It is not a “religious” belief; it is a matter of basic human rights. Good grief! What a silly, dishonest, cowardly thing to try to dismiss the whole, valid argument by labeling it “religious” and therefore irrelevant to all those who are not religious. You may not MEAN to be dishonest — but you are.

Look up Nat Hentoff’s pro-life writings sometime. He’s an atheist.
Read Bernard Nathanson’s first book sometime — he was the director of the world’s largest abortion clinic and one of the three co-founders of NARAL; he later became pro-life, strictly because of the medical evidence that he had closed his eyes to before. Advances in ultrasound technology were what made the difference for him. He was an atheist. (He eventually became a Christian BUT NOT UNTIL 20+ YEARS LATER.) I saw him speak in the early ’80s at a pro-life conference. During the invocation/opening prayer, he stubbornly stayed in his seat, stone-faced, up on the stage — the only person in the conference hall who didn’t stand up. He later said he was personally insulted by people assuming he was religious just because he was pro-life; he was a proud atheist.

You’re either dishonest or ignorant when you try to turn this into a “religious” issue.

I reject it. Killing a baby after it becomes viable is simply taking a human life pure and simple.

Abortion on demand along with euthanasia cheapens human life and will lead to ever worse atrocities becoming mainstream.

We have natural rights due to our inherent humanity, not because of how convenient our lives are to others.

But since sometimes I am dense, let me make sure I understand your nonsense.

You state that while you would maybe attribute life to a fetus, which makes it a human being, one must weigh the right of that humans right to life with the desires of the host woman? And one must weight the value of the babies life with how its being allowed to live might affect society such as welfare cost to pay for the babies raising, that it might become a democrat, might commit a crime, etc?

Am I on track with your way of thinking? I ask, because it would sure make it easy for us to know that is how you think then we could judge the worth of your life and the life of lefties with how you affect society, how you attack our way of life, how you condone the million dead humans a year killed in butcher shops called doctors offices, etc. We could then also weigh the worth of life of the seriously handicapped, the mentally retarded, the very sick, the crippled, etc based on the affect they have on society, the cost to care for them, the …………..

It does not take religion to recognize the sanctity of life, even the life of the inconvenient, the life of those who we disagree with, the life of the poor, the life the sick, etc. It simply takes a person with a shred of human decency and morals. And to put it even more bluntly, it is not the right of the women to kill a life because she was to lazy, stupid, or slutty to be careful with her own body, take all necessary precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and to not lay with a man unprotected when she is not fully ready to have a child. It is called self responsibility and a ton of people need to try it. In this day and age, there is not a single woman out there who does not know what happens or what could happen when you have unprotected sex and how to protect themselves. And with clinics in nearly every city town and state giving out free contraceptives, even cost is no longer a block to taking protection. So no, they have no bearing in whether or not a child should live, period!

And we do not have to tolerate anything, so stop the lecture.

religious beliefs.

The law and the Constitution are designed to protect the helpless. Who is more helpless than a fetus?

It is expensive, and society does need to help both the mother and the baby if necessary, but it makes no sense to allow a mother to kill her baby yet call it murder if somebody else does it.

Maybe that’s what is called “compromise” in the abortion arena.

Let me cry over the trauma she suffered breaking the law while killing another human. And let me thank my lucky stars you were there to save her…

End snark

to do a lot of things. They’ve always found ways to take each other’s stuff. They’ve always found ways to move heavy things from one place to another. They’ve always found ways to amuse themselves.

Just because people have been finding ways to kill each other since Cain offed his brother doesn’t mean it’s right.

Killing an innocent person is called “murder.” We have laws against this activity. It doesn’t prevent all murders. Your argument that “women have always found ways to abort babies” follows the same logical path.

Now the circumstances were not easy but the choice was very easy and as the uncle I was honored to hold the little guy even if it was just that one time.

or is that your way of justifying being on the side of murder. Do you think you are a better person because you draw the line on 10,000 of the million abortions? News flash, you are as guilty as the killers themselves and you do not redeem yourself in any way shape or form.

Someone explain to me– because I honestly don’t get it –
Even it could be proven, with 100 percent certainty (which it cannot) that the child would die, why KILL it ahead of time? I don’t get it. If the child dies anyway, it’s one of those tragedies that you had no control over. If you actively KILL it, you’ve deliberately killed your own child.

