I don’t think 2 cents is too stupid to grasp the adoption issue (that millions of people are waiting to adopt) or that the person getting an abortion is not the one getting aborted. It’s also clear that they don’t care about rape or (rape from incest or two consenting relatives substantiate a valid abortion?) If exceptions were made for those these people’s support for the unborn would not increase a bit. I’d be surprised if they even lied that it would. It’s fairly clear that the vile they spew has much deeper roots than just these amazing women like Sara and Katherine.

Best of all what we are seeing is a rise in the support for Sara and a decline in Obama. Even the LA times did a recent article on how there approval rating are 1 point apart…..

Such Jealousy. You couldn’t shine her shoes.

Would you care to frame the issue out of the only arena the gay/lesbia/transgender pro-abortionists are comfortable amd into the arean where the overwhelming number of choices/murders that are committed upon an innocent baby in fact occur?

Kind of hard to justify the murder of MILLIONS of innocent babies on the basis that they require food amd poop? But please, we all anxiously await your attempt.

Is it really 99.9%? How would you know that? It would require you knowing the facts behind every single abortion. I believe birth control is the answer to that, as well as sex education. Parents talking to their kids about sex. Better and stronger laws for child abuse and rape.

Liberty,

Completely different issue, and the answer is murder regardless, in my opinion. The crime there is violence against another person, 2 actually.

Let me be clear. If everyone planned their pregnancies, teens did not get pregnant, rape did not exist, nor did child sexual abuse and incest, then there would be no need for abortion. We do not live in that kind of reality. I hope someday we do.

I have a few questions for you, Liberty. What if a mother’s life is threatened by giving birth? She should be able to choose abortion instead of probable death?

Is a parent who chooses for their child who has cancer, for example, committing murder if they refuse no further treatment for their child? Is a Jehovah witness committing murder if they deny certain medical treatment for their child?

What if a 12-year-old raped by her father is pregnant but her mother says no to abortion? Should the government step in concerning that situation?

Liberty For Me and dirtbogger – I “get” what you’re saying about the government not getting involved with this issue. But if the final question is, as you put it dirtbogger, that abortion “should be decided between the mother, the doctor, the grandparrents and God!”, who speaks for the child? If it truly is another human (and any doctor worth their salt will tell you that a unique human life exits from the moment of conception; in fact, the word fetus is Latin for “young one”), then when do the rights of this young one begin? And who “bestows” those rights, by the way? The mother? The doctor? If a person can bestow another’s rights, then they can also take them away. Might will inevitably make right in every case. If not another person, then who? Or are rights automatically conferred on someone when they become viable, as you mentioned Liberty? Does that viability spontaneously morph while the child is traveling through the birth canal? If the baby is born premature and needs machines to assist it to grow strong enough to function on its own, do its rights suddenly appear when it is deemed viable once the machines are unhooked? These are all questions that each of us must face. They only become difficult when we try to skirt around the most basic of all issues, namely the objective truth about human personhood. Or as Dr. Peter Kreeft put it: “If we believe that objective truth does not exist or cannot be known, we shall cease to fight for it with words and begin to fight for domination over each other, replacing reason and justice and morality with power — as is done in abortion clinics to unborn children.”

I will let Dr. Kreeft wrap up the discussion for now in his argument for the personhood of the fetus:

“First, the personhood of the fetus is clearly the crucial issue for abortion, for if the fetus is not a person, abortion is not the deliberate killing of an innocent person: if it is, it is. All other aspects of the abortion controversy are relative to this one; e.g., women have rights — over their own bodies but not over other persons’ bodies. The law must respect a “right to privacy” but killing other persons is not a private but a public deed. Persons have a “right to life” but non-persons (e.g., cells, tissues, organs, and animals) do not.

“Second, abortion is a crucial issue for medical ethics because the right to life is the fundamental right. If I am not living I can have no other rights. Corpses have no rights. The two sides on this issue are more intransigently opposed to each other than on any other issue — rightly so, for if pro-lifers are right, then abortion is murder, and if pro-choicers are right, then pro-lifers are fanatic, intolerant and repressive about nothing. We must intolerantly kill both intolerance and killing.

“Third, medical ethics is crucial for our civilization, for our lives are more closely touched here than by any economic, political, or military issue. For instance, artificial immortality would change mankind more radically than a nuclear war, and surrogate motherhood, which brings us to Brave New World, is a more radical development than totalitarian dictatorship, which brings us only to 1984.

“…All these issues are involved in abortion, but I shall argue only one: Is the fetus a person? The case for pro-life’s affirmative answer is well-known, and so are the biological facts which constitute its simplest and strongest evidence, especially the genetic identity and individuality of the unborn child from the moment of conception. How does the pro-choice position argue against this case?”

The “nastiness” is befitting the subject matter, especially as “catherine” framed the debate. My INITIAL post on this subject was applauding the bi-partisan consensus reached by the US House of Representatives (we do live in a representative republic afterall) to place restritctions on abortion “healthcare” in the obamacare boondoggle.

That struck a nerve with “catherine” and all in the pro-abortion gay/lesbo/transgender community.

I’ll stand by my postings on the public square to fight for the liberty of those babies that have no voice and are unable to wage the battle themselves. Dodging scalpels aimed for the the base of their skull and the ensuing suction of all cranial matter in their mother’s womb is not a fight those will survive.

The TRUE heatlhcare reform battle is being waged over this barbaric procedure. It’s been a brilliant skrimish after 3 decades of virtual silence from the “conservative” side of the aisle.

The rabid pro-abortionists are besides themselves at the audacity of a solid block of democrats in the US House of Representatives that were able to attach the restrictions to the obamacare legislation; restrictions more stringent than the Hyde ammendments that “conservatives” like to cloak themsleves with in order to receive pro-life dollars.

Representatives Stupak deserves Libertarian of the Year award for that amendment alone.