Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Faith

10 Questions the Media Never (or Rarely) Ask Pro-Choice Candidates About Abortion

Oct. 26, 2012 12:51pm Billy Hallowell

Abortion continues to be a contentious discussion in social and political circles. Every election cycle, without fail and to varying degrees, the issue creeps up and takes it place among a plethora of other contentious subjects (click here to find out where President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney stand on the issue). Just as profoundly interesting as the debate surrounding reproductive rights (and wrongs), is the litany of questions surrounding how media outlets treat pro-life and pro-choice candidates.

Trevin Wax, managing editor of The Gospel Project at LifeWay Christian Resources, published an intriguing list entitled, “10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media.” Clearly, the list has a conservative, pro-life bent, but it does raise some fascinating curiosities, while also challenging the mainstream media in its handling of candidates’ stances on abortion.

TheBlaze has adapted the original list to share with readers, below. Note that some of the questions have, indeed, been asked, but that, in Wax’s view, these elements have not been explored among pro-choice candidates diligently enough.

–

1. Considering that pro-choice candidates obviously support a woman’s right to an abortion, the first question focuses upon limitations (in light of the debate surrounding partial-birth abortion, among other practices, this seems like a rational question to ask pro-choice candidates): “Are there any restrictions you would approve of?”

2. Then, there’s the pervasive issue of “gendercide” — a subject TheBlaze has covered in the past. There’s no reason why candidates of all stripes can’t answer questions about the topic. Here’s an important one, as framed by Wax: “Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?”

10 Abortion Questions the Media Never Asks

Photo Credit: FILE

3. Abortion and emergency contraception become further charged and divisive subjects when minors are involved in the mix. With parental consent being lax in some states and localities and stricter in others, this is an important subject to explore among pro-choice candidates (the new Plan B program in NYC is just one development that has spawned controversy of late). Hence, the question: “Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?”

4. One subject that many pro-choice politicians attempt to avoid is when life begins — perhaps the most divisive of all abortion questions. With fetal heartbeats registering as early as 18 days, technology has made the discussion even more complex. Here are two related questions from Wax on the matter: “If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?”

5. Studies have shown that the vast majority of women who become pregnant with Down syndrom children and find out about it through available testing choose to abort. Much like gendercide, this particular issue offers up some major ethical questions. Wax challenges pro-lifers with the following related question: “How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the ‘eugenics’ movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate ‘weeding out’ of those our society would deem ‘unfit’ to live?”

Photo Credit: FILE

6. Then there’s the issue of religious freedom. Earlier this year, the “War on Religion” quickly turned into an alleged “War on Women.” Considering the lawsuits currently being waged against the Obama administration over its contraception mandate, religious freedom and women’s rights are on the political docket this season. Hence, the question: “Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?”

7. Much like gendercide and the abortion conundrum facing children with Down syndrom, some have emphasized the racial elements associated with abortion. As Wax notes, “Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that ‘abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,’ pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions.” As a result, the related question is: “How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?”

8. Wax also notes that pro-choice candidates and advocates often refer to abortion as a “tragic choice.” However, the editor wonders why this terminology is used, specifically if abortion is not dubbed by many pro-choicers as “immoral.” He asks: “If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?”

Photo Credit: FILE

9. Then, the big question, of course, is partial birth abortion. Considering the first question, above — and thinking over what should happen once a baby is able to live outside the mother’s womb on its own — the debate becomes more complicated (some would argue that it actually simplifies the debate). Even if some support abortion rights, many pro-choicers still believe that there must be a cut-off (i.e. if the child can live outside of the mother, the procedure should no longer be permitted). Wax asks, “Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?”

10. And the final question — one that involves crime and the official designation of the unborn: “If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?”

–

While these 10 questions are intriguing and worth asking of any candidate, regardless of whether he or she is pro-choice or pro-life, the media don’t always take the opportunity to do so.

What do you think? Are there any other questions not mentioned above that you’d ask of a pro-choice candidate? Add them in the comments section, below (and visit Wax’s original post here).

–

Related:

This Is Where Obama & Romney Stand on Abortion and Birth Control (And Why it Matters)

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (329)

Therese
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:18pm
There are roughly 1 .3 million abortions a year in the United States. Half of those are unplanned. 40% of all woman will have an abortion in their lifetime. Condoms breaking or not being used properly used account for over 45% of pregnancies. Over 50% of pregnancies are caused by women not taking their birth control pills. I saw a video by a brilliant mathamatician on conception using extraordinary technology. You can view it at http://www.hulu.comwaten.300729. If you can not view it there go to tedtalks.com/conception. He speaks of how fetus development is beyond human comprehension and how divinity must be involved. Every woman and the men who impregnate them choosing abortion should watch this video. I wonder how many minds would be changed.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SgtB
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 4:51pm
  So 40% of women are murderers? I have to doubt your statistics. However, I would believe that 40% of pregnancies end in abortion because of the same 10% of women who cannot keep their legs closed and don’t even have the common decency to live with the consequences of their own actions. Personally, I’d like to treat every woman who gets an abortion like a murderer. Unless it is to save her life as in the instance of an ectopic pregnancy that will self terminate and cause severe injury to the mother. But ANY abortion after the time when a child could possibly be delivered and survive is murder. There is NO excuse medical or otherwise to kill an unborn child after this point. And that point keeps edging closer and closer to birth as our science, skill, and technology become ever more advanced.
  
  Report this comment
- Kalish
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 7:38pm
  Abortion is just an easy way for selfish people to get rid of an unwanted baby, I have seen the results of abortions, they threw the baby in the trash like a piece of trash, disgusting, there is no reason for abortion in the case of rape, they have emergcy kits that will stop the pregnancy, if the mothers life is in danger, they have this thing called a C section DUH ! no reason for this infanticide to be going on in this country, or ANY other country, and a lot of unwanted pregnancies are from irresponsible people, I have been married for 30 years, and at the point we wanted a child 15 years ago, we stopped using birth control at that time, and when we didnt want any more pregnancies, we went back to contraception, there is no reason for this murdering to go on like this, and you people that do this without remorse or asking for forgiveness, you WILL answer to GOD, whether you beleive in Him or not
  
  Report this comment
- ObamaForward_OverTheCliff
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 9:17pm
  “10 Questions the Media Never (or Rarely) Ask Pro-Choice Candidates About Abortion”
  
  QUESTION 10 – “What is the name of this “Baby X”:
  http://www.hyscience.com/abortion_22_weeks01.jpg
  
  QUESTION 9 – “What is the name of this “Baby X”:
  http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Abortion-Moral-Decline-161×107.jpg
  
  Report this comment
- ObamaForward_OverTheCliff
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 9:21pm
  [continued]
  
  QUESTION 8 – “What is the name of this “Baby X”:
  http://amightywind.com/abortionf/abortion10.jpg
  
  QUESTION 7 – “What is the name of this “Baby X”:
  http://crystalspace.edublogs.org/files/2011/02/abortion-decapitated-1260iac-300×209.jpg
  
  Report this comment
- ObamaForward_OverTheCliff
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 9:24pm
  [continued]
  
  QUESTION 6 – “What is the name of this “Baby X”:
  http://www.jillstanek.com/malachi.jpg
  
  QUESTION 5 – “What is the name of this “Baby X”:
  http://amightywind.com/abortionf/abortion15.jpg
  
  Report this comment
- ObamaForward_OverTheCliff
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 9:27pm
  [continued]
  
  QUESTION 4 – “What is the name of this “Baby X”:
  http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4741782102081773
  
  QUESTION 3 – “What is the name of this “Baby X”:
  http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4566203842494885
  
  Report this comment
- ObamaForward_OverTheCliff
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 9:39pm
  [continued]
  
  QUESTION 2 – “What is the name of this “Baby X”:
  http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/abortion-300×209.gif
  
  QUESTION 1 – “What is the name of this “Baby X”:
  http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4971648760022833
  
  “When you spread out your hands,
  I will hide My eyes from you;
  Even though you make many prayers,
  I will not hear.
  Your hands are full of blood.” -Isaiah 1:15
  
  “Then He said to me, “The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great, and the land is full of bloodshed, and the city full of perversity; for they say, ‘The LORD has forsaken the land, and the LORD does not see!’
  “And as for Me also, My eye will neither spare, nor will I have pity, but I will recompense their deeds on their own head.” ”
  -Ezekiel 9:9-10
  
  Report this comment
- L.B.Stephens
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 9:50pm
  Do we think any question or statement concerning abortion will make any difference to a abortion advocate?
  
  Their minds are fully set in their sin, it is a deliberate decision. Anything I could say will make no difference, repentance is very, very rare in a person that could accept aborting/murdering a fetus, or a fully formed baby close to term.
  