Am I really that unique in it being perfectly clear to me which of those two burdens I’d rather live with for the rest of my life?

It’s the difference between a tornado killing your best friend, and YOU deliberately choosing to KILL your best friend. One is a natural accident/tragedy, and the other is MURDER. We just don’t see it clearly because the LAW in this country — which has made certain cases of deliberate killing legal — has warped our perception. Otherwise, the difference between somebody dying because of things beyond your control, and somebody dying because you actively killed them — really should be obvious.

you brought up those “poor” children with special needs and what a “burden” they can be. I work in pediatric rehab with children with disabilities, some of them quite severe. I look into their families eyes and see the love they have for their children, even when it gets hard, and it does get hard.

I also have a close relative who has a child with a very rare genetic condition, you know, one of those who was not supposed to live. She has survived against all odds and she is a blessing, not a curse.

I know you may not mean to be heartless, but think about the ramifications of what you are even hinting at.

Comparing the various countries of Europe and of various states lead me to believe it’s largely unrelated to an area’s laws and politics. I don’t think either argument is very convincing.

The social acceptance is what causes both contraceptive use and abortion incidence to increase. If we could have social acceptance of contraception but disapproval of abortion that might be different.

But as long as MTV represents abortion as a “responsible parenting decision” and people on your side think contraception is just as bad as abortion, we won’t be getting there.

THAT’s the difference. The mother may be seriously, even drastically, inconvenienced — but the baby ends up DEAD. It is an absolutely irreversible decision. Death is a wall. Should you have regrets later (and I have known many, many women who did, and you cannot begin to imagine their despair), you cannot get past that wall and bring that child back to life. Death is FINAL.

Please. Go to http://silentnomoreawareness.org, or to their YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/SilentNoMoreCampaign#g/u, and listen — really LISTEN — to these women. I have heard, seen, met these women, and others like them — and you simply cannot begin to imagine the grief. Losing a child is bad enough; losing a child because you CHOSE to get rid of him or her….

I do not know of any other grief like it in all the world.

There are entire government agencies devoted to extracting the explanations of bad parents. Once the baby is born, then the busybodies you mentioned have the authority to demand a certain standard of care for the children. It seems to me that the tissue that separates the unborn child from the toddlers and infants of the world is pretty substantial thanks to activist judges, when it shouldn’t matter at all.

The “needs” of the mother should have been balanced before she engaged in activities that produced the baby in the first place. I fully support the woman’s right to choose. The difference I have with abortion proponents is what the choice is and when it’s made.

Per every subsequent ruling, the abortionist alone still gets to define “viability,” something they cannot even pinpoint themselves.

Some state legislatures have sought to define limits anyway and have yet to face a court challenge because those are states where no such abortionists operate (or make it known they operate).

Before 1973, we women could command some respect.

After 1973, we were considered to OWE guys the use of our bodies, and to OWE them an explanation if we chose to save ourselves for the one man who was willing to make a lifetime commitment to us and to any child that might result. To me this seems like a common-sense, self-respecting way of life — but I cannot tell you all the names I got called by men I barely even knew who assumed they had a RIGHT to my vagina.

zip27, above, keeps obsessing on a woman not “owing an explanation” to anyone for whether she nurtures or kills the baby inside of her — a baby who is the fellow human being of ALL of us, not just her — and yet, in my youth, I was forever finding myself in the position of “owing an explanation” to every guy who wanted to get inside my pants.

I stick to my assertion that the idea of a woman OWNING another human being, to kill if she so desires, is repulsive. And yes, it is particularly ghastly because it is her own child, innocently growing and depending on its mother for care and sustenance. The idea that, statistically, the most dangerous place in the whole world for a baby to be is the one place that SHOULD be the safest place in the whole world for him/her to be: his/her own mother’s womb!

It is a BETRAYAL of cosmic proportions. (And THAT, by the way, is what distinguishes abortion uniquely from all the other “life issues.”)

I’m guessing most of us have been in the situation where the choice was either pro abortion or less than 100% pro life. I’ve cast those votes, and they weigh on my conscience. I pray we’ll have a committed pro life candidate.

I don’t live in West’ district, but I did contribute to his campaign.

God hates those that shed innocent blood. Proverbs 6:16-17

government who knew this was going on and looked the other way, they should face a jury as well.