the pro life arguement for a second. Forget the original premise. Let's just say for a moment that the so called "pro choice" premise that a woman is entitled to her own body is the prevailing premise and that the pro life position does not apply."

I really hate to encourage this, especially with you having to get up early to go to Mass and all, but yes - I would agree that if a woman has a right to make medical decisions regarding her body, a man would have the same right.

[Take the high road]

Thank you for your reply.

SO WOULD YOU NOW EXPLAIN WHY IN THIS WONDERFUL WORLD WOULD WE DENY THESE VERY SAME RIGHTS TO OUR CHILDREN? (By killing them)

You see, the reason why pro lifers believe we are all entitled to our own bodies is because we have different bodies AND A WOMANS BODY IS SEPERATE FROM THE FATHERS AND THE CHILDS BODY. In the case of mother and her unborn child, it is different people, one residing inside the other. (Looking, eating and respirating differently perhaps, but still two seperate and distinct people and bodies). Each with a different DNA code. Each with DIFFERENT medical needs (since you brought that up). (In fact I think I can make an interesting case against abortion using only discrimination laws such as housing discrimination). Incidently, abortion IS NOT medical care because it is not a method of healing, but rather a method of killing. Most people would not call that a necessary evil but rather call that an UNNECESSARY evil, AS THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS A NECESSARY EVIL. (Except maybe war which can only be categorized as the lesser of many evils; certainly not a necessary evil).

The point being that those who seek to promote and profit from abortion use empty arguements, slogans and rhetoric to further that end. BE CAREFUL NOT TO BUY INTO IT SINCE IT IS WITHOUT MERIT. However logic is not ever a part of the equation except that the more this evil group promotes and lobbies people like Congressmen Tim Bishop and Steve Israel and Senators like Schumer and Clinton; the more money they make. IT IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING A WOMANS BODY OR HER RIGHT TO HER BODY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. What it is really is a giant hoax designed to make certain people very rich.

Another thing. You seem to equate your pro abortion view (oh, excuse me; your pro choice to kill an innocent child view) with a disdain for either the Catholic church or perhaps Christianity in general. The fact of the matter is that both the old and new testaments of the Bible as well as the Quoran, Bhuddist teachings, Confucianism and every other organized religious belief I can think of ARE ALL PRO LIFE IDEOLOGIES. In addition, our very own Declaration of Independence is a pro life document. Our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America is a pro life document, not because of the words "...under God..." but because of the words "...liberty and justice for all..." Furthermore, those who sought to help others during and after the tragedy at the world trade center were engaging in a pro life activity. If you are supportive of these things then your are supportive of a pro life ideology. (where does the view that abortion is a valid choice fit in? Well, obviously, it does not. Why? Because it doesn't belong here.)

So tomorrow and later at daily mass (yes, daily mass) I will pray for you along with the abortion providers and enablers because in my view, they are the ones who need it the most. I mean, THEY REALLY NEED IT.

Do you have any other reason why you think abortion is right (and those who are faithful are wrong)? If so, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, good night.
________
Australia (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Australia)

[Freethinker]

The fact that all religions believe in pro life goes to show what a stupid stance you have. All religions are based on a spirit that either created the world and/or controls it. Is everyone so naive and gullible to buy this ridiculous belief that we are all taught at the youngest of ages so that we don't ever think to question it. Open your eyes there is no god and therefore your religous basis for your arguements are worthless.

Speaking of religion someone that bases their arguement for pro-life on logic like you do and then goes to church is obvious an idiot since logic and church are oxymorons.

You actually believe that some spirit impregnated a virgin and that the son of the virgin then died and was resurrected? Sounds more like an X-files episode than anything logical.

[My View]

"So tomorrow and later at daily mass (yes, daily mass) I will pray for you along with the abortion providers and enablers because in my view, they are the ones who need it the most. I mean, THEY REALLY NEED IT.

Well at least the truth, and the basis for your belief comes out.