  Report this comment
- The Giver
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 11:31pm
  Question: Are you ok with killing someone’s soul mate.
  Question: We can almost say for certain that the little girl inside of you would have made a different choice. Are you ok with choosing for her?
  Question: Are you aware that you are killing off more than one person from coming to the earth? Their children and grandchildren will never be born either. Many lonely people wondering where their true love is. Maybe he or she was aborted.
  Choose LIFE. I chose life and it was the best decision I ever made in my life. If I die tomorrow, I will close my eyes with a smile. Thank you God.
  
  Report this comment
- The Giver
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 11:46pm
  Question: Don’t you agree that the unborn child is not getting her FAIR SHARE?
  
  Report this comment
- red1
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 12:18am
  These were excellent questions. I had never considered how unbalanced and dishonest the media’s treatment of the issue of abortion was before. This was a revelation for me. An honest media would ask pro-choice candidates to answer all of these questions with the same frequency with which they demand pro-life candidates defend their position.
  
  Report this comment
- PaulMckenzie94
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 1:44am
  Thanks for the video link!! He is truly and amazing creator!
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 3:04am
  @ Kalaish:
  “if the mothers life is in danger, they have this thing called a C section DUH !”
  C-sections are for when the baby (“fetus”) is ready to be born. Other complications — some life-threatening — can arise at an earlier time.
  
  Report this comment
- deepesq
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 5:06am
  Therese, thank you for your posting. I think the easiest way to get to the video is to go hereL http://www.hulu.com/watch/300729
  It was incredible, beautiful, awe-inspiring, and a gift from God.
  From the bottom of my heart, I thank you for this post!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Max jones
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 12:20pm
  When, in the near future, we look upon our nation in the throes of an agonizingly slow demise, we ask, why, Lord, why? I hope we all remember planned parenthood and the sanctioned murders of 50 million babies, in the name of hedonism. Shame to death for our country.
  
  Report this comment
- mamatango
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 9:17pm
  ‘Jane Roe’ of Roe v. Wade airs anti-Obama ad in Florida
  
  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jane-roe-of-roe-v.-wade-airs-anti-obama-ad-in-florida
  
  Report this comment
- Jeetman
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 2:24am
  The link didn’t work for me.
  
  Report this comment
- rickc34
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 12:29pm
  It is funny that Pro Choice individuals want to do away with the death penalty? They kill a baby in the womb but want to spare the life of a convicted murderer.
  
  Report this comment
Konservative PUNK
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:15pm
Jane Roe of ‘Roe vs. Wade’ Airs Anti-Obama Ad:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/jane-roe-of-roe-v-wade-airs-anti-obama-ad-in-florida-video/

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- HI_Don
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:39pm
  Wow, that’s powerful. Thanks for sharing.
  
  Report this comment
- HappyGirl537
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 8:36pm
  Dora, the fetus or zygote is a human being in a specific stage of development. The human in the womb, is just as much a human at any other stage of development. Would you be as comfortable terminating a toddler? or teenager? — in both of these stages of development neither can live independently. What about a geriatric person? The fetus just happens to temporarily resides in her mother’s womb.
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:01pm
11. If this is about women’s rights, why doesn’t a female fetus have any rights?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Konservative PUNK
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:18pm
  Sorry, they only care about females who can speak for themselves.
  If you cannot voice your opinion, you don’t have one.
  PRO-CHOICE… I think we can all safely assume that no self-respecting fetus would actually CHOOSE to live.
  
  Report this comment
- DOra Glasberg
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:10pm
  Because a fetus is not a person.
  Wasn’t that easy?
  
  Report this comment
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 9:02pm
  DORA DA EXPLORA
  I bet you wouldn’t kill a puppy or a kitten. AND, I bet you are against the death penalty.
  
  Report this comment
- Rodeoamy
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 9:22pm
  Because a fetus can’t vote.
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 9:41pm
  @DOra Glasberg
  
  Well, it sure as hell ain’t a sprout.
  
  Report this comment
- L.B.Stephens
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 10:07pm
  Gonzo,
  
  If anyone has rights, it is because someone grants them the right.
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 11:03pm
  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are ENDOWED by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
  
  The Declaration states that all men are CREATED equal, not, all men are equal. What exactly do you think is happening in the womb? It ain’t no magic show, where BAM! WHAM! You got a baby. It further states that we are ENDOWED by OUR Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS. You got that? Endowed by OUR CREATOR, NOT OUR MOTHER! A woman does not have the authority to grant or take the life from a child in the womb. She did not create the female body that is able to carry a baby and nourish it. GOD made that! This same God endowed US with UNALIENABLE Rights. That means that mommy, pappy and Senator Reid or President Obama can’t take the RIGHT TO LIFE away! They were not our endowers! They have no authority to legislate the confiscation or termination of innocent LIFE. These Rights are UNALIENABLE. We have a Right to Life by the fact that we ARE, that we exist, that we’re ALIVE, whether in the womb, or crying for mommy, we’re ALIVE, whether growing or getting old.
  
  Report this comment
- The Giver
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 11:43pm
  Gonzo, Looks like little girls in the womb do worse than baby seals.
  Colt, that was really very powerful. Sounds like the closing statement in a trial. Innocent blood is being shed. The death penalty for the crime of just being?
  THE UNBORN CHILD IS NOT GETTING A FAIR SHOT!
  
  Report this comment
- L.B.Stephens
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 9:59am
  If anyone loses his ‘rights’, it is because someone did not allow those ‘rights’ to exist for him.
  
  I have the ‘right’ to walk down the street unmolested. But that does not guarantee I will enjoy the walk.
  
  A murderer shoots, and my ‘rights’ are taken away.
  
  Report this comment
- OIF3survivor
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 10:21am
  Glassburg:
  and I suppose you know that the word fetus is Latin(with a root in ancient Greek as well, if I’m not mistaken) with one of the definitions being ‘little one’.
  
  Maybe you should find another word that means tumor or some other ridiculousness to support your acceptance of murder of the innocent.
  
  Report this comment
- OlderCowGirl
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 2:08pm
  @Dora Glasburg
  
  Does that mean that you were not human/a person when you were a fetus?
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 6:23pm
  Rodeoamy – Children can’t vote either, moron.
  
  Report this comment
Kane Freeman
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:00pm
Here you go.
1. A fetus becomes distinctly human at the beginning of the Third Trimester. Therefore, restrict abortions to the First and Second Trimesters.
2. Women should have the ability to terminate a fetus for any reason.
3. No restrictions or parental notification is needed in my view.
4. The beginning of the Third Trimester.
5. We have an obligation to prevent the development of embryos with extreme genetic disorders and the subsequent needless suffering.
6. What ones health insurance covers should not be contingent on the views of the employer.
7. On average Blacks and Latinos have more children and unwanted pregnancies and as a result, abortions. Even though these demographics account for a majority of abortions, they are still growing at a much faster rate than whites.
8. Abortion is not morally objectionable.
9. The legality of abortions should not be related to whether or not a fetus can survive outside of the womb.
10. It entirely depends on how far along the pregnancy is.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MoGyver
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:10pm
  Out of curiosity, what made you choose the beginning of the third trimester? Is there some biological change that occurs at (or around) that time? If so, why not just say that the unborn begins to have their own rights when that biological change occurs? It seems to me that this in an important enough distinction that we’d want to have clear-cut scientific reasons and not some subjective “number.”
  
  Report this comment
- Konservative PUNK
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:12pm
  Have you ever seen an aborted fetus? I suggest you do an image search and describe why you support this barbaric practice. Please do not respond until you have thought about the pictures you have just seen. Please, you owe it to yourself and the world to be honest about your reasoning.
  
  Report this comment
- Kane Freeman
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:21pm
  At this stage the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible. Carl Sagan has produced multiple essays where he describes in detail each developmental stage and how scientists have preformed experiments and concluded that a fetus becomes distantly human at the beginning of the Third Trimester. Google “Carl Sagan on Abortion” for more info.
  
  Report this comment
- MoGyver
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:38pm
  @KANE FREEMAN thanks for taking the time to answer. So based on your answer for when life begins in combination with your answer above to question #5, would you be a proponent of euthanizing the post-born who similarly don’t meet those requirements? For example, a child that while in the birthing process loses access to oxygen long enough to cause a severe brain injury but does not die or a fully realized adult that has a major stroke or head trauma?
  
