"You shall not kill." (Exodus 20:13)

As we all know abortion is one of the most heinous crimes one can commit. It is murder! Killing is morally wrong and there are no circumstances whatsoever when it is justifiable. I don't know how abortionists can live with themselves after they MURDER innocent babies. They should all be executed for their sins.

Here are 5 facts about abortion and abortionists:

the evil operation was invented by the Nazis prevent "undesirables" being born the procedure is supposed to be carried out using a suction device, however most abortionists still prefer to use the traditional knitting needle method once the foetuses are removed from the womb they are eaten by the abortionist abortionists spend a year in an abattoir to refine their skills all abortionists are atheists and probably communists too Proper Christians, ie. Catholics, have always objected to the abhorrent procedure of aborting foetuses. However, this has caused a problem, as sometimes Catholic parents give birth to babies that are defective. For evil atheist mothers this is no problem. When they are told by doctors that their unborn child is faulty, they simply pop along to an abortionist who gets rid of the offending foetus. No great decision making is involved as these wicked women have no morals. With the option of abortion not open to true Christians, they are forced to bring up a defective child. However, all this is set to change. A doctor in Birmingham has come up with a procedure of dispatching deficient babies without aborting them. Thus not violating any Catholic edicts.

I interviewed Doctor Leonard Prime (left) and he told me all about his methods, which are quite ingenious. He is a committed Catholic and, like me, loathes abortions. "Whenever women used to come to me and asked for an abortion, I would recoil in horror. I would shout at them and call them agents of Satan. How could they even consider this horrible operation? Do they think nothing of killing innocent babies?"

But Dr Prime realised that some women did have a point when they had unsatisfactory babies in their wombs. Since being sacked as a general practitioner, he has devoted more time to this issue and has come up with a solution. Unlike despicable abortionists he does not murder innocent unborn children, but waits until they are born so that he can decide whether they are too evil to live.

"After reading about the life of a great Austrian leader in the 1930s, I became convinced that certain types of people should not be allowed to live: the lebensunterwenlebens. Now if a woman comes to me I agree to get rid of their faulty child. However, I only dispose of defective ones, not the perfectly healthy ones. By 'defective' I mean physically disabled and mentally retarded babies. Sometimes I get rid of children who the parents feel might grow up to be a communist, Jewish or homosexual and those that show precocious atheistic behaviour."

I felt uncomfortable at this point. It is fine to kill babies if they might grow up to be communists, Jews or homosexual; but physically disabled and mentally retarded people? They are not evil. "Some of them are evil", asserted Dr Prime, "I have devised a test to find out which ones are sinners. I ask whether they are disciples of Satan, I tell them that staying silent implies guilt." At this point I objected, babies cannot speak so they will all be guilty. "I thought about that", Dr Prime continued, "but God would not let me murder an innocent, he would use the Holy Spirit to put the words into the child's mouth". Fully reassured, I commended the doctor on his work. I asked whether any babies had spoken when questioned about their loyalty to Satan, but Dr Prime said no.

Out of curiosity I asked Dr Prime how he got rid of the babies. "Quite simple, just drown them in a big bucket in my back garden."

-- OBO (susanwater@excite.com), April 24, 2000

Answers

Good point. Thanks.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 24, 2000.

Now THAT was a subtle piece of satire. Perfect for the next NOW meeting I attend. Thanks Susan!

-- Alice in Wonderbra (alice@wonder.bra), April 24, 2000.

Alice:

NOW, NOW?

I have always taken you as a religous fanatic :o) . Go figure.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

About as subtle as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Might be a wee bit over the heads of most of those NOW folks.

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

NOW = National Organization of (VERY FEW) Women

-- for life (realwoman@doesnthatemen.org), April 25, 2000.

Susan, this is the sickest, most vile trash I've seen in a long time.

Please stop it!

-- Offended (offended@offended.now), April 25, 2000.

Offended (offended@offended.now)

"Susan, this is the sickest, most vile trash I've seen in a long time. "

Just think how the 36 million aborted babies feel!

"Please stop it!"

I agree wholeheartedly!!

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 25, 2000.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 25, 2000.

Here's a lovely abortion song. Sing this to the tune of "Will the Circle Be Unbroken?"

Mary Lou she got pregnant And was addicted to fifteen drugs She went down to the abortion clinic And was accosted by right-wing thugs

(chorus) Will the foetus be aborted By and by, Lord, by and by There's a better home awaitin' In the sky, Lord, in the sky

Little Mary was just fourteen And she was raped by her own dad Danny Quayle said, "Have that baby!" But another choice she had.... (chorus)

Annie's pregnancy would have killed her The doctor's warning gave her strife Fundamentalists said, "Have that baby!" But she said, "I want my right to life!" (chorus)

Bridgett had ten kids already And an abortion is what she chose The christians showed her a bloody foetus She said "That's fine, I'll have one of those." (chorus)

Tania lived for the revolution Wanted to overthrow the state She had fifteen commie babies Jerry Falwell ain't that great (chorus)

Reverend Goodman hated abortion And for a peaceful end he searched He said he'd never bomb our clinics We said, "OK, we won't bomb your church!" (chorus)

-- OBO (susanwater@excite.com), April 25, 2000.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 25, 2000.

Offended and Stop the Murder, no one pried your eyes open and made you read the piece. That is what the back button is for. Try it sometime instead of bitching.

Maybe you don't understand satire, for obviously you take everything literally. In view of your delicate sensibilities, I'm surprised you could countenance such a picture long enough to post it. Randall Terry has a website where you would feel right at home. They urge anti-abortion fanatics to kill doctors.

Alice, it was a good bit of satire. I love satire parody and burlesque.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 25, 2000.

Why do the compulsory pregnancy people seem to think that graphic pictures of abortions will win them supporters? An abortion, like any other operation, is bloody and gross, but that doesn't make it immoral. I could show your typical couch potatoes pictures of enlarged hearts, but that won't make them put down that bottle of Bud and go for a run.