Your argument about male reproductive rights is perhaps the most ridiculous argument that any pro lifer has ever made.

In the movie legally blond, a similar argument was propounded. The conclusion was that if that if abortion was depriving a man of his reproductive rights, then each time a man masturbated, you'd have to charge him with murder. I can't say I'd buy into that argument, but its as logical as the one you propound.

What if neither the man or the woman wants the child. Does that deprive anyone of their reproductive rights. The argument makes no sense.

Finally, don't think that my comments reflect a negative feeling about Christianity or organized religion in general. My problem is not with the religion, but with those that seek to impose their religious beliefs on those that don't share them. I have an even bigger problem with religious zealots that seek to creat a theocracy in the United States. (It really didn't work all that well in Afghanistan) By and large, that's what the right to life party attempts take a devoutly held religous belief, and make it a secular issue by organizing a political party. Please, practice your religion in any way you deem appropriate (and I'll practice mine) but you don't seek to impose your religion on me,a nd I won't seek to impose mine on you. Besides, if you're right and I'm wrong, then I'm going to be punished for eternity.

[Sassy]

HIGH ROAD - VERY IMPRESSIVE!!!!

Must you people who favor abortion always resort to childish name calling???? You seem so filled with hate and anger. I guess the left-winged politicians have taught you well. Women angry at men, poor angry with the rich, blacks should be angry at whites to name a few examples.

For those of you who are atheists or have no religion, did you ever hear of secular morals? Did you know that there are some atheists that are pro-life and are active with the NYS Right-to-Life Committee?

Don't you realize that the far left-wing crowd is tricking you left (no pun intended) and right? And you keep falling for it over and over! The following is one example how your have been tricked:

<<Ex-abortionists rip apart
'pro-choice' movement
WND probe marks upcoming
30-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade
Posted: December 19, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
? 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Marking the upcoming 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's most controversial decision in history - Roe v. Wade - the January edition of WND's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine will focus cover-to-cover on the supercharged subject of abortion in America.
Titled "ABORTION: The 30-year war," it includes:
Our interview with Norma McCorvey - the real-life "Jane Roe" plaintiff of Roe v. Wade and long the poster girl of legalized abortion. Amazingly, today she has switched sides and become a pro-life Christian. She charges that she was callously "used" in 1973 by uncaring pro-abortion attorneys and confesses her celebrated case was fraudulent in the first place, having been based on the lie that she was impregnated through rape. Today, McCorvey runs a ministry <">roenomore.org/> to persuade people of the evils of abortion.
Similarly, Bernard Nathanson, M.D., the co-founder of NARAL (the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) and one of the early creators and strategists of the abortion movement, now admits it was all based on lies.
"We simply fabricated the results of fictional polls," he confesses, while explaining how the abortion-rights movement changed America's laws. "We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually."
It was also Nathanson, who personally performed 5,000 abortions and supervised another 10,000, that made up the original abortion-rights slogans of the "pro-choice" movement: "Freedom of choice" and "Women must have control over their own bodies."
"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Nathanson, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical.">>

WELL, I BETTER GO NOW - I HAVE TO GET UP FOR CHURCH TOMORROW.




________
Chevrolet Cheyenne specifications (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Cheyenne)

[Prolifer]

Anyone who is in favor of the murdering of unborn children is PRO-ABORTION. If you think that woman should have that "choice", you are in favor of the results, which is ABORTION, the killing of almost 50 MILLION human beings since 1973.
So, ANYONE who calls themselves pro-choice is PRO-ABORTION!
Why are you arguing this point anyway?
Is your conscience bothering you that our country allows this murder and you approve of it?

[Straight Shooter]

In the abortion debate, both sides are pro-choice.

They differ on when the final point is to make that choice.

Abortion is the issue. Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are distractions from the real matter. The two sides arwe "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion."