  For the record, I’m not trying to back you into a corner; I’m just curious to hear whether we should consider factors other than cognitive ability when categorizing the pre-born.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:55pm
  Here’s the counter arguments to your straw men
  1. A fetus becomes distinctly human at the beginning of the Third Trimester. Therefore, restrict abortions to the First and Second Trimesters.
  A fertilized human embryo can become nothing other than human therefore it is distinctly human at conception.
  2. Women should have the ability to terminate a fetus for any reason.
  A human life is a responsibility, for the first 9 months it is uniquely the mother’s responsibility to care for that life, her reason becomes her child and “any reason” is by definition irresponsible. This statement does not absolve the father from his responsibilities.
  3. No restrictions or parental notification is needed in my view.
  A child remains the responsibility of her parents it is a right of the parents to know what medical procedures have been performed on their daughter. If complication arise how will these parents know what needs to be done if they don’t know the cause of the complications.
  4. The beginning of the Third Trimester.
  Sorry but a unique human being was formed at conception.
  5. We have an obligation to prevent the development of embryos with extreme genetic disorders and the subsequent needless suffering.
  Millions of people who just 50 years ago would have been discarded by your standards are today valuable contributing members of society.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:56pm
  6. What ones health insurance covers should not be contingent on the views of the employer.
  Buy your own if your boos doesn’t want to pay for all the coverage you think you are entitled to.
  7. On average Blacks and Latinos have more children and unwanted pregnancies and as a result, abortions. Even though these demographics account for a majority of abortions, they are still growing at a much faster rate than whites.
  Yet PP founders were all a part of the Eugenics movement of the 1920s and 30s
  8. Abortion is not morally objectionable.
  Only because you’ve refused to acknowledge that you’re ending a life.
  9. The legality of abortions should not be related to whether or not a fetus can survive outside of the womb.
  Agreed, (kinda shoots down you’re third trimester argument)
  10. It entirely depends on how far along the pregnancy is.
  Nope. I say if the autopsy is the first discovery that the woman was pregnant the killer should get a 2nd murder charge, period.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 4:06pm
  “Carl Sagan has produced multiple essays where he describes in detail each developmental stage and how scientists have preformed experiments and concluded that a fetus becomes distantly human at the beginning of the Third Trimester”
  But now we have many examples of premature children becoming healthy productive human beings as early as 22 weeks (5 1/2 months, 2 weeks before the third trimester) and how does a Carl Sagan get to be an expert on when human life begin? Doesn’t he study space and time and some such?
  
  Report this comment
- WillaB
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 4:12pm
  Your answer to #9 contradicts your answer to #1.
  
  Report this comment
- Apologist JD
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 4:39pm
  Kane, I’d be very curious to know how you define “needless suffering” and more importantly, who gets to determine whether someone will be suffering needlessly. Most people with Down Syndrome that I’ve ever met are quite happy so who has decided that their lives will entail needless suffering? There is a huge subjectivity problem with this approach also. Where is the line? What if someone will have diabetes? What if we know they will have cleft palate? This is eugenics. It isn’t even like eugenics, this is some group of people playing god and deciding whose life is worth keeping and whose isn’t. Again, many who are born with defects are very happy and it seems the height of hubris to assume that we can identify who will needlessly suffer if allowed to be born.
  
  Report this comment
- usedCZARsalesman
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 4:46pm
  KANE (and I am also actaully interested in your answers and not here to “trap” you)…
  
  #3, by your logic, if a 13 yr old girl is being taken advantage of by a 19 yr old man (of course SHE won’t characterize it that way, but it is what it is) and she becomes pregnant, and then goes to have an abortion to COVER UP THE CRIME (rape), then her parents and the authorities have NO RIGHT to know? Do you have any daughters?
  
  #5, have you ever been to a Special Olympics event? I’m willing to bet that if you went to one and interviewed 10-20 people you would find that “subsequent needless suffering” in many of these cases is something that is completely fabricated by folks with your line of thinking and that sort of outlook on life is NOT shared by those athletes and their parents
  
  #6, so you’re saying that if an employer pays out of his/her OWN POCKET for your company plan that they should have no say AT ALL about what it covers, even if they believe you are committing MURDER and don’t want to have that guilt weigh on their soul?
  
  #10, are you saying that if a woman WANTS the baby, but she is still in her early second trimester (which likely means she has already done up the babies room, has picked or is picking out a name, the father is talking to her belly and they are both feeling the kicks of the life inside) and she is attacked and the baby dies, the criminal should NOT recieve any additional charges because the baby doesn’t pass you “when life begins” test?
  
  Report this comment
- Kane Freeman
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 4:55pm
  Interesting Question. Thanks for the discussion. Well first of all, lets lay out the three different, but interconnected groups we are analyzing.
  Number one, unborn fetuses that have not reached the Third Trimester.
  Numer two, recently born babies that have incurred the death of major organs.
  Number three, brain dead adult humans.
  To begin, I believe that in order for society to function certain rights must be delineated to every single human being, regardless of one’s unique characteristics as long as one has not infringe upon the rights of others. As an effect of that worldview, I want to be consistant as to what constitutes, “human.” I have already described as to why I think, “Number One” does not meet that status. As to, “Number Two” there are plenty of other features that make us uniquely human, here is a link for a few of the major ones http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics. So “Number Two” is human, therefore should receive rights according to my logic. Here is where a grey area appears. Resources are currently limited. There are many cases in which children are born who would require millions of dollars in care each year just to have a horrible existence inside an iron lung or in a vegetable state. Think of all the wasted money that could go to help children recover from cancer or save millions around the world from preventable diseases. Instead those resources are used to keep a brain dead baby alive in an iron lung. If the parents can af
  
  Report this comment
- Kane Freeman
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:08pm
  to keep their baby alive then that is their prerogative, but I don’t believe the government should invest millions to keep a baby alive in a vegetable state. Finally, “Number Three” is obviously a human and whether or not the Brain Dead adult should remain alive depends on the Will. If the adult did not leave a Will, then the family should decide. If the family wants to keep the individual alive, but it unwilling to pay the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars it takes to support someone in a vegetative state, then a complete analysis should be preformed to find if the individual will ever come back, if not, then they need to be let go. It makes me sad to say that, but unfortunately we as a civilization of limited resources have to make tough choices.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:10pm
  “a fetus becomes distantly human at the beginning of the Third Trimester.”
  Man, it’s a good thing we found that out because before that, we have no idea what that ball of cells might turn into.
  
  Report this comment
- HI_Don
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 6:04pm
  O.K. Kane, I’ll play that game.
  1. So if a criminal punches a pregnant woman in the stamache in the 2nd trimester and causes her to loose the child, then charge him only with assault, not murder? Just what is a 2nd term fetus since it isn’t “human”?
  2. Do you include vengence against the biological father even if the conception was mutually desired? I assume from #1 that does not include 3rd term-so is that when magically a fetus gains it’s own right to life? So who litigates 3rd term if the mother’s life is in danger?
  3. So you, like our President don’t want your daughter to be “punished” with a baby for her own choices. A 14 year old girl may get a surgical procedure and go under anesthesia without her parents knowing about it.
  4. By who’s calculation? Conception and due dates are only estimations. Who gets to decide one minute this way is O.K., one minute that way is not?
  5. Says who? Your definition of MY suffering doesn’t allow you to decide I should be dead, I might like my life with challenges better than the alternative. Again, who draws the line – that disorder is O.K., that one shouldn’t be allowed.
  6. I agree if the employee is the one purchasing it, but since when do you get to dictate the benefits your employer chooses. If you don’t like the benefits package, look elsewhere for a job or supplement it with your own cash.
  7. Are you saying there is something racial about wanting a child. Blacks are less wanted? Or are Hispanics less capable of
  
  Report this comment
- HI_Don
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 6:04pm
  8. That is certainly debatable. What if I think murder isn’t morally objectionable because I believe in reincarnation, thus it is impossible to actually kill anyone, only transform them to the next life. What if my ideology about redistribution of wealth says stealing isn’t immoral, it is actually the moral thing to do. Maybe racism isn’t morally objectionable or killing old people to save a buck. Maybe rape isn’t morally objectionable. What next will you declare?
  9. Maybe then murder should not be related to if a person is inside or outside the womb. Maybe women should have the right to terminate their children up to the age of 1 year old for as you say “any reason”.
  10. Why does it “depend” on how far the pregnancy is. What makes it O.K. on day 122, but not on day 123? Who gets to count the days? Can a woman sue someone like a bus driver or her boyfriend for intentionally driving too slowly and her missing her authorized kill appointment by a few minutes? If she waits too long in the waiting room due to the Dr. running late, do we say, “oh sorry, your time is up.”
  You pose more questions than solutions. Pro-Choice is the decision to get pregnant, killing someone else is not supposed to be anyone’s choice.
  