If the compulsory pregnany types REALLY wanted to end abortion, they would start by attacking the root cause of abortion, i.e., unplanned pregnancy. Instead, they fight sex education and basic contraception information wherever they can. Heck, some of them are even trying to get "the pill" banned, claiming that it causes pregnancy.

Well, if you can equate a 72 hour zygote with a toddler, I guess there's just no reasoning with you.

-- OBO (susanwater@excite.com), April 25, 2000.

gilda:

"...no one pried your eyes..."

Nor yours. Too graphic? Don't look.

Feeling a guilt attack their gilda?

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 25, 2000.

Oh no! Look, a gross picture! Uggh! That changes everything!

OBO

-- OBO (susanwater@excite.com), April 25, 2000.

Look at the e-mail address of Stop the Murder. Abortion kills OUR kids? It never killed any of mine, and it won't kill any of my kid's kids either.

I'm consistently amazed at the double standards. Don't allow folks to use birth control. Don't use MY tax money to support educational programs that encourage birth control, but don't use my money to support children born out of wedlock either, and FOR SURE don't use MY money to abort an unwanted child.

This isn't about murder. It's about sex and money. It's about people who think women SHOULD have said "No" and it's about people who don't want THEIR money spent. But wait a minute...this would go against what Paul wrote in the bible. Women are SUPPOSED to do whatever men say. They HAVE no voice.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.

I had an abortion two years ago, after our contraception failed. My husband and I were both in graduate school and didn't have the time, or the money, to have a baby. We were living in married student housing, so we didn't have the space, either. My research grant and other student aid offered no contingency for not dropping out of school, however temporary. Nevertheless, we thought long and hard before getting an abortion.

While it was a difficult decision to make, and it certainly hurt very much on a physical level, we are both convinced that the abortion was the best option we had at the time. I don't understand why operation rescue and others think that abortion traumatizes women. I haven't thought about it since after it happened until I saw this post. I don't feel guilty, if anything, I feel happy that I was able to get an abortion, graduate from college, and find a great job. Our marriage is stronger than ever, and we're planning on starting a family within the next two years.

I am happy and grateful that we live in a state and a country where women have the right to plan their families (or not have families at all) as they see fit. My husband and I vote pro-choice and intend to do whatever we can to keep abortion safe and legal.

-- Keep Abortion Legal (not@all.sorry), April 25, 2000.

Keep Abortion Legal:

"My husband and I were both in graduate school and didn't have the time, or the money, to have a baby."

Yep...heard that one before. Inconvenience is still no excuse for killing your baby.

"I don't feel guilty,..."

Many that have abortions don't feel the guilt until many years later. Some never do.

"...we're planning on starting a family within the next two years."

It's sometime after you start having children that you can expect the guilt to set in.

"...women have the right to plan their families..."

No, you have an obligation to plan for your families not a right. If you were truly planning you would have planned to face up to your obligation of your defenseless child you killed when your contraceptive failed.

I speak on this matter from personal experience. I was responsible for the death of my child through an abortion as well. It wasn't until years later when I started to have children that the pain and guilt set in. I also had no "right" to kill my child but I did it anyway.

I have since found peace through forgiveness from God over my 'Choice'.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 25, 2000.

Stop the Murder-

"Yep...heard that one before. Inconvenience is still no excuse for killing your baby."

An unplanned, undesired mistake is no excuse for bringing a child into the world.

"It's sometime after you start having children that you can expect the guilt to set in."

If you feel guilty, that's your problem. Please don't try to justify your feelings by transering them to me.

"If you were truly planning you would have planned to face up to your obligation of your defenseless child you killed when your contraceptive failed."

We faced up to our obligation to our parents, our careers, the university where we were studying, the students whom we were teaching, the federal government (who gave us financial aid and research grants), to our marriage, and to the children and family we will start.

"I speak on this matter from personal experience. I was responsible for the death of my child through an abortion as well. It wasn't until years later when I started to have children that the pain and guilt set in."

I'm sincerely sorry you feel badly about this, and I hope some day you seek psychiatric counseling, if you aren't already. Good luck.

-- Keep Abortion Legal (not@all.sorry), April 25, 2000.

What's worse than a child-murderer, is one that doesn't feel sorry or remorse. May God have mercy on your soul.

-- y (y@y.y), April 25, 2000.

Good for you, Keep Abortion Legal.

I used to do clinic escorts at the clinics in my city. The anti choice people can be very, very scary. I've seen some pretty low tactics in my time, and finally had to stop doing the escorts because my then girlfriend was worried about violence.

Don't let anyone tell you how to feel. Don't let anyone second guess your decision. And most importantly, don't let anyone take away your ability to make this decision yourself.

-- Tarzan the Ape man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithoua.net), April 25, 2000.

Not-at-all-sorry:

I couldn't help but notice the guilt transference. I'm glad that you noticed as well.

The "murder" poster seems to have either not been alive or forgotten the days wherein women went to back alleys to have abortions by quacks with a coat-hanger. It was a "two for the price of one" sale, ya know. The fetus died, and the mother died as well.

I was quite young when an aunt of sorts died from an illegal abortion. Her son and I sat behind a wall listening to the grownups talk, dictionary in hand to look up abortion, quack, and all the other terms used. Her oldest son was getting married and her culture felt it disrespectful to be pregnant as the mother of the groom. That son went ahead with his marriage, but he never reproduced.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.

Though laws do not change the heart of man they do reflect society's morality. Unfortunately, these days our reflection pays us no compliment.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), April 26, 2000.

Put more bluntly, at the heart of the abortion debate, if you care to call it that, is this one clear unrefutable understanding. A abortion takes care of what?...It takes care of a problem.

Beit "inconvienent" timing, a conception by rape, or even the case of the mother's physical endangerment, abortion takes care of the problem. The finality of this solution comfirms this as much as the finality of the death penalty for the convicted. For this, there is no descention.

What scares me is society accepting that some lives are a problem. That's a choice we lack the wisdom to make. If you think not, then consider the proposed moratorium on the death penalty in America. Death penalty opponents (who quite suprising also consist of many pro- choice advocates)seek such a suspension for the fear of the loss of one innocent life. How then is the pro-life position much different?