"Pro-choice" is an attempt by those in that camp to avoid the fact that they are supporting abortion. They don't want to have the "A-word" associated with them. they will go to great semantic lengths to see that this does nto happen. For exampole, they are not "abortion rights advocates." They are "reproductive rights advocates."

"Pro-life" is an attempt to avoid a negative connotation and being "anti" something. It was probably adopted once "pro-choice" became the preferred term for their opponents. A debate between "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" gives a rhetorical advantage to the former.

It would be nice if we could cut the crap and just focus on the issue.

Another incorrect phrase heard in this debate is the reference to Roe v. Wade as the decision that "legalized abortion." It did no such thing. Abortion was already legal in many states, including New York. What the decision did was, first, make it a matter of federal jurisdiction and removing any say by the states and, second, remove it from the review of the elected representatives of the people by finding a hitherto unknown right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution.

[Freethinker]

I don't understand why you defend your pro-life stance with the statistic that 50 million deaths have occured because of it.

Did it ever occur to you that anyone who is pro-abortion doesn't care about those deaths and therefore that's why they are pro-abortion. I personally couldn't care less about killing any unborn child. You can claim it's murder all you want, if that's the case then yes I support murder.

I think the world would be a lot better with less people and legalizing the murder of those who try and force their religous beliefs on others. If you're anti-abortion then don't have one. If someone else wants to have one, butt out!

A toast to the next abortion! I hope it's a bloody one!

[Life is beautiful]

Just thought I'd be an alias, too, this time.

<Why are you arguing this point anyway?
Is your conscience bothering you that our country allows this murder and you approve of it? >
You're obviously right, pro-lifer. Murder is against the natural law for the preservation of life that is imprinted in the hearts of humans by God.
Pro-lifer, you might like to read a book written by FORMER abortionist Bernard Nathanson, M.D., "The Hand of God" and another book with testimonies from women who have had abortions called "Silent No More;" they're rivoting.

As for the pro-aborts (including alias) they never come up with anything new and only have the brains for "shock value only" comments.

[My View]

I'd rather read a book by Barnard Slepian, M.D. Oops your intolerance killed him before he ever had a chance to write one.

By the way - in my view - the last clown toasting the next abortion went a bit over the top.

[I WISH]

I WISH I could read books which would have been written by some of the 42,056,776 babies which is the # last time I checked. Sad and simple math: add another child to that # every 24 seconds. Check for yourself - www.priestsforlife.org.

I WISH these children would at least have been able to READ a book.

These babies won't ever be able to discover a cure for MS, heart disease, cancer; be a good peace negotiator, help the enviroment, eliminate or lessen racism - which reminds me, why are most abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods? Why do pro-abortion groups go to 3rd world countries?

[Karafi]

I'm one of 7 adopted children, that's why I oppose abortion
________
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Nevada (http://dispensaries.org)

[Take the high road]

OR SHOULD I SAY NON THINKER;

I don't use religion, organized or otherwise, to justify my defense of the right of ALL OTHERS TO LIVE. You will not find any post ever made by me which relies on religion to make my case to defend life. What you will find is careful and unbiased examination of the facts often with research sources provided followed by a fair and LOGICAL determination of the results of the research.

So tell me, how do you justify killing somebody else's child?

By the way I don't suggest that you insult my faith to my face. I have alot of patience and "tolerance" but I am also a sinner. I might just forget myself AND my faith for a moment and commit a very serious sin (upon the tip of your nose). Then of course I will forgive you.