  Report this comment
- Kupo
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 6:21pm
  KANE FREEMAN
  
  “1. A fetus becomes distinctly human at the beginning of the Third Trimester. Therefore, restrict abortions to the First and Second Trimesters.
  4. The beginning of the Third Trimester.
  10. It entirely depends on how far along the pregnancy is.”
  
  Okay, so take the cases of Amilla Taylor, James Gill, and Freida Mangold, all born in the 21st week of pregnancy which is well before the mystical third trimester that you use as a metric for being human. All of these babies were born within the allowable time window of abortion and all of them are healthy people. By your argument these people weren’t humans when they were born.
  
  So hypothetically, would it have been considered murder if someone had walked up to their incubators with a baseball bat and clubbed them into paste, so long as they did so prior to week 28?
  I’m absolutely dying to know how you’re going to rationalize this.
  
  Report this comment
- brickmoon
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 6:47pm
  If the consensus of scientists is that a fetus becomes a human at the beginning of the third trimester, that’s good enough for me. After all, what the majority of scientists have agreed upon in years and centuries past has always pretty much reflected reality, e.g. physiognomy, the size of the universe, and the blank slate theory of socialization.
  
  Do I need to include a /sarc tag?
  
  Report this comment
- sigsauerkraut
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 8:01pm
  Your total arguement ignores what modern science can show us. Life begins at conception. Period. The embryo at that instant is human and begins a journey of development that does not begin with birth but simply passes from one stage of development to another. These stages continue all the way until death. That life that begins in an instant has all the rights guarnteed under our constituition. The choice to abort it is murder, plain and simple, and not ours to make. Most of the abortions in this country are not for rape or “health” reasons. They are for convenience of the mother at the expense of the infant. Birth control. The decision to abort the infant is void of morals. It is time our society wake up to this barbaric act and stop killing our own!
  
  Report this comment
- cptenn94
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 1:22am
  Kane…you sadden me that you think the way you do….According to your logic im not a human….because im(80%) sure that i was born before 3rd trimester…..i was so premature that i was in the hospital for 3 months before i could even go home for the first time……but by your logic again i technincally am not human…..im sure that my mom was told when i was born early that i could have many health issues and what not…..(also btw my most of my moms familiy is dead before i was born due to genetic diabetics that somehow led to complications killl them all)(my father my grandpa and a few other uncles on my dads side have diabetes as well)
  
  so basically im a weak dying child with a gentically grim future up ahead…my mom is probably being told that it will cost a lot to try to keep me alive and become healthy…my mom decides to keep me and winds up paying a good chunk of cash(while both parents were pretty much jobless, because my mom and dads resturant that they worked at closed) to keep me alive…so they are spending money they dont have to keep a weak tiny child alive….never even able to take me home for 3 months…..
  if i was rejected then this world wouldnt have had a number 3 on a semi successful tennis team in high school for 4 years in a row, a 20 min cross country runner, an eagle scout, a hardworking kid who enjoys helping others out, i never let people who bullied me or insulted me get to me, (i had bad asthma as a kid, but i still played sports…..
  
  Report this comment
- cptenn94
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 1:36am
  also in the begining of my sophmore year my house burned down leaving me with nothing except my rotc uniform(since it was uniform day) so i had pretty much nothing…..yet i was happy….all my friends always were puzzled as to why i was happy that my house burned down…my answer was”its just stuff….you can replace stuff but not people..”since nobody was hurt….. also when i was young i was taken to be tested to find out if i had any mental issues….instead what was found is that i had a higher than average iq…in second grade there was a reading contest that i won, by reading 16,000 pages in one year…..i have a 93 on the asvab, and my act is a 26, the first and only time i have taken it…..so someone who was predicted to have difficulties in life and to suffer needlessly is instead a very happy person…currently i am a freshman in college….now my first post i was a little harsh. my point im trying to make is what truly makes it somones life to choose and to say someone will have a miserable life so lets kill them….my personal opinion is unless your saving a life taking a life is wrong…and that applies to abortion….with that little clump of cells you never know what you will get…its possible that if abortion never happened at all cancer mightve been cured by now, or the next einstein mightve been born….abortion is very much a moral issue, and is killing a human….without even taking resposibilty..there are those such as rape victims who are in a gre
  
  Report this comment
- cptenn94
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 1:55am
  area but in my opinion it is still wrong..its terrible that there are people who would do that to a woman, but the child shouldnt have to be punished.. The main thing that irks me about the abortions is the ones who dont think anything of it. The ones who are like “yeah im pregnant again time for another abortion”…a lot of pregnancies are caused by people being irresponsible for their actions, and with the exception of rape and incest the pregancy is caused by a choice the couple make, and should be treated as a risk. Everytime they want to have sex they should consider” should i risk having a kid so i can have this great pleasure and feeling, or not” instead of just being treated as something else.To many women take the decision to abort way to lightly…If a child gets pregnant she absolutly should have to face her parents before having the murder (sorry my bad the “operation”), and both she and the father should learn to take responsibility. How ive been raised is if I do something wrong I face the consequences of it. Im sorry if I made anyone feel bad or disrespected somone(if i did so was not the intended reaction).
  
  Ultimately you will have your opinion and i will have mine. You seem like a very well educated person about the issue and I feel honored to talk to someone who actually debates it and supports her opinion with evidence, and does it so well.
  But I hope all have a great day and that God bless you all !!!
  
  Report this comment
- obfuscatenot
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 5:33am
  At 20 weeks my cousins baby was born. At 20 weeks she was VERY premature, but survived and is healthy, happy and beautiful-6 year old! Full term 40 weeks. Abortion is an abomination.
  
  Report this comment
- Kupo
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 6:57am
  Obfuscate
  
  Not meaning to call you wrong or a liar or anything, but I believe 20 weeks would set a new world record.
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 11:21am
  Kanefreedom,
  
  TO YOU, an abortion is not morally objectionable. To you.
  
  In your opinion, a baby in the womb is not a human being yet.
  
  Egocentric, but just your OPINION.
  
  I know several people who got a diagnoses of genetic disorders, and they chose to have their babies anyway, to baptize them, and care for them, and sometimes… bury them.
  
  Those parents are at peace. Far more than if they had aborted before knowing their kids.
  
  And YOU will never know where that baby would suffer more pain — in the womb being burned by chemicals, having its limbs ripped off ——, or in the loving arms of his or parents months, or years, after birth.
  
  Not everyone thinks that “suffering” is avoided by an abortion.
  
  Report this comment
- XScramblerX
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 11:58am
  @Kane Freeman
  Trying to justify the killing of the unborn. Do you feel guilty about something? Killing is killing. No justification period. Every human being knows the consequences of intercourse, an unwanted pregnancy, a deformed or unhealthy child, a boy or a girl etc. Knowing that any of these outcomes are possible, why do you put the blame on the fetus? Are you a selfish person. I,me,I,me…..Some people should never take their pants off! Why do I have to accept and pay fort your lifestyle? I don’t want to have anything to do with your evil life style! That’s my pro choice.
  
  Report this comment
- ohiograndma
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 2:32pm
  I was “pro-choice” for most of my life. It is still an unbelievably difficult question that I cannot answer for everyone. Yet at one point I became overwhelmed by the horror of it and now when I read “Gwillie’s” 1-10 answers — I’m sorry. My heart lurches, thinking there is something definitely wrong here, something wrong with us as a society, as a culture. Pro-life. I have to say I am Pro-life.
  
  Report this comment
- NW_SOL
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 3:44pm
  And what about a father wanting an unborn fetus? I’ve known too many men who have gotten their girlfriends pregnant, WANTED to care and raise the child, and the girls selfishly aborted anyway. Why do the fathers and the baby’s not get a choice in the matter? It is ridiculous that you say the first and second trimester are acceptable times to abort. Do you not know that babies can hear, suck their thumbs, feel pain, hunger, sleep, have awake moments, and SOOO much more in those first vital months? Anyone who is okay with killing an innocent, unborn baby should be charged with murder…because that’s what it is, NO MATTER what the reason is. It sickens me that I live in a country with so many wonderful freedoms, and that abortion is STILL accepted and thought to be okay by some sick people. If anyone is pro-choice, they should have to watch every level of abortion be done. First, second and third trimester. Especially if you think it’s not a big deal in the first two. It’s revolting that someone would even say that and think it’s a good idea.
  
  Report this comment
- Alessandre
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 4:00pm
  1) what is a fetus earlier? might it become anything? at conception, what is conceived is distinctly human w/ unique DNA & will never be anything else.
  2) Why?
  3) abortion is a surgical technique that may injure or kill children w/ or w/o a variety of physical conditions. abortion may damage a child’s fertility. if aspirin may not be given to a child w/o parental consent why ought we allow a child to have surgery w/o parental consent?
  4) until scientists & feminists began pushing bc & abortion, science agreed that human life began at conception. even scientists who believe abortion ought to be legal agree that conception produces a unique human being w/ unique DNA. what is the basis of your answer?
  5) why? my life has been filled w/ suffering as have the lives of many others. ought we be put to death to avoid “needless” suffering?
  6) why are you an American if you disagree w/ one of our basic tenets: the right to religious freedom?
  7) are you aware that a branch of the American eugenics movement pushed for bc & abortion to eliminate blacks, Latinos & others who are “unfit” & that whites were not expected to use either?
  8) only to those w/ poorly formed morals.
  9) why is that?
  10) why not make it dependent on whether the mother wanted the child.
  
  you believe abortion ought to exist even though science & other facts prove one is killing other humans because, for some reason, you want the option. why do you want the option?
  
  Report this comment
- Kupo
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 4:53pm
  I think Kane has proven by his sudden disappearance just how much of a coward he is and how shaky his logic is.
  
  Report this comment
- walkintruth
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 6:34pm
  If it has a heartbeat, it is alive. you are killing something that was alive. You can justify it all you want. It is murder.
  
  Report this comment
- PutMoreOnMyPlate
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 6:59pm
  I pray for you Kane that no matter how terrible your life has been that you learn to forgive those that made it so. I cannot find the time to debate with someone that finds Carl Sagan the absolute authority on life and when life begins. None of us can fully understand the why or the when but life is precious in all stages and in all states. I pray you find peace.
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 1:14am
  Hey, somebody has the right answers for a change! At least most of them, I do disagree with you on a few points starting with question #1. As far as I’m concerned, what makes a human different from other animals is its human mind. The mind can’t begin to form until it starts to receive information from the senses. What does a fetus have to think about? Just because it has a brain that is physically complex enough to support a mind doesn’t mean that one has begun to develop yet. It’s probably okay to kill a fetus at any time before birth, but just in case it does receive some rudimentary sensory input before that, it is preferable to limit abortion to the first eight months of gestation in most cases.
  
  Number 4 is a wrong answer, but no as wrong as the question. “When does life begin?” is a stupid question. Life begins at conception, but so what? Mosquitoes and slime mold are life, but they aren’t people, and neither are fetuses.
  
  5. I don’t think we have an obligation to prevent the development of embryos with extreme genetic disorders, but I have no problem with allowing parents to make that choice. Nobody can have an unlimited number of children. If you choose to bear one with a mental or physical defect, you are having it instead of one that could potentially surpass your own achievements.
  
  Report this comment
- Kane Freeman
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 2:46am
  Well I was gone for the weekend and it seems in that time I have caused quite a stir. I’ll address a few questions and statements before I head to bed.
  
  1. @Willab My answer to number nine does not contradict my answer to number one. Every year the age at which modern medical incubators can house and support a fetus becomes earlier and earlier. There will come a time in the not to distant future when we will be able to artificially grow a fetus from conception to birth inside a medical incubator. So the legality of abortion should not be related to whether or not a fetus can survive outside the womb, but on whether or not the fetus displays uniquely human traits.
  
  2. @Apologist JG Sure there are plenty of people with downs syndrome that are quite happy, there are also many people born with much worse genetic defects like sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis who live about miserable existences. The idea that there could be certain human beings alive and that must be a good thing is a ridiculous argument. Otherwise, I could argue that you must have as much sex as possible and birth as many children as possible, because think about the happy children you are preventing from being born by not have sex constantly. Ultimately, I agree that we need to stop aborting children based on genetic conditions. Instead, we should be selecting heathy embryos for implantation.
  
  Report this comment
- Kane Freeman
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 3:24am
  @usedczarsaleman
  
  #3 I wish every parent was understanding and would provide the support needed in that stressful period. Unfortunately, that is not the case. A teen should have access to those procedures because of the consequences of not having access. Just recently there was a horrible case in which a young mother murdered her newborn baby because she was too afraid to tell her parents that she needed an abortion.
  
  #5 I personally know many fantastic individuals who are considered “special needs” persons. In order for those “special needs” persons to be alive today, millions of sperm cells and thousands of eggs died, all which could have been potencial people. If we have the choice to bring into this world a child from all those combinations, shouldn’t we make the effort to choice one that will grow into a heathy adult?
  
  #6 Again that decision should not rest with the employer. In the greater context of things, I believe companies should not be providing healthcare plans at all.
  
  #8 Of course life has already begun. That is not what I was arguing. The question is whether or not human life has begun. In that case, the evidence shows that a fetus prior to the Third Trimester does not constitute uniquely human life.
  
  Report this comment
- 4theRepublic
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 11:14am
  @Kane Freeman, so based on your assessment, if the baby shows signs of weakness and/or the woman just doesn’t want it, it is ok to abort? You leave these decisions to be made by someone who obviously is not in a state to make such a decision. So what if she wants to abort bc it’s going to suffer from downs? or has spinal bifida? or MND? what if it’s bc it will be black? or homosexual? where do you draw that line? What about this… maybe that baby holds the clue(s) to cure cancer? The next Stephen Hawking or Alan Turing would not be born by your standards.
  
  Report this comment
AnnD
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:54pm
If the abortion rational is that a woman must have control over her own body, then why is prostitution not legal too. In that case noone dies. The woman isn’t hurting anyone but herself.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DOra Glasberg
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:12pm
  And many people agree with you.
  
  Report this comment
repairsea
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:45pm
I would ask how many abortions they have had or plan to have. Do they support their children aborting their grandchildren? Do they regret having their children and would they abort them if they could do it over? Would they abort a child if was to interfere with vacation plans? Would they abort a child if they found out it was a girl and wanted a boy? Let’s get to the real reasons why they choose abortion. I have never seen a survey.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- HappyGirl537
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 8:28pm
  Repairsea, I have had two abortions. The biggest regrets of my life. All I can say is I was young, dumb and believed the crap that was taught in college. I am firmly Pro-Life. I have taught my children (teenagers now) life begins at conception. And have lots of discussions with them about the many consequences of sex outside of marriage. I carried the guilt and shame of aborting my oldest children for many years, only after receiving the saving grace of Jesus Christ and counseling have I been about to come to grips with what I have done.
  
  The eugenics movement has been around for along time. They are very seasoned at getting their message out and in a very non-threatening way. The pro-abortion message is preached in Seventeen – where young girls are forming their opinions. Maliciously the pro-abortion crowd has left out or glossed over the side effects – the miscarriages, the nightmares, the premature births and the fear.
  
  This same group has led women to believe that we can have it all. Women can easily have babies in there 30′s and 40′s and beyond. More lies. Fertility rates drop dramatically in your late 20′s, early 30′s. The hormones in birth control, is artificial. So these women who jump up and down about organic this and organic that, no GMO’s etc…..are willingly putting dangerous chemicals into their bodies.
  
  Report this comment
- Hiswill
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 9:56pm
  My daughter and her husband are unable to conceive and they would love to have one of those disposable children to welcome into their home and our family. There are 1000’s of couples just like them waiting in long lines to get a child to call their own. Adoption is the answer not abortion.
  
  Report this comment
Gratefultobeamerican
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:33pm
and why is it a fetus only when you want to kill it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Konservative PUNK
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:44pm
  http://180movie.com/
  
  A 33 minute film with random street interviews of ‘pro-choicers’ who become ‘pro-lifers’ during the course of the interview.
  
  Report this comment
- DOra Glasberg
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:13pm
  It’s ALWAYS called a fetus.
  Calling it a ‘baby’ is a right wing thang.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 9:53pm
  Dora Glasberg
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:13pm
  Sure just ask any mom about her fetus bump. Not so right wing now is it…
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 11:37am
  GWILLIE . . . Some people just need killin’.
  
  Now it ain’t such a left wing thing, is it.
  
  Report this comment
- OIF3survivor
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 11:50am
  Dora:
  once again fetus is Latin(with a root in ancient Greek, if I’m not mistaken) for ‘little one’.
  Exactly what kind of ‘little one’ do you think that is referring to if not a human.
  
  Find another argument as that one is critically flawed.
  
  Report this comment
- XScramblerX
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 12:10pm
  @ DORA GLASBERG I’ve heard of Dora the Explorer, but you seem to be the Left’s version of Dora.
  Dora The Baby Killer. I think Dora as had at least one abortion, and she’s trying to make herself feel better about it. If you can’t deal with the outcome of sexual intercourse, then keep your pants on!
  Selfish !
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 5:10pm
  DORA GASBAG, if you want to split hairs on words, their uses, and definitions then you really should look into them. The origin of and use of the word fetus goes back to the 14th Century. The origin is
  “Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful.” Certainly does not separate pre-birth from post birth, now does it?
  
  Report this comment
Margyt
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:32pm
This is brilliant. The questions are fair and not inflammatory. The answers expose the inconvenient truth.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Konservative PUNK
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:41pm
  A picture is worth a thousand words. How about just a picture of an aborted fetus with a question mark next to it?
  
  Report this comment
JabberwockyBandersnatch
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:30pm
I think we should kill all rape babies for making their mothers feel bad! Imagine how terrible you’d feel when he takes his first step, gets his driver’s license, at her graduation ceremony, or when she is walking down the aisle at her wedding; the only thing going through your mind would be “that repugnant piece or rape tissue, I can’t believe I let it live!” A child of rape or incest is less important in the eyes of God and should be discarded. You really shouldn’t get human rights until you are viable outside the mother’s womb, however how many 2-year olds can live independently, or are viable outside the womb; can we extend abortions up to the 11th trimester? I would rather 100 innocent babies die than to sentence a guilty murderer to death! Think about it…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Lib Whisperer
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:15pm
An interesting way to get a lefty to abandon the argument is to play dumb:

“Abortion, what’s that?”

“A woman’s right to choose.”

“Choose to do what?”

“End her pregnancy.”

“Oh. And how do they do that exactly? What are the mechanics? What does it entail”?

“Well, usually a doctor removes the fetus.”

“With what?”

“A vacuum.”

“And then they raise it somewhere else? A new home?”:

“No. It dies.”

“But you aren’t allowed to evict someone without proper legal notice! It takes months! A landlord can’t just evict a tenant because they FEEL like it! Especially in the dead of winter!”

“Were not discussing tenants’ rights. We’re discussing abortion!”

“What’s the difference?”.

onevt

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheCalvinistPastor
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:33pm
  Here is the irony of the entire situation. the term “Pro-Choice” is a smoke screen. Because it assumes a couple of different presuppositions:
  
  1- The Mother has choice, the baby does not [can it really be called pro-choice now?]
  2- Ergo, HUMAN rights do not begin at LIFE, they begin when the individual determines when somebody
  else [society, culture, personal opinion] has rights.
  
  This also leaves the burden of proof of the “pro-choiceer / Pro-murderer” to demonstrate that LIFE begins at the assumed stage of development he is purposing.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:54pm
  Here’s the counter arguments to your straw men
  1. A fetus becomes distinctly human at the beginning of the Third Trimester. Therefore, restrict abortions to the First and Second Trimesters.
  A fertilized human embryo can become nothing other than human therefore it is distinctly human at conception.
  2. Women should have the ability to terminate a fetus for any reason.
  A human life is a responsibility, for the first 9 months it is uniquely the mother’s responsibility to care for that life, her reason becomes her child and “any reason” is by definition irresponsible. This statement does not absolve the father from his responsibilities.
  3. No restrictions or parental notification is needed in my view.
  A child remains the responsibility of her parents it is a right of the parents to know what medical procedures have been performed on their daughter. If complication arise how will these parents know what needs to be done if they don’t know the cause of the complications.
  4. The beginning of the Third Trimester.
  Sorry but a unique human being was formed at conception.
  5. We have an obligation to prevent the development of embryos with extreme genetic disorders and the subsequent needless suffering.
  Millions of people who just 50 years ago would have been discarded by your standards are today valuable contributing members of society.
  6. What ones health insurance covers should not be contingent on the views of the employer.
  Buy your own if your boos doesn
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 4:19pm
  Woops sorry the above is a stray posting meant to go with someone else’s comment.
  
  Report this comment
- DOra Glasberg
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:15pm
  Abortion on demand. Period.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 1:55am
  Abortion on demand. Period.
  Dora That is an extremist’s argument. Period!
  
  Report this comment
RaydocX
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:09pm
Great questions that would leave most choice candidates with some thorny moments.
Partial birth is abhorrent and should be outlawed… anyone supporting such might as well extend the choice to ‘terminate’ into the first year of birth.
Parental controls should be mandatory unless the girl is alleging incest, in which case the courts should intervene, but WITH CHARGES FILED and if the charge is found to be spurrious, then with charges to the minor
The economic and racial issues are always worth mentioning when discussing the issue, since by
The gender issue is ignored here as if it’s ‘only a problem in China’ which is indefensible.
Matthews et al the Libs are racist in their application of choice.
the when life begins question can’t be easily answered… when the child can survive outside the womb? that gets earlier as science improves. can’t say ‘when the heart beats’ or you’ll have radical wackos that want to prosecute women for pregnancy loss. in short, i would say that if the child is wanted, it should be protected as being alive. if it is unwanted, sadly the law of the land allows abortion… but i firmly believe government should be totally out of the administering or scheduling or paying for abortion… the socially beneficial solution would be to advocate having the baby and giving it up for adoption to the thousands of couples who DO want children.

but unless we get our kids successfully through school and they’re responsible journalists, the ?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
LibertyGoddess
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:08pm
I would like to challenge all the men out there to refuse sex every time if the woman is pro abortion. Do not become a partner in this heinous crime.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Konservative PUNK
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:21pm
  Good Point. It should be considered a revolting characteristic to be pro-abortion.
  
  If you know anybody that is pro-choice, ask them to search for images of ‘aborted fetuses’ and then ask them how can they support such a horrific procedure. We often lose sight of the reality that is behind words like ‘abortion’, ‘rape and incest’, ‘woman’s right to choose’, etc.
  
  But you know, most guys don’t even bother asking the girl if she is infected with HIV. If they don’t care about their own health, how can we expect them to care about the lives of their unborn children?
  
  Report this comment
IreneWright
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:00pm
Are you familiar with the procedures? Can you give a brief description of any one?

(If you’re pro-life, you need to know this. I know it’s horrible to think about. That’s the point)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Konservative PUNK
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:15pm
  WAR ON WOMEN?
  
  I wonder how many victims of the “War on Women” there have been opposed to the 40-50 million innocent victims of the War on Babies?
  I want to see a TV Commercial of a woman in the fetal position while a giant pair of scissors snips off her arms and legs and head before being sucked into a vacuum hose. This should raise awareness about who are the REAL victims in “The War on Women”.
  
  Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:56pm
How about this, when you are enlisting in the military, if you or your wife are pregnant, the military counts that child as a dependent and there is additional paperwork the recruiter fills out. Doesn’t matter what stage of pregnancy either.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
acovenantinblood
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:55pm
My daughter, Adelyn Paige, was born Oct 23, at 1:18 P.M. in my living room. My wife and I have hardly slept since. Anyone who would kill a baby is nothing short of a monster.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- acovenantinblood
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:02pm
  In addition to that, I have a 13 year old daughter named Alyse Catherine who was a 100% accident. In the end I got custody of her and her and I sit on the couch at night and make jokes about everything we see on the Discovery channel. Would not trade her for the world either. She tells me all abo0ut school when she gets home and we laugh and chat. Gosh who could do that sort of thing?
  
  Report this comment
- DOra Glasberg
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:16pm
  No one killing babies.
  Get over it.
  
  Report this comment
- Baerlin
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 9:20am
  @Dora – This is always going to be a lost argument for you and those advocating abortion. This is not about science but about the morality of our society. The society that kills it’s children is doomed to moral degeneration. “Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself” Isaiah 44:24. We will all answer to God one day. Are you prepared?
  
  Report this comment
Konservative PUNK
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:48pm
All who want exceptions for RAPE and INCEST, do a Bing or Google IMAGE search for ‘ABORTED FETUSES’ and get back to me. It is important to SEE what we are talking about when we have discussions about abortion. Then and ONLY then can we have an honest discussion about what we are talking about. I think you will discover that NO RAPE NOR INCEST JUSTIFIES ABORTION.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- objectivetruth
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:52pm
  When you know the difference between a zygote a fetus and and infant you let me know.Only then can you begin to have a real debate.They aren’t the same and the procedures for abortion are most definitely not the same.Most abortions from rape occur in the zygote stage.Normally the women is given the morning after pill and one other [can't remember e4xactly what it is off the top of my head]after the perk kit has been done.This is to prevent implantation.It isn’t the same as abortion.In the event she doesn’t use the morning after pill and becomes pregnant. If she is going to have an abortion will most likely have one within the first month.
  I’d love to know where you get the idea that rape victims would just love to have the Bast*** children simply to prevent being called a murderer.I’d love to know where you or anyone gets the idea that women are saints, who could actually carry and love a child concieved by rape.Oh I know those who haven’t been raped assaulted brutalized and or tortured.Its truly easy to sit back in your easy chair and pronounce your moral high ground isn’t.Especially when you haven’t ever experienced it yourself.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:13pm
  objectivetruth
  Were you raped? You seem to be shouting all this moral outrage about how this anger could never be overcome but have you personally experienced it? I only ask because you are demanding that we have no say unless we’ve been in that situation. I have, I am a child of rape! I am proud of my mother for loving me.
  
  Report this comment
- OIF3survivor
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 11:55am
  Gwillie:
  
  so your advocating adding one more crime to the one already committed in the case of the rape/incest argument? Since when is it a baby’s fault for their own conception?
  This has NEVER been an argument about science. Rather it is about morality.
  
  Report this comment
LeaveMeBe
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:46pm
None of this is covered in the constitution and should be dismissed as the loaded questions that they are. You pose these questions and pin the opposition to the wall by claiming they’re murderers and don’t care about children. Government was never meant to tackle this issue and it is an abuse to individual liberty to use government to impose your beliefs on the opposition and makes you a hypocrite to say the government can’t force social justice on the American people only to turn around and use Government to force a “Moral Justice” on the American people. God granted one right to humans and one right only, “Choice”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Konservative PUNK
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:52pm
  Do an image search of ‘ABORTED FETUSES’ to see what you are supporting. You may find that it is difficult to deny that the protection of ‘Life’ in the Constitution applies in this situation. Get back to me after you’ve seen what you are clinging to.
  
  Report this comment
- MoGyver
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:52pm
  So, in your view, what is the role of government?
  
  Report this comment
- IntheDirt
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:00pm
  So if I choose to kill my 2 year old that will ok with you?
  
  Report this comment
- deeberj
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:01pm
  Ok. If ‘choice’ is the be-all and end-all, and I can choose to kill an unborn human, what other human can I choose to kill? You need to think this choice thing all the way through. If choice is so damned important, then I ought to be able to choose to do anything I want.
  
  Report this comment
- Gratefultobeamerican
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:32pm
  You’re right. That’s why the Supreme Court should have never said abortion was OK. It was a huge mistake. Roe vs Wade should be overturned and left up to the states, where it belongs.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 2:43pm
  All of the pro-abortion questions in the debates were “pin the opposition to the wall” they knew they would incite the left, it would only be political fairness to include a few that would do the same for the right. And what is this canard about this not being in the Constitution we all know that here that is why we oppose Roe v Wade because it took the abortion issue away from the states where the Constitution had place it and put it in the hands of the federal government all on the pretext of privacy. Without a doubt life begins at conception, therefor the only real question is at what point is that life granted the rights that we all enjoy under our Constitution? We know that the Declaration says that these rights are granted by our Creator, we know that not only the bible but almost every religion declares in one form or another that “Before you were born I knew you” Men cannot grant these rights. If you refuse to believe in your Higher Power then ask a mother, she will tell you about the very moment she knew she had a life inside her. How she cherished the knowledge and hope of this new being she and her partner were bringing into the world. How she dreamed of the day she would meet that child.
  
  Report this comment
- Konservative PUNK
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:00pm
  Jane Roe of ‘Roe v Wade’ Airs Anti-Obama Ad:
  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/jane-roe-of-roe-v-wade-airs-anti-obama-ad-in-florida-video/
  
  Report this comment
- LeaveMeBe
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:38pm
  As much as it pains me to see the lives of unborn children taken before their eyes could witness the beauty of life, I must stand in defense of the liberty that was bestowed upon me by the fore fathers that died so passionately for my freedom.
  Since when were the states tasked with the lordship over its citizens. In which portion of the constitution does it say the opinion of a large group of people out way the opinion of the individual to which the law applies.
  These are all loaded questions that the federal AND STATE governments have no right in answering for the individual. Hence the supreme court’s roe v. wade decision upholding the individuals rights over their own body/temple in what manners they see fit.
  These analogies and loaded questions only feeds the flame of party dissention and distracts the people from the true role of both federal and state government.
  ” whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.”
  
  Report this comment
- objectivetruth
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:59pm
  I agree with you 100 percent
  to the poster who wanted to kill your two year old.No actually murdering your two year old is not OK.If they have major health problems and won’t ever be functional[severe medical issues requiring around the clock hospitilization for life] or are truly terminal, then I think you have the right to reject life prolonging procedures.
  
  Report this comment
- LeaveMeBe
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 7:03pm
  @GWillie
  Man granted all rights in the constitution, however divinely inspired, that which can be taken away was not granted by God. The only right you have that man can’t strip of you is Choice.
  
  To say that “all” abortions are carried out with prejudice or not properly mourned and grieved are an affront to the very motherly instincts to which you proclaim.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 10:08pm
  LeaveMeBe
  I never said all or any for that matter, I never said those children kill by abortion were not mourned. I know full well they are. It is in fact the Pro Abortion side that tries to tell mothers they are not throwing away a life, that it is only a blob of cells a parasite robbing her of a happy life, that they well not feel the loss when their child is no more. All lies
  And if you truly believe that our nation isn’t founded on the ideal that our rights come from our creator then whoever taught you history better give you a refund! FYI We believe that because it is fundamental to the American Ideal that it is a higher providence that provide for us not the people we vote in to protect these freedoms.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 10:55pm
  LeaveMeBe
  Yes while our Creator granted rights of Life Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence the Bill of Rights were designed to limit the Government’s ability to impinge on those rights. Thank you for reminding me of that distinction.
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 1:39am
  @Leavemebe You make no logical sense. Your legal history is way off. Men did not “grant” any rights in the Constitution. The constitution was written by men who delegated powers to the federal Government, and further limited that Government. The constitution did not limit or restrict the people, nor did it grant them rights. ALL rights and powers are INHERENT in the People. Bastiat said:
  
  We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life… And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
  
  Report this comment
Konservative PUNK
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:37pm
If you were tasked with blowing up a building, and weren’t sure if anyone was inside of it, would you still press the button?
If not, are you 100% certain that a fetus is NOT a human?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- wvernon1981
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:52pm
  Yes, because we define what human is.
  
  Report this comment
- Konservative PUNK
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:57pm
  By that rationale, when the Nazis declared Jews to be less than human, would you have supported that also? You claim they had the right to make this declaration, do you not?
  
  Report this comment
- MoGyver
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:59pm
  @WVERNON1981 The troubling point is that I haven’t heard many pro-choice reasons for abortion that couldn’t also be applied to certain other “post-born” segments of the population (ie. mentally handicapped, certain stroke victims, much of the elderly) such as being a “burden” or “would not contribute to society” or “would not meet some standard of quality of life” or what-not.
  
  If we as a society, deem these reasons for terminating pregnancies, what’s to stop this (or the next) generation from taking the next logical step? Or would you argue that, under certain conditions (let’s just say a debilitating stroke), you could lose that which earlier defined you as human?
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:02pm
  There is talk in some circles about extending abortion rights to cover babies who mothers feel they cannot care for, It was some ethicist from down under, it was published in a journal there and I think linked to from The Blaze. They had to retract it but the seed was planted (or should I say replanted) As for euthanasia we have that around the world, even trucks in some nation that drive around with driver shouting “Bring out you (want to be) dead” Gives new meaning to Monty Python. In England that are starving people in their hospital beds based on a book of guidelines.
  
  Report this comment
Lightman98
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:37pm
This question is about people born to victims of rape or incest: “Are you willing to conduct a survey of people born out of rape or incest to ask if they are happy to be alive, and happy that they were not aborted?”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:05pm
  I am, Thats one.
  
  Report this comment
- walkintruth
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 6:50pm
  There are many people born from rape and incest and they are glad to be alive. There is a woman that is a survivor of a botched abortion that is alive today and speaking out on this.
  
  There are many people so desperate to have a child that would take one with disabilities. They just want a baby to love. So there are many babies that are aborted that could bring happiness to many families no matter how they were conceived.
  
  James Robison was born from a mother who was raped multiple times. He is on DayStar preaching about saving lives. His mother was going to have an abortion and she changed her mind. James does so much to help people around the world. It would have been a shame if he wasn’t here because his mother chose to abort him.
  
  Report this comment
TxSon
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:36pm
While I am against abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake, I realize that is position that will never be adopted. I think the reasonable solution is to apply the same standards for the beginning of life as we apply to the end of life. e.g. Without resuscitation, one is dead when one’s heart stops beating; therefore, one is alive when it begins beating. The conclusion must follow that terminating a fetus with a beating heart is infanticide.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ChrisDiamond
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:34pm
Pro-life guy here. My only potential head-scratching moments are pregnancy from incest or rape, and where the mother will almost certainly die in child birth, or the child presents a deadly threat to the mother while in utero. Other than those two (and fortunately rarer) instances, I’m absolutely pro-life. I have a real issue with women or couples who use abortion as birth control. I don’t believe in hell, but people that do that make me wish there was a hell for them to burn in.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Maureen1955
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:47pm
  RE the rape/incest question – my view is that I don’t understand why a child should die because of the crime of the father!! We stopped a long time ago from penalizing children for the debt incurred by a parent, and this is the same.
  
  As for the health of the mother – I agree, but it is really such a rare event given the state of medicine these days.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 3:16pm
  Almost no one on the right wants to ban medically necessary abortions. The thing is that the left tries to include things like stress, hormonal imbalance, depression, weight gain as medically necessary. Then they declare that we want women to die on the delivery room floor. Yes thank God it is rare but I do not consider it wrong to save the life of the mother. Let’s not forget all of the brave mothers who have given up their lives by refusing treatment that could have saved them but risk losing their child and let’s not let the left call these women selfish.
  
  Report this comment
- objectivetruth
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 4:05pm
  @maureen
  Because rape isn’t like a debt.You don’t just wipe it away.I’m glad you are a saint and can do the impossible.I’m just tired of you and everyone else with this position, trying to force it on others.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:02pm
  objectivetruth
  Before Roe v Wade abortion was legal in many states where the people wanted it and democratically chose it, now everyone must deal with it in some way. We all fund PP and while they say the money doesn’t go to pay for abortions it does pay other cost and therefor frees up monies to pay for abortion, It’s like saying that drinking water from a straw will only take water to the bottom of the glass. So stop making me pay for abortions and let us vote in our state (I’m likely to loss in my state) how we deal with the issue of life. It is the Pro-Abortion folks who have forced us to conform to their views.
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 12:34pm
  GWILLIE . . . “Almost no one on the right wants to ban medically necessary abortions.”
  
  Not sure what you mean by almost no one. That’s kind of a meaningless assertion.
  
  Here’s a partial list: Paul Ryan, Richard Mourdock. Joe Walsh, Todd Akin, Rand Paul, would-be senators Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, would-be nominee Herman Cain, and would-be president Mitt Romney has said he supports “personhood” amendments, the RNC platform allows for no exceptions, nor does the Catholic church.
  
  You’re right. That’s almost no one.
  
  Report this comment
CommenterInChief
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:27pm
Good job Billy Hallowell. These are the essential questions that have been ignored.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cessna152
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:24pm
Florida, Good points.

Also, I’d like to add at some point in the future, American school children will be taught how evil the USA was because they killed babies and no one did anything. The Progressives will blame freedom and Capitalism on Haynes acts and senseless killings. Just like everything else… government creates a solution which is actually a problem, then blames it on Freedom and Free market.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
MoGyver
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:18pm
“If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?”

I’ve posed a similar question to a pro-choice coworker in the past, “If a pregnant woman is assaulted in such a way that causes her to miscarry, should the assailant be charged with assault or murder?” To my surprise, she said that the assailant should be charged with murder (given the assumption that the woman wanted to keep the child). I think the question asked in this way is more telling and since it shows the hypocracy in a more direct way.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- wvernon1981
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:29pm
  I’m guessing your co-worker isn’t prone to rational consistency?
  
  Report this comment
- MoGyver
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:50pm
  @WVERNON1981 That was the point that I was trying to make. I was trying to present to her that her worldview was inherently flawed. I can respect someone’s position that differs from mine as long as they have internal consistency.
  
  At least given a consistent framework, you can have a disagreement at the right “level” (presuppositions) instead of having wildly divergent arguments about the conclusions that you arrive to.
  
  How often have you heard (or been in) an argument where both sides consider each other an idiot for coming to conclusion X instead of Z without considering that they’re both completely rational and logical conclusions given presupposition A vs. B (for example, the presupposition that lower tax rates create revenue instead of lose revenue).
  
  But I’ll get off my largely off-topic soapbox and mourn the loss of our society’s ability to debate another time.
  
  Report this comment
- objectivetruth
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 4:16pm
  First off assault is the threat of force.Battery is the actual contact.Unless the assualt and battery was done specifically to cause abortion, by the father or others for him or its very obvious[sixth month on]Then no, they should only be charged with one count.The first case in point was what this law was designed for.Not any other.Unfortunately its used too frequently for adding additional counts to defendents who would have had no way of knowing that she was pregnant when commiting their crime.Botched robbery comes to mind.
  This law was meant to target those who commit assault and battery for abortion purposes.
  
  Report this comment
- MoGyver
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 1:15pm
  @OBJECTIVETRUTH Fair enough regarding the distinction between “assault” and “battery.” So let’s just create two hypothetical situations:
  
  1. Two consenting adults copulate and the woman becomes pregnant. The woman wants to keep the child but the man does not want the responsibility of a child. He deliberately batters the woman in such a way as to cause a miscarriage.
  
  2. Two consenting adults copulate and the woman becomes pregnant. The man wants to keep the child but the woman does not want the responsibility of a child. The woman has an abortion.
  
  Now, there are admitted differences between these two scenarios (ie. in #1, the woman is harmed, not just the child vs #2 where the man is not physically hurt and in #2, the woman would have to “endure” the hardship of pregnancy and labor wherein the man would not even if he wanted to).
  
  There are a few implications here. In one case, the abortion (done via battering) is in many circles considered murder while the other is not (inconsistent). The other is that the man’s wants are largely off the table. If the man wants to keep the child but the woman does not, then he has no claim to the child (“But the woman would have to go through enormous pain!” I get that).
  
  On the flip side, if the man doesn’t want the child, he doesn’t get the same choice that the woman has: if SHE doesn’t want the responsibility, SHE gets to choose. HE gets no choice (and we wonder why there’s so many deadbeat fathers out there)
  
  Report this comment
floridareader
Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:10pm
“If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?”.
This is out of questions. It happens already in our justice system.
The question should be:
If a thug who kills a pregnant woman and her unborn baby faces two counts of murder, why is it that the murder of an unborn baby on the hands of her own mother should be consider an issue of woman’s health and not a murder of a defenseless baby?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- QuincySmith
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:15pm
  Agree, totally!
  
  Report this comment
- wvernon1981
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:17pm
  There should only be one count of murder and a civil suit for the loss of the fetus.
  
  Report this comment
- Favored93
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:20pm
  Well said!!!
  
  Report this comment
- biohazard23
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 1:48pm
  I’ve been asking that very same question for a while now. No one seems to be willing to respond to that one.
  
  Report this comment
- objectivetruth
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 4:27pm
  Here let me reply.I don’t think the thug should be charged with two counts unless the thug commited the crime with the soul purpose of producing abortion.Or the mother is quite obviously pregnant.Otherwise the ability to prove intent is impossible.
  The ability of the mother to have an abortion is based on a different set of precedents than the thugs.She ultimately is the one who bears the responsibility for the next eighteen years.The thug has never had the right to determine her and her unborns right to life.She having the responsibility also has the right.If you can’t understand this, I can’t help you.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:26pm
  objectivetruth
  By your logic if I kill a man by shooting him in the head and the bullet then hits someone else I’m not guilty of the second murder? I surly didn’t mean to kill the second person. I didn’t know they were going to come around the corner at just that moment. In the same way I didn’t know she was pregnant. Sorry you’re argument is meant only to lessen the value of life of the unborn child and has no place here. Let’s also think on the surviving parent. If in your case the young lady had just found out and called her partner and given him the good news only ending the call as she turned the corner where my bullet just left my gun, in your worldview because I didn’t know, he would have no recourse for justice in the loss of his child. You are heartless!
  
  Report this comment
- wvernon1981
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 6:02pm
  Gwillie, the problem with your analogy is that the second person is a person. The fetus is a fetus. If abortions are legal, they are legal because fetuses are legally not a person. The second person shot is a legally a person. You can’t compare the two.
  
  Report this comment
- Kupo
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 6:26pm
  WVERNON
  
  The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would disagree with you.
  
  Report this comment
- GWillie
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 9:41pm
  Wvernon1981
  Yes you can you just refuse to.
  
  Report this comment
- thetrooper
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 10:20pm
  i have yet to see a valid, truthful, unbiased argument put forth by any pro choicer. abortion is murder and should never be tolerated in a civilized country. the fact that abortion is legal in this country speaks volumes for the depravity and immorality of its citizens. i am not so naive as to think my opinions can change anything at all, but i do know the difference between right and wrong. if the people of this country dont stand up and say enough., enough abortion, enough islam, enough, government in our lives, enough prisons, and enough everything else wrong with our home, then we are consigned to doom. our way of life is threatened by these idiots, and it seems like nobody sees this. STAND UP AMERICANS. and say enough. by the way, ALL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
  
  Report this comment
- colt1860
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 10:27pm
  @thetrooper Amen!
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.