The right to choose you say? What about choosing (by means of a jury) who dies? Are we truly wise enough to make that call? Would we not be quickly saddened upon finding that an executed prisoner was really innocent? Decisions of such finality have a way of backfiring. It's why we can't presume the god-like status of who lives and who dies. Maybe you sleep well at night with that responsibility but I don't. I'll go towards life everytime.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), April 26, 2000.

Buster,

You wrote:

"I'll go towards life everytime"

Who's life? I might bite at the jury idea...if it was a true jury of peers - those who personally, physically coped with an unwanted pregnancy.

-- flora (***@__._), April 26, 2000.

I have a question that I would like answered by anyone from either side of this debate. I ask this not because I support or object to abortion, but because my first wife had three miscarriages before our first baby was born. Did we lose our first three babies, or did we lose the possibility of three children? The results of these possibilities may just show up the basic difference in philosophy between the pro and anti abortionists.

At what point does life begin? Does it begin:

a) when the ova is released?

b) when the ova enters the uterus?

c) when the sperm is released?

d) when the sperm unites with the ova?

e) when the fertilised zygote first divides?

f) when the foetus is first capable of surviving outside the womb?

g) when the baby is born?

h) at some other time?

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), April 26, 2000.

Buster,

You're confusing the potential for life with acutal life. A fetus is human tissue NOT a human being. A fetus is a potential human being in the same way than an acorn is a potential oak.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 26, 2000.

Ape, when is an apple an apple? Does it become an apple only after being plucked from the tree?

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), April 26, 2000.

Flora, I'll respond this way. When I say I go towards life every time, I mean the possibility of life over the finality of death. It's an imperfect world therefore I speak in terms of mindset as opposed to mandates. Hence, when society becomes comfortable with the notion that certain lives are a problem, that troubles me.

You see, Flora, I'm an odd sort. To the dismay of my wife, I rescue and release insects trapped in our house. I marshal my steps to avoid ant hills while walking. I find homes for strays. I skeet and trap shoot because I don't like the kill of hunting. And catch and release has been the fishing way of life in our family for a generation.

Now, do I say overturn Roe vs. Wade? No. I say overturn the hearts of men. Abortion, by any means and for any purpose is still a barbaric procedure that soicety needs not condone. There must be better ways but because of politics I see few pursuing them.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), April 26, 2000.

Buster,

I hear you when you comment -

"I say overturn the hearts of men."

{That's a tall order, kiddo}

-- flora (***@__._), April 26, 2000.

An apple is the reproductive organs of an apple tree. They are part of the whole tree system, the same way that the leaves and bark are part of the tree. It is only when the apple is plucked from it's progenitor, the tree, that it becomes a seperate from the tree, with its own future.

It's the same with human beings. A fetus is human tissue (just as an apple blossom is apple tissue) until the time it becomes seperate from its progenitor.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 26, 2000.

[snip]

Eric Harrah, a former abortion clinic worker, said "live births" were the industry's "dirty little secret."

"It was always very disturbing," said Harrah, "so the doctor would try to conceal it from the rest of the staff."

[snip]

As reported by the New York Times, Fitzsimmons admitted that in "the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."

[snip]

"The pro-choice movement has lost a lot of credibility during this debate, not just with the general public, but with our pro-choice friends in Congress," Fitzsimmons told American Medical News.

Partial Birth Abortion

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 26, 2000.

Supreme Court Should Protect Right to Abortion in Current Partial- Birth Case By Glenn Woiceshyn Anti-abortionists are making a comeback. A womans right to abortion is rapidly being eroded by the proliferation of state laws banning certain types of abortions. On April 25th, in a case known as Carhart vs. Stenberg (No. 99-830), the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of one such law: Nebraskas law banning so- called partial-birth abortions. When abortion was illegal in America, many women died or suffered serious medical problems from either self-induced or illegal back-alley abortions. Women streamed into emergency rooms with punctured wombs, massive bleeding, and rampant infections. Thanks to the Roe v. Wade (1973) Supreme Court decision, women today have access to safe abortions by medically trained professionals under sanitary conditions. But anti-abortionists  so- called pro-lifers  are changing all this. State laws banning partial-birth abortions establish a precedent for criminalizing other types of abortion  as America slides down the bloody slope to back-alley abortions. Those who are truly pro-life must grasp the ominous implications of and underlying motives behind such anti-abortion laws  before its too late. Partial-birth abortion, most commonly known as intact dilation and extraction (D&X), is designed primarily to be used in the case of 5- and 6-month-old fetuses that are dying, malformed, or threaten the womans health or life. The procedure involves pulling the fetus from the womb, except for the head which is too large to pass without injuring the woman. The head is then collapsed to allow removal. This procedure is designed for the maximum protection of the woman. The late-term alternative to D&X, one that doesnt require partial removal, involves dismembering the fetus in the womb before extraction  a much riskier procedure. Anti-abortionists coined the term partial birth to suggest that the partially removed fetus is no longer unborn, and, therefore, Roe vs. Wade no longer applies (so they allege). But linguistic manipulation cant create an essential distinction when none exists. A woman has a right to her own body, and, if she chooses to abort, then all effort should be made to protect the woman from injury. To rule otherwise is to negate this right. Banning any type of abortion to protect the fetus necessarily grants rights to the fetus  an utter perversion of individual rights. If a woman has no right to her own body, then by what logic does a fetus (which, by definition, is a biological parasite) have a right to the womans body? Properly, an infants rights begin after the fetus is removed from the mothers body and its umbilical chord cut. It is a womans individual rights  to her life, to her liberty, and to the pursuit of her happiness  that sanctions her right to have an abortion. Once fetal rights are granted to one stage of the pregnancy, nothing will prevent their extension to all stages. Fetal rights are a gimmick to destroy a womans individual rights. Tragically, many pro-choicers have conceded the partial- birth debate to the anti-abortionists and accept a ban as a compromise (and merely quibble about its scope). Such pro-choicers have apparently been hoodwinked by the anti-abortionists strategy of emotionalism and evasion designed to disguise their deeper purpose. The anti-abortionists strategy involves focusing solely on the fetus and describing the abortion in gruesome detail. Their professed compassion for the fetus apparently leaves no room for considering the womans health and happiness. For them, waving a picture of a bloody, mangled fetus constitutes an argument. If so, then so does waving a picture of a woman whose future was ruined because she was denied an abortion  or of a woman bloody and mangled by a back- alley abortion. A picture is not an argument  and should not be allowed as a cover-up. While anti-abortionists attacks are primarily focused on rarely performed late-term abortions, they zealously want all abortions banned. Helen Alvare, a spokeswoman for the Catholic Bishops and a staunch enemy of D&X, has declared, In a moral sense all abortions are equally awful. According to anti-abortionists dogma, God places the soul in the womb at conception. Hence, via a leap of faith, the fertilized egg  a tiny speck of cells  is granted the status of human being. At that moment, the womans status is demoted to that of slave and breeding mare  and her womb becomes Gods property (which, in practice, means the governments property). The rights of the woman have therefore been sacrificed to the alleged rights of the fetus. According to this dogma, abortion is murder at any stage of the pregnancy (which explains why some pro-lifers feel morally sanctioned to kill doctors and bomb abortion clinics). The anti-abortionists war against partial-birth abortions is a smokescreen to ban all abortions. Abortion is a womans moral right. To protect that right the Supreme Court must declare Nebraskas law prohibiting partial-birth abortions as unconstitutional. Furthermore, pro-choicers must reject compromise and fight any law prohibiting abortion on principle  the principle of individual rights  the principle upon which this pro-rights country was founded.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 26, 2000.