Perhaps you ought to look again with a little more thought at the lessons provided by the story of the Holy Family. Things like humility and obedience, love and life. Can you imagine the fear Mary might have felt at first when she found out she was pregnant and unmarried in a very rigid society? This young Jewish girl of probably 14 or 15 years old must at first have been terrified of the thought, What about her fiance Joseph? Would he now marry her? Or would he reject her? Or would he insist she visit the rabbi for permission to abort? (and then leave her?) They obeyed and Chose Life and brought forth my Messiah. The son of God who came to this world not as a king, but rather as a homeless and poverty stricken Jew who escaped the evil temptation to abort thanks to obedience and faith. About 2 years later he again escaped demise at the hands of the government funded effort of King Herod when his mother Mary and adopted father Joseph commited a then capital crime of civil disobedience to a Kings directive that all Jewish males in the kingdom at 2 years of age be terminated (killed, just like during an abortion). They left the kingdom at great risk to themselves and their child...in the name of life, and the love they had for their child.

Some years later a baby was born to regretful alcoholic parents who were ill prepared to raise a child. Today, addicts such as these often abort. Would you do the same in each case, i.e. poverty and addiction? Smart move, you would have aborted not only Jesus but also Amadeus Beethoven too. Duh.

Mr Freethinker, Evil does not change. Only the faces change to protect the guilty (satan). Deception is the devils vice. Don't be deceived.

TO MY VIEW; Again you missed the point. I was not talking about male reproductive rights. I was using a simple analogy to expose the absurdity of one of the catchy but illogical phrases often spewed by those who seem to think that such slogans can ever form a valid justification to kill somebody. Besides, your use of the term "reproductive rights" further shows how convoluted the plot to kill gets. The fact is we already have complete reproductive freedom with the right to reproduce (have children). But those who seek to profit from the cheapening of life really seek the opposite: for example kill off ten children to select one or two for childbirth as is done commonly in In vitro fertilization procedures; or to simply use dangerous abortion procedures and deadly abortafacient chemicals to kill our children usually as a form of birth control or rather people control (most of them racial minorities and the poor - just like Jesus).

To "Straigh shooter"; Life came before abortion. You are either pro life or pro death or as some try to claim, pro choice which is really nothing more than standing by idly while your innocent brothers and sisters are being killed. Moreover, the term "pro choice" is not even proper English language usage. Pro choice for what? Right to choose what? What is being chosen? In order to be a complete sentance it needs an object. These phrases lack one. Well, we all know the most common understanding of the term pro choice is that it is the position one takes when one allows others to be killed through abortion procedures or abortafacient chemicals. The term pro life on the other hand does not violate the rules of language usage. It has an objective: the noun Life. Choice or choose is a verb rendering the term pro choice as an incomplete phrase because it lacks an objective.

Back to Free thinker and his or her empty slogans gleaned from the pro abortion handbook:
"If you are anti abortion, don't have one" Gee where did I hear that evil tid bit before? Oh yes, now I recall: During the early part of the 19th Century many of those who sought in other ways to profit from the misery of others would argue in favor of continuing the institution of slavery. They would often say: We are not forcing you to own slaves, but don't tell us that we can't (earn money on the backs of slaves). If you don't want to own one, don't buy one." During the Lincoln-Douglas debates Douglass tried to defend the "right to choose to own a slave". Lincoln (the founder of the Republican Party) responded, "No one has the right to choose to do that which is wrong". One final point; we fought a cival war over the issue and lost a half million American lives as a result. You may recall the "anti-slavery" side won. This fight of good over evil is far from over. The arguement we are having on this board is just another skirmish.

FINALLY TO "I WISH" AKA "SASSY" :

I am pretty sure you are well aware of the reasons why abortion facilities are often located in minority communities. But for those who do not know, I will elaborate. It is because abortion is rooted in racism (here we go with another evil disguised as a convenience or a purported freedom).

As proof positive of the racist roots of the abortion mindset I choose some quotes from Margarer Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League, the precursor to Planned Parenthood (the largest provider of abortions the world has ever known:

"Birth control (abortion) - more children from the fit, less from the unfit."((Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control Review" May 1919 (Vol. 3 No. 5); page 12.))


"Birth control - to create a race of thoroughbreds."
((Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control Review" November 1921 (Vol 5 No. 11); page 2.))


"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the negro population." from a private letter to Clarance Gamble dated October 19, 1939 ((Linda Gordon, "Woman's Body, Womans' Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America (New York, Grossman Publishers) 1976; page 223. ))

Sangers first birth control facility was set up in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn in 1914 which was heavily populated at the time by recently immigrated "slavs, latins (especially Italians) and hebrews" and was funded by wealthy eugenicists from England. (David Kennedy, "Birth Control in America, the career of Margaret Sanger. Page 118.

Also: translated from German:
"In view of the large families of the native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there have as many abortions as possible. Active trade in contraceptives ought to be actually encouraged in the Eastern Territories, as we could not possibly have the slightest interest in increasing the non German (non Arayan) population." (Adolph Hitler, "Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier, 1941-1942)

Oh yes, one last thing. In the book "Margaret Sanger - The Father of Modern Society" author Elasah Drogin describes Margaret Sangers father thus: "Her father was a FREETHINKER (how ironic)and inhibited Margaret's mother from sending their children to Catholic schools."

To "freethinker" remember don't be deceived. The names and faces may change, but evil does not.


________
FORD SQUIRE SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Squire)

[Freethinker]

Who ever said that the anti-slavery side was right? I'll use the same arguement there as well if you don't like slavery don't own a slave. I'm pro black slavery. I think them being freed has completely ruined our society and has turned our children into hoodlums and thugs. They have turned our media into sex and violence.

In my opinion if slaves wanted to be freed they should have been shipped back to their shacks in africa instead of leeching off the society that was established in america and then asking for even more on top of it. Now their ancestors feel they are owed retribution despite the fact they now have all the opportunity and even more opportunity (affirmative action) than most white people in the same class as them.

[sunny]

you have some nerve thinking that women willingly do this. most are either frighted to death or are forced into the situation. remember,men keep your pants zipped unless you are committed to supporting a child for the next twenty-one years. if you are so anti-abortion perhaps you can locate all those deadbeat dads out there. the government doesn't seem to be doing a good job.

[Sassy]

Karafi, You say more in one sentence than I could say in ten.

Sunny, I also wish we could get the deadbeat dads - to help the preborn, kids and moms. SOME men are pretty bad. Some leave women, pressure them into having an abortion or say things like I only date pro-"choice" women.

There are many pregnancy crisis centers that help women cope with the fear, pressure, finances and doubts. A woman can look in the yellow pages under Abortion Alternatives, and I gave two phone #'s on Page 1 of this thread - one for women who need help while choosing life, and another number to help women who have had abortions deal with their regrets and sadness.



________
vaporizer questions (http://vaporizer.org/forum/vaporizer-questions/)

[Take the high road]

Sunny, your point is irrelevant to the actual issue although I agree with you 100% that all of us need to live up to our obligations, especially as parents. That should be clear from prior posts, please review them if you please.

To "Freethinker"; after reading your reply to my comments, I REST MY CASE.
________
Starcraft replays (http://screplays.com/replays)

[Crowded Rooms]

High Road said:
The fact is that the entire world population could fit inside a planned community the size of the state of Texas. So the myth of a population problem is just another pro abortion lie.

Texas Land: 262,017 square miles, water surfaces not included
3,104,644 square yards/square mile
813,469,506,948 square yards = Texas
6,300,000,000 (6.3 billion) world population 2000 Est.
129 square yards (1161 sq ft) per person
1161 sf is the size of a small house 34 x 34 +/-

The following scenario assumes the world population will now have a quality of life equal to us, and have the time to post here as well, since most have computers. I'd say that's good planning, wouldn't you?

Average size family - 4 some say more some say less
so 3/4 of Texas is available for roads, food and clothes outlets and the like, maybe workplaces, and perhaps space for a small vegetable garden.

So now the world lives in Texas.

Well, not quite. They need water.

10 gallons a day would do it. Might be a lot, but with all the people you would want to bathe really well.

Lessee, thats 63 billion gallons of water a day. What should the watershed be?

To collect that much per day i would say:
The ten states on the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes should do it, though there would be big problems if a drought occurred.

Oh, we will need water and waste treatment.
Arizona probably would be enough space to do it. Might have the throw in New Mexico an Mexico as well.
No offense at all to any one from these regions, it's only for the purposes of this scenario.

Oh, we will need transportation. Texas is a big place.
Cars? Mass Transportation? Both would be best. One car per family would be 1.575 billion cars. Hell of a traffic jam.

But we need gas for them.
Since all the oil pumped out of the earth today serves about 30% of the world populaton (w.p.), there could be long lines at the pump.

Natural gas? USA is the world leader of this resource. Problem is if we pump it all out the ground could sink, causing huge losses in acreage for growing food.

And we need electric. Hard to run a computer without it.
Maybe solar. But all those batteries would take up more space so only about 2/3 of Texas would be available for
roads, food outlets, etc. Windmills needs a lot of space, so maybe California, Washington and Oregon could be the windfarm of the world. Nice breezes off the coast. We'll need the entire east coast as well, from Maine to Florida.

Since the world electric generation only supplies 42% of the w.p., we would need much more juice. I wouldn't suggest nuclear plants, but we could cover Canada and South America with them. Might bring the percentage to about 55-60%. Well, brownouts are becoming the norm these days. Brownout parties will increase.

Since everyone will need food, and we used a lot of states and regions to support Texasworld for utilities, the rest of the states could grow food, but it is not enough. We have to go overseas for food.

Ok. This is long enough.

One Thought!

Year 1943 US population - 136 million
Year 2003 US population - 280 million
60 years
Straight line math says 30 years from now the US population will be over 500 million, or half a billion people.

I do not approve of abortion, but I disagree with the argument concerning world population. It is, and will continue to be, a growing and serious problem on this planet we call home.

[Take the high road]

NICE POST. You have a mind for detail. I like that.

But I will argue two points which negate your conclusion that the world has a population problem and that it justifies abortion in order to contain population growth.

First, I will assume your math is correct. But your assumptions regarding infrastructure miss the mark; and the point. My claim of planned communities includes all the infrastructure including mass transit and pipeline power and utilities, schools, parks and groceries, 1500 sq. ft attached homes, etc. So, even if we are off by a few thousand square miles or so, this illustration makes the point that if you measure the size of the available earth available, bearing in mind that a full 3/4 of it is covered by water, the amount of living space in relation to the world population is huge. The real problem we have is getting past all the politics, the rebels, the economics and the price supports in order to clear the way for goods and services to be traded without encumbrances. For example, USA could ship surplus foodstuffs and modern food production techniques overseas to where it is needed instead of paying producers not to produce; but then the rebels and/or the black market and/or the host countries' armies typically steal the items to feed thier own cause and further thier own political aims of "population control". (i.e. maintain power over the masses for the sake of personal enrichment) (just like we did with slavery) (Just like the abortion industry seeks to do).

Second, your straight line math is an inaccurate prediction. The US born population is shrinking. Its increase is due mainly to immigration. In addition, the populations of most of the so called "developed" nations are also shrinking. For example, the countries formerly known as the Soviet Union which used abortion as a form of birth control for decades NO LONGER HAS A WORKING CLASS upon which the country was founded. It has to import its labor from the former "satellite states". Its population is growing older into mostly "pensioners" which the various govenrments are hard pressed to help support. (*** SEE THE SOCIAL SECURITY EXAMPLE EXPLAINED BELOW***). In another example, Italy has the same problem. They import their labor from Albania and the slavik states. (In the US we import our labor from neighboring Hispanic states, Poland, Ireland etc). Why? Because these "developed" countries (as examples - they do not represent the complete list) have an aging population which cannot support its economy with the addition of imported labor.

The fact of the matter is that with 50 million abortions reported annually (not including a million and a half annually in the US) (***many with UNICEF money our children collect at some school projects***) (Many with US funding (( our hard earned money)) and UN funding of Planned Parenthood's parent organization based in London); the world population is actually stagnant.

Thirdly, allow me to digress for a moment in order to apply this to a practical example of something right here at home which affects us all. Let's examine how all this affects our own social security. In order for one to be able to "fix" social security one must first understand it and also be able to diagnose a problem in order to recommend a cure.

STEVE ISRAEL - I HOPE YOU ARE LISTENING (or reading).

Social Security is an annuity designed by a former government worker now in his late 80's and living in New Hampshire or Vermont somewhere if in fact he is still alive. It assumes a straight line population growth of contributers (that's us). But it also assumes a variable amount of beneficiaries with an adjustment of contributions made to support the beneficiaries (thats most of us). As designed, the system is a sound one if the assumptions are actaully experienced.

What do you think happens when you throw a monkey wrench into the gears of the system? Like reducing the contribution base by , say 10% (The amount of US born population reduced by abortions performed 18 or more years ago - (and continuing) assumung they would be wage earners today)? Well if this was a typical annuity with a balloon payout at a specific time, really nothing except that the return would be lower. But this particular annuity has an ongoing beneficiary payout offering little or no time for the time value and compound value of money to offer anything in the way of recovery. Thus the fund is doomed for failure. That is the problem we have today.

The solution is to replace the missing contributers. The money has to come from somewhere, either in increased contributions from the existing base (which is of limited value over the long term because of the shrinking size of that base) or to allow our population to expand naturally (eliminate abortion and substitute more humanitarian alternatives).

As an alternative (for those so closed minded they refuse to pull thier head from the sand to confront reality) it is possible to replace the missing contributions with a special employment status granted to immigrants who expect to ultimately return to thier home country within say 5-10 years.

Yet denying vested rights to contributers is outright cruel and possibly illegal and immoral (just like slavery) so I think all contributers should be entitled to something in return.

In addition what could be more cruel than abortion?

So I say, the solution to the Social Security funding problem (bearing in mind one of those problems was the raiding of the funds for pet projects) is based at least in two areas. First by allowing our population of contributers to expand by eliminating abortion and second by initiating a special employment status for our neighbors who come to work here.

Getting back to the question; "Do we have a population problem which justifies abortion?"

**** I SAY: NO. ****

When one considers all of the many health related, freedom related, constitutional related, economic related, etc etc etc issues tied to the legalization of abortion the only conclusion an open minded and logical thinking person can make is:


*** ABORTION IS NOT A SOLUTION. IT IS, IN FACT THE PROBLEM ***
________
Jaguar Xf Picture (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Jaguar_XF)

[Liberal Thinker]

You say there is no god...I guess the first flaw of this statement is that a "god" is defined in several ways, from a Supreme Being, to an object of worship, even a powerful ruler. The Hebrew word Elohim from which we translate as "God" can be a Supreme Being, an Angel, or a human King. To say there is no god doesn't seem to account for these various definitions.

If we assume that you refer to a Supreme Deity, and you declare that there is none, we know that you are speculating, since your sense of perception is limited to the few dimensions that you actually occupy. You are also limited to the space you occupy within the dimensions you occupy. In other words, you have no idea what is beyond the space that you have any knowledge of.

All of that aside, it is also reasonable to assume that in saying "there is no god" you are declaring yourself and other humans to be the highest form of intelligence in the entire universe....scary eh?

[Liberal Thinker]

Is it really logical to say that if you are pro life, you must adopt children or you are a hypocrite? A Hypocrite is an actor, someone who puts on a false front of virtue. Being pro life is simply following a moral principle. If the pro lifer had aborted children in the past, and especially if they continued to do so, you might have a case, but the way you used the word suggests you don't understand the word.

As for the issue of whether the state has a right to determine what a woman does with "her body"....

Refer to the 10th Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution doesn't prohibit the states from such regulation of a woman's body or prostitution would be a Constitutional right, along with abortion. Erroneous Supreme Court rulings aside, abortion is an issue reserved to the states or to the people by the 10th Amendment.

[Crwded Rooms]

High Road said:
But I will argue two points which negate your conclusion that the world has a population problem and that it justifies abortion in order to contain population growth.

Your rather lengthy argument rivals my own lengthy scenario about Texasworld, but this is not a criticism. Rather, a compiment on your passion for your issue.

However, my fantastical fantasy of Texasworld only attempts to illustrate that the whole earth supports all of us, wherever we are.

Please reread the dissertation. My last statement reads,
"I do not approve of abortion.....

[Crowded Rooms]

High Road Said:
[Second, your straight line math is an inaccurate prediction. The US born population is shrinking. Its increase is due mainly to immigration.]

I agree, it is shrinking. Your clarification is well taken. Actuarial surveys bear out this fact. And you speak the truth. US population is growing more from immigration than US birth. This fact applies from the last five years.

But, in terms of the world, where you are, or were, born matters little. You are counted.

The straight line math is not mine. None of us could make this stuff up. It is the result of life insurance studies. ( I wish I could remember the website)

Your statements about farm subsidies are true, along with bandits stealing food. Other statements and facts are true as well. However, there is always the temptation to embellish the truth to make a point. Sometimes, not always but sometimes, embellishment goes over the top. My only thought is to stay in context.

I encourage you to continue your quest.

I repeat my statement:
I do not approve of abortion...

[Crowded Rooms]

High Road

The following been going around the country via email for a while. Perhaps you have seen it.

2004 Election Issue
This must be an issue in "04". Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth the read. It's short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congress men & women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada. Zilch. This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the
General Funds-our tax dollars at work!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) --we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000. monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Maybe Mr. Isreal will read this as well.

[Take the high road]

Even the free ride govenrment officials get is only a drop in the proverbial bucket when compared to the potential contributions of millions of executed (aborted) Americans who never get the chance to pay in.

STEVE ISREAL SHOULD PAY HEED IF HE IS SINCERE ABOUT TRYING TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY. YOU CAN NOT REPRESENT THE TRUE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE WHILE ALL THE TIME ALLOWING THEM TO BE KILLED (although Sadam would, I am sure, beg to differ).
________
R32 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/BMW_R32)

[Karafi]

Bill Baird was an "abortion rights" crusader; In 1964 he opened the nation's first abortion clinic in Hempstead, 6 years before it was legalized in New York. He got arrested a number of times for publicly displaying birth control devices. He also went to Massachusetts telling people about birth control and abortion. Three Supreme Court cases were involved with him Baird Vs Eisenstadht 1972 Baird Vs Belotti 1979 and Baird Vs Belotti II 1981. He was controversial. He would picket churches holding an 8 foot cross
________
Wellbutrin settlement (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/wellbutrin/)

[Umm]

Many people believe abortion is something women need and freely choose, whereas it is actually a painful experience that many women come to regret.

Women are told abortion is a simple choice and therefore are not prepared when they experience the negative consequences afterwards. These voices have been locked in silence due to the depth of pain, shame, denial and fear of judgment. It is time for those who know the hurt and the forgiveness to speak the truth.

Being silent no more about their pain and healing will help others who are still suffering in silence realize that hope and help are available.

[VerySad]

To say different is sad.

[Hopefully Change]

Things will be different.

[hedgehog II]

There's a popular book out now that suggests there could be a link between the rising abortion rates of the '70's and the falling crime rates through the '90's. Wondering how you conservatives view that theory.

[TomSu.]

Speaking up.

[Margaret25]

Tom S. is changing his tune.

[Loud]

It's deafening.

[Noise]

Turn up the volume.

[ToQuiet]

We have to say it louder.

[SuozziLoud]

He has spoken up on the issue. Good for him.