UGGH! The last one wasn't formatted at all. I'm very lazy when it comes to that stuff, but he's a more reader friendly version.

"Supreme Court Should Protect Right to Abortion in Current Partial- Birth Case By Glenn Woiceshyn

Anti-abortionists are making a comeback. A womans right to abortion is rapidly being eroded by the proliferation of state laws banning certain types of abortions. On April 25th, in a case known as Carhart vs. Stenberg (No. 99-830), the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of one such law: Nebraskas law banning so- called partial-birth abortions.

When abortion was illegal in America, many women died or suffered serious medical problems from either self-induced or illegal back- alley abortions. Women streamed into emergency rooms with punctured wombs, massive bleeding, and rampant infections. Thanks to the Roe v. Wade (1973) Supreme Court decision, women today have access to safe abortions by medically trained professionals under sanitary conditions. But anti-abortionists  so- called pro-lifers  are changing all this. State laws banning partial-birth abortions establish a precedent for criminalizing other types of abortion  as America slides down the bloody slope to back-alley abortions. Those who are truly pro-life must grasp the ominous implications of and underlying motives behind such anti-abortion laws  before its too late.

Partial-birth abortion, most commonly known as intact dilation and extraction (D&X), is designed primarily to be used in the case of 5- and 6-month-old fetuses that are dying, malformed, or threaten the womans health or life. The procedure involves pulling the fetus from the womb, except for the head which is too large to pass without injuring the woman. The head is then collapsed to allow removal. This procedure is designed for the maximum protection of the woman. The late-term alternative to D&X, one that doesnt require partial removal, involves dismembering the fetus in the womb before extraction  a much riskier procedure.

Anti-abortionists coined the term partial birth to suggest that the partially removed fetus is no longer unborn, and, therefore, Roe vs. Wade no longer applies (so they allege). But linguistic manipulation cant create an essential distinction when none exists.

A woman has a right to her own body, and, if she chooses to abort, then all effort should be made to protect the woman from injury. To rule otherwise is to negate this right.

Banning any type of abortion to protect the fetus necessarily grants rights to the fetus  an utter perversion of individual rights. If a woman has no right to her own body, then by what logic does a fetus (which, by definition, is a biological parasite) have a right to the womans body? Properly, an infants rights begin after the fetus is removed from the mothers body and its umbilical chord cut. It is a womans individual rights  to her life, to her liberty, and to the pursuit of her happiness  that sanctions her right to have an abortion. Once fetal rights are granted to one stage of the pregnancy, nothing will prevent their extension to all stages. Fetal rights are a gimmick to destroy a womans individual rights.

Tragically, many pro-choicers have conceded the partial- birth debate to the anti-abortionists and accept a ban as a compromise (and merely quibble about its scope). Such pro-choicers have apparently been hoodwinked by the anti-abortionists strategy of emotionalism and evasion designed to disguise their deeper purpose. The anti- abortionists strategy involves focusing solely on the fetus and describing the abortion in gruesome detail. Their professed compassion for the fetus apparently leaves no room for considering the womans health and happiness. For them, waving a picture of a bloody, mangled fetus constitutes an argument. If so, then so does waving a picture of a woman whose future was ruined because she was denied an abortion  or of a woman bloody and mangled by a back- alley abortion. A picture is not an argument  and should not be allowed as a cover-up.

While anti-abortionists attacks are primarily focused on rarely performed late-term abortions, they zealously want all abortions banned. Helen Alvare, a spokeswoman for the Catholic Bishops and a staunch enemy of D&X, has declared, In a moral sense all abortions are equally awful. According to anti-abortionists dogma, God places the soul in the womb at conception. Hence, via a leap of faith, the fertilized egg  a tiny speck of cells  is granted the status of human being. At that moment, the womans status is demoted to that of slave and breeding mare  and her womb becomes Gods property (which, in practice, means the governments property). The rights of the woman have therefore been sacrificed to the alleged rights of the fetus. According to this dogma, abortion is murder at any stage of the pregnancy (which explains why some pro-lifers feel morally sanctioned to kill doctors and bomb abortion clinics).

The anti-abortionists war against partial-birth abortions is a smokescreen to ban all abortions. Abortion is a womans moral right. To protect that right the Supreme Court must declare Nebraskas law prohibiting partial-birth abortions as unconstitutional. Furthermore, pro-choicers must reject compromise and fight any law prohibiting abortion on principle  the principle of individual rights  the principle upon which this pro-rights country was founded.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 26, 2000.

Ape

"...is designed primarily to be used in the case of 5- and 6-month-old fetuses that are dying, malformed, or threaten the womans health or life."

Yea right; and Clinton didn't inhale either.

Dear Friend of the pre-born child,

We are on the threshold of the most important court case in the last 27 years.

And you can help make sure these Supreme Court Justices know how to judge righteously.

On April 25th, 2000, the United States Supreme Court will decide the fate of the much sought after ban on Partial Birth Abortions: the most gruesome form of child-killing.

The procedure is so dreadful you will have a hard time believing it is happening in our beloved country.

I apologize in advance for being so utterly graphic, but I want you to know the full truth of what is happening in abortion mills across this nation.

(Caution: Graphic details. Please read the following few paragraphs with adult discretion)

The abortionist reaches into the birth canal to grasp the leg of the fully-developed five to nine month old baby. He forcefully wrenches the child from her safe home inside the mother until only her head is left inside the birth canal. By now the baby is kicking and struggling for her very life.

Next, the "doctor" pierces her skull and vacuums her brain from her tiny head. The abortionist then collapses the baby's skull and removes the now lifeless child tossing her aside for further inhumanities. (Like harvesting and selling her body parts to researchers.)

The medical term for this barbaric act is Dilation and Extraction (D and X) but it more commonly called Partial Birth Abortion.

I call it murder!

Over thirty states called it murder, and both houses of Congress called it murder, but President Clinton vetoed a ban on Partial Birth Abortion not once, but twice! Now the Supreme Court will hear a case to uphold a state's right to put an end to this godless practice.

I know your heart breaks when you hear of such gross abuses to the little children God has given us - mine does too.

But there is something you can do about this ghastly act that will make a lifetime of differences.

You can come to Washington, DC to join with us as we pray and fast for 48 hours at the steps of the highest court in the land.

You can pray and fast that the Judges will have the courage to judge righteously! And I believe God can answer that prayer.

The Bible says, the prayers of the righteous are "powerful and effective."

God can open the eyes of the nine Supreme Court Justices to the bloody trade of abortion and God can move on the Justices' hearts to finally grant equal protection for pre-born babies and end abortion forever. This could be the case that ends it all!

It would be a righteous judgment.

So I am asking, no, I'm pleading with everyone I know to come and join in two days of fasting and prayer.

And in classic Operation Rescue style we will also be acting prophetically.

As we are kneeling at the steps of the Supreme Court there will be billboard-size banners, signs and posters showing the world exactly what Partial Birth Abortion does to little children. (A sample postcard is enclosed.) I just had a billboard made with the inscribed words; "This moral wrong could never be a constitutional right." And emblazoned on this billboard are three pictures of a real aborted child the same age as the children who die in Partial Birth Abortion.

This billboard screams injustice!

We will spotlight this and other signs surrounding the Court night and day -- from Easter Sunday until the court hears the case on Tuesday!

We will be there as a prophetic witness; lest the world forget what happens to little children over 3000 times a day in America.

We will not let them forget! We will show the truth!

Because this is the most important court case in 27 years.

And I want the Supreme Court to know that Christians are praying for them and for the Lord to intervene.

I want the Court to see the presence of hundreds, or dare I hope, thousands of Christians humbly praying for them just outside the doors of their courtroom.

The Judges will see the bloody results of Partial Birth Abortion.

I am sure the Supreme Court's steps were empty the day the arguments were made in Roe vs. Wade, 27 years ago - shame on us.

But we will be there for Stenburg vs. Carhart.

Can you imagine the sidewalks in front of the court filled with Christians beseeching the God of the universe? Praying for the nine Judges to decide the destiny of millions of additional children scheduled to die?

Nearly 40,000,000 have perished already. Enough is enough! When will the bloodshed stop?

I am going to be at the steps of the Supreme Court praying that abortion will stop now.

Won't you pray with me at the Supreme Court, in your Church or even at home?

The only way for Operation Rescue West to do all these things is with your help. This project will cost a small fortune to implement. The billboard I talked of earlier costs $1000 each. Plus I want to print and mail thousands of postcards like the one I have enclosed in this letter.

I desperately need to hear from you today!!

I believe in this work and I am asking you to believe in Operation Rescue West enough to give sacrificially.

Can you donate $1000 to cover the cost of the billboard? How about half that cost of $500? At $50 you can cover the printing costs of 2000 postcards.

Every penny will bring us closer to being at the steps of the Supreme Court, educating America to the horror of abortion, sending out postcards to Supreme Court Justices and holding a 48 hour prayer vigil.

There are so many expenses in a project like this. I am praying that you will be able to help now -- when we need it most.

I also want to send to you a prayer packet; laden with all the crucial information you need to effectively pray for the Supreme Court Justices and Operation Rescue West. It is a comprehensive report, detailing the atrocities of Partial Birth Abortion.

Just check the box on the enclosed response card and I will rush it right out to you.

I hope to see you in Washington, DC and I pray you will be on your knees for this vital cause.

Yours for Life and for an end to this Holocaust,

Troy Newman Director, ORW

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 26, 2000.

>>An apple is the reproductive organs of an apple tree. <<

Ok, Tarzan, nice side-step. An apple is still an apple, whether it's attached to the tree or not. And there's no question that the *tissue* is still *apple* tissue. Apple tissue, apple life; human tissue, human life, complete with all parts and functions, down to the DNA. Turning the argument to so-called viability is specious and with absolutely no relevance.

But,if you think your apple argument has merit, then I submit this suggestion:

If an individual or a couple choose an abortion, then they should have *their* reproductive organs removed as well. This solves a number of problems at once.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 26, 2000.

Ape

"At that moment, the womans status is demoted to that of slave and breeding mare..."

Demoted to slave and breeding mare? What needs to be added at the end of that bit of 'wisdom' is this : when the baby is not wanted.

Having a child is a wonderful gift sent by God. A womans status is NOT demoted but elevated to that of mother; protector; nurturer. The babies trust is in his/her mother for protection from that point forward.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 26, 2000.

"Apple tissue, apple life; human tissue, human life, complete with all parts and functions, down to the DNA,"

NOT true, LBO. A kidney is not a human being, even though it is human tissue complete with all its parts and functions down to the DNA. An ovum is not a human being. These examples aren't human beings because they aren't sentient and can't survive outside the body. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Stop the murder, I agree that motherhood is a wonderful thing. However, when one is FORCED to become a mother, that wonderful thing is perverted. A woman who wishes to have children will be a mother. A woman forced to be a mother is a slave.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 26, 2000.

Ape

"However, when one is FORCED to become a mother..."

If abortion clinics had to deal with cases of rape & incest alone you and I both know there wouldn't be many 'clinics' open today.

Abortion has become yet another form of birth control. Case in point: Keep Abortion Legal (not@all.sorry)who says: "I had an abortion two years ago, after our contraception failed. My husband and I were both in graduate school and didn't have the time..."

Lack of time money and space are excuses. They are NOT reasons to have an abortion.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 26, 2000.

One is forced to become a mother when one is forced to give birth against ones wishes. Where that pregnancy came from shouldn't have any impact on whether or not the mother should be forced to give birth.

In my time as a clinic escort, I got to know a woman who had had two "partial birth" abortions. Her and her husband had both desperately wanted to have children, but their first two pregnancies were frought with horrible birth defects. Both fetuses had a genetic condition known as "triploidism" (sp?), which essentially gave them an entire extra set of chromosomes. In the first abortion, the fetus died shortly before the start of the abortion. In the second case, the fetus was still alive but was showing signs of death.

Both abortions were physically and emotionally traumatizing. However, they were necessary in order to ensure that the life of the woman was preserved. This lady was very staunchly pro-choice because of her experiences. As she said to me, "This is not the sort of procedure you have because you've got nothing better to do that day. This is a painful procedure that no one would have if didn't have to,"

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 26, 2000.

Darn, you people are long-winded!

I fully support a man's right to control his own body. :)

-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), April 26, 2000.

Ape

"One is forced to become a mother when one is forced to give birth against ones wishes..."

What about what the child wishes? I don't hear you complaining too much that you're here. Aren't you fortunate to have had a mother willing to fulfill her commitment to you and not to have looked upon you as an 'inconvenience'.

"As she said to me, "This is not the sort of procedure you have because you've got nothing better to do that day."

Sadly, when it has gotten down to another form of birth control (as most cases today have become), it has become just that.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 26, 2000.

Hey Stop,

Care to take a crack at Malcolm's questions?

"At what point does life begin? Does it begin:

a) when the ova is released?

b) when the ova enters the uterus?

c) when the sperm is released?

d) when the sperm unites with the ova?

e) when the fertilised zygote first divides?

f) when the foetus is first capable of surviving outside the womb?

g) when the baby is born?

h) at some other time? "

-- flora (***@__._), April 26, 2000.

Stop, welcome to the Our way or the Highway group. Sit down, have a seat, Rules as follows:

Do not say ANYTHING about God

Dont say anything against miami family

Dont say anything about abortion and Never show pictures that reveal the truth

Lastly Do not EVER disagree with any body here

-- indefense (indefense@exicte.com)), April 26, 2000.

flora, no one is answering Malcolm's questions because the answer is just too darned easy: life begins when a twinkle appears in anyone's eye.

-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), April 26, 2000.

Stop-

Talking about the fetus' "wishes" is as pointless as talking about the wishes of any other organ. Where there's no sentience there can be no wishes.

I consider myself very fortunate to have been born to a woman who wanted to be a mother, who had planned for, prepared for, and desired to have a baby. If she had made the choice to have had an abortion, it wouldn't have mattered to me because I wouldn't have been around to have had it matter.

-- Tarzan the Ape man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 26, 2000.

indefense,

I guess you must concur with the '5 facts' cited in the oiriginal post, huh.

viewer,

That sounds like something my mom would say, lots of folks would be in big trouble then.

Stop,

I think if you honestly hold these views, that answering those questions would be a piece of cake.

-- flora (***@__._), April 26, 2000.

"At what point does life begin?..."

It ended prematurely here....

and here....

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 26, 2000.

Pictures aren't arguments.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 26, 2000.

"Pictures aren't arguments."

I disagree...

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 26, 2000.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.. The first ten words of the first amendment and the basis of the constitutional doctrine of "separation of church and state."

Do we really need another constitutional amendment like this: Religionists shall make no law respecting an establishment of their dogma?

I thought that separation was supposed to work both ways.

Theocracies (ie. Muslim Fundamentalist states) are not known for their advocacy or practice of freedoms, religious or otherwise. However, if you should choose to live in one, I'd be happy to contibute towards the price of a ticket.

Hallyx

"God save me from the religionists." ---unknown

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 26, 2000.

So Stop, what IS the argument you are attempting to advance with these pictures that you find it impossible to advance with reason and logic? Is it easier to try to provoke a visceral reacion than to make a rational, reasonable argument? Or are you trying to say that "abortion is gross looking, and therefore wrong"?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 26, 2000.

Settle down there Apeman,

Stop's prolly madly fishing throught the files now for a gut wrenching zygote shot.

-- flora (***@__._), April 26, 2000.

Tarzan:

Your efforts are coommendable, but logical arguments hold no weight with emotional appeals. It is like talking to the wall. it is like your opponent is saying "I know you are but what am I" like Pee Wee Herman.

No one is going to address the issues of rights brought up in the article you posted. That was an excellant article.

I often wonder how many people who argue against abortion are pro for the death penalty? Any takers here?

Stop the Murder:

When was the last time you donated to a world relief fund for starving children? When was the last time you visited a children's hospital to offer your services? I really want to know that you are more than one dimensional.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 26, 2000.

FutureShock

"I often wonder how many people who argue against abortion are pro for the death penalty? Any takers here?"

I have a similar question: I often wonder how many people who argue for abortion are against the death penalty? Any takers here?

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 26, 2000.

I see the pictures as an appeal to emotionalism. Stop feels very emotional about this topic because SHE had an abortion and now feels guilty. She wants EVERYONE to feel guilty, ergo the pictures.

I don't know her age, but I've seen similar pictures since before Roe vs. Wade. I don't respond to appeals of emotionalism.

It's my opinion that folks who are truly against abortion could better spend their time educating themselves and others on appropriate methods of contraception.

Anti-abortion arguments aren't new. Abortion is no more used as a contraception method today than it was 60 years ago. In fact, I once worked with a woman whose mother told her that the only reason she was born was because the mother had just had an abortion and it was too soon to have another. That woman would be perhaps 57 years old today. Certainly, we have better statistics today because records are being kept. We also have some abortions performed later on in pregnancy to save the lives of the mothers. Years ago we didn't have the testing procedures available today and the moms simply died.

As some of you know, I'm a huge proponent of sex education. This begins in the home with the parents speaking to their children. The parents must FIRST be educated in contraception, however. I know an elderly couple whose idea of contraception was for the male to "pull out on time." I know young adults who fished a 10-year old condom out of a parent's drawer and thought they were practicing safe sex. I know young adults who got pregnant because a condom broke and I know young adults who had the foresite to obtain the morning after pill after the condom broke. Who ever lied to them and said condoms were effective contraception in the first place? I've heard stories of girls who thought they were protected the first day they took a birth-control pill, and others who thought they were protected because they borrowed "A" pill from a friend for the night's activity. Sex education is the key to reducing the number of abortions.

I do NOT have a problem with the death penalty, BTW.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 26, 2000.

Anita

"...SHE had an abortion..."

W-R-O-N-G! Try again.

"...EVERYONE to feel guilty..."

Just the advocates of abortion.

"...better spend their time educating themselves and others on appropriate methods of contraception."

I agree. Now all we need is for people like you to do is to exhibit a little self control and by learning a new word. ABSTINENCE.

Using abstinence, you will find unwanted pregnancies disappear entirely!

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 26, 2000.

Stop:

You're the one who said, "I speak on this matter from personal experience. I was responsible for the death of my child through an abortion as well. It wasn't until years later when I started to have children that the pain and guilt set in. I also had no "right" to kill my child but I did it anyway.

I have since found peace through forgiveness from God over my 'Choice'.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 25, 2000. "

If YOU want to abstain AND you're a man, that's fine with me. If more men kept it in their pants, the world would be a better place.

I have NO problem with abstinence. It's a perfectly acceptable method of contraception. Unfortunately, [or for many FORTUNATELY] sex IS a pleasurable experience. Older folks LOVE it, and younger folks want the experience. If abstinence is ALL you teach your children, you're opening yourself and them up to problems. You might want to look into the statistics on how many pregnant youths commit suicide rather than tell their parents they've had sex or are now pregnant. THESE are the youths that seek abortions because they KNOW their parents wouldn't approve of their sexual activity but couldn't help but try it out anyway.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 26, 2000.

"If more men kept it in their pants,..."

Unless things have changed a GREAT DEAL (Grin) I beleive it still takes two to 'tango'.

"If abstinence is ALL..."

Let the hand wringing/arm waiving commence!

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 26, 2000.

Ah...Stop. Sex is STILL left to the FEMALE in your mind, eh? It's not YOUR responsibility to abstain if you find a female acceptable to your advances. This is humorous to me. You haven't learned a THING!

Hand-wring, arm-waving? I have NO such intention. I don't care WHAT you teach your children. I simply warned you of the dangers of your technique.

I have two daughters and one son. I taught them early on that there's NO excuse for an unwanted pregnancy. When they came to me expressing desires for sexual activity, I made appointments with a doctor. I didn't say "Just hold it. This, too, will pass." THEY had already decided that they wanted this experience. My job was to ensure that their experience didn't result in an unwanted pregnancy. Had I not done my job, they may be experiencing the guilt you now feel.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 26, 2000.

"...Sex is STILL left to the FEMALE in your mind, eh?" Sex involves both male & female as memory serves me.

"It's not YOUR responsibility to abstain if you find a female acceptable to your advances." Where is it written that the male is the designee to make "advances"?

Are you stating the female bears none of the responsibilities of sex?

"I don't care WHAT you teach your children." As long as I keep my views in my home that is. Profess abstinence on TB2K and prepare for the wrath of Anita; is that it?

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 26, 2000.

As I recall, Stop-the-murder, it was YOU who stated the following:

"I agree. Now all we need is for people like you to do is to exhibit a little self control and by learning a new word. ABSTINENCE."

Why would MY self control be any concern of YOURS? Why should *I* abstain because YOU feel it exhibits self-control? Your whole issue in this thread is your opposition to abortion, yet you now want to dictate morality as well. I purport that this dictation of morality is the ROOT of the abortion problem. Abortion, with the exception of instances in which the life of the mother would be saved, could be eliminated if folks didn't insist that women simply said "No." We've now come full-circle. See my first post to this thread.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 26, 2000.

The Ape's apple argument doesn't have merit because he looks but does not see. If buy his argument, go to an orchard sometime as ask to see the reporductive organ tree. See how quickly you are removed from the premises.

My point is this: if you choose to believe in man by design, then the technical constructs man puts upon himself lack validity. If you believe in the man by design and not by chance, then unless you believe in an imperfect god, things don't happen by chance.

If you choose to believe in the man by chance only, then I wish you luck finding your purpose in life.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), April 26, 2000.

"Case in point: Keep Abortion Legal (not@all.sorry)who says: "I had an abortion two years ago, after our contraception failed. My husband and I were both in graduate school and didn't have the time..."

Lack of time money and space are excuses. They are NOT reasons to have an abortion."

To be perfectly clear, we were not using abortion as birth control. We had a method of contraception which failed us, which necessitated an abortion. We did not feel ready to start a family on any level, emotional included. If we had continued with the pregnancy, it would have destroyed my career, possibly destroyed oour marriage, and saddled us with almost insurmountable debt (we had student loans and no insurance). Maybe YOU think these are ideal circumstances to raise a child, but we do not. Just because someone is able to have children doesn't mean they should.

-- Keep Abortion Legal (not@all.sorry), April 26, 2000.

What? You contradict yourself, KAL. Your abortion was for what reason? To prevent a birth. That's abortion as a means of birth control, plain and simple.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), April 26, 2000.

I've been too involved in the "real" world to come here very often lately; Anita, thanks for stating your views; mine are right with yours, for the most part.

Stop the killing, you are making it clearer and clearer with your morality, your solicitation for chastity, that you are part of the reason that abortion has become so common in this country.

Did you know that in Japan, abortion is a common method of birth control?

Did you know that my dictionary says that abortion is "Induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus is capable of survival as an individual"? My encyclopedia says the same thing, with the further clarification that the fetus can be kept alive after 28 weeks in the uterus.

I totally agree with Anita: teach kids about birth control. Teach them about VD as well. But you've got to develop a trusting relationship with your kids in order to have them believe you when you explain these facts, or most any other facts, for that matter.

Personally, I don't see allowing partial birth abortions (which is an oxymoron, considering the definition of abortion, above), unless there is a very strange set of circumstances. Why can't the mother, for instance, have a C section? If a woman wants to have an abortion, why wait so long?

By the way, one of my teenage girlfriends was a close relative of Henry Wade (vs. Roe) She was a good little girl, kept her virginity until she married. Damn!

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), April 26, 2000.

"The Ape's apple argument doesn't have merit because he looks but does not see."

You're going to have to do better than that. Just because I don't agree with you, Buster, doesn't mean that my argument lacks merit.

"If buy his argument, go to an orchard sometime as ask to see the reporductive organ tree. See how quickly you are removed from the premises."

Why don't you try going to that same orchard and ask them to make you a pie from apple seed? An apple seed, like a fetus, has the potential to be something else but is distincly different from that which it has the potential to be.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 26, 2000.

There are as many differences in the women who have abortions, as there are their reasons for having them. Your pictures only show how you want to apportion guilt. Do not ever make the mistake of thinking you speak on the behalf of God. A woman should never be forced to carry a child that she is not capable of commiting to emotionally. Adoption is a reasonable choice for some, but for many it is a soul- wrenching thing they could never go through. It does not make them evil people. The doctors who help them are preventing tragedy by providing safe medical care. So unless you think that 2 deaths are better than one, there is no debate to be had here. We all know that not every child who comes into this world is cherished and wanted. But they should be.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), April 27, 2000.

Gia

"Do not ever make the mistake of thinking you speak on the behalf of God."

God has already spoken for Himself...Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

"A woman should never be forced to carry a child that she is not capable of commiting to emotionally."

If she is not capable of commiting to the child emotionally, she has no business having sex.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 27, 2000.

Buster

"What? You contradict yourself, KAL. Your abortion was for what reason? To prevent a birth. That's abortion as a means of birth control, plain and simple."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 27, 2000.

Anita

"I purport that this dictation of morality is the ROOT of the abortion problem."

I agree entirely! It has been those with no morals for the past 20 plus years that have caused this problem to GROW as large as it has today.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 27, 2000.

I have a question. Consider on the one hand, a fetus conceived eight months earlier, and on the other, a one month old baby that had been delivered after seven months of the mother's pregnancy. (The two were conceived on the same day.)

True, these two living beings are in different environments, and obtain their nourishment through two entirely different channels. But my question is, can anyone discern a clear physiological distinction between the two, and if not, what basis is there not to treat their lives as equally precious.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 27, 2000.

DavidL-

It is extremely rare for abortions to happen at that stage of a pregnancy. When it does happen, it is often the case that either the fetus is already dead, or the woman's life is threatened.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 27, 2000.

Tarzan,

I believe you are correct.

And there was 'suspiciously absent' information on the website that Stop posted.

Like... What were the circumstances of this pictured information? I couldn't find any info regarding this.

The whole issue is extremely personal...shouldn't be abused...and I have faith that the line will be drawn where it should be.

-- Peg (not@really.necessary), April 27, 2000.

Tarzan,

That sounds like an admission that the two *are* identical.

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 27, 2000.

Stop The Murder- Look, I don't like the idea of late term abortions because there is a definate question of when the fetus becomes viable. It is a sad thing to visualise, and must be a very traumatic procedure as well. Having said this, the fact remains that if you start messing around with timetables, it will be a route to outlawing all abortions sooner or later. It will never be something I would wish for my daughter to have to go through, but she should certainly be allowed the choice that we have had for the last 30 years. There would be many more "victims" without it. And one last thing- prove to me those trite verses came from the mouth of God, and then prove to me he only created sex for procreation. He has only love for everyone and everything. I feel sorry for those who can only believe in a vengeful God. Humans punish each other enough for Him to never have to touch that emotion.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), April 28, 2000.

Are you pro-life? Fine. Then don't get an abortion.

Against sex outside of Christian marriage? Fine. Then don't have any.

I'm pro-choice, and I wouldn't force someone to HAVE an abortion. I'm also not Christian, but I wouldn't force people to adhere to my standards of religious marriage before having sex.

So why do some of the posters on this board seem so hell-bent on forcing women NOT to have abortions? Do they plan on adopting all the children they would force women to bear? How about it, ABOK?

And why are some of the posters on this board so interested in what form of birth control others use? Or whether they're having sex out of Christian wedlock? That's no business of theirs.

When the pro-lifers start regularly adopting infants that are born HIV-positive or addicted to crack or with significant birth defects/health problems, etc. etc., THEN you can start forcing women to carry to term.

And when you let me into your bedroom to grade your sexual behavior on the basis of MY morality, then I'll let you into my bedroom to grade mine.

Fair enough?

-- Vicious Bitch (bitch@vicious.com), April 28, 2000.

Vicious

Like it or not, the USA was founded and grown on Judeo-Christian values. Look on the back of most denominations of currency and you will find these words "In God we trust". President Lincoln called for three days of prayer and fasting by the nation to bring an end to the Civil War. Our nations pledge of allegiance has the following phrase "...one nation under GOD...". Our government leaders when being sworn into office place their hand on the Bible. I could go on and on and on.

Christians and Jews in the USA over the past 38 years have allowed those with no morals to overrun us with their lies that we as a nation have swallowed and continue to allow many to go unchecked. Their are still absolutes in this world no matter how much you wish them away and we as Christians and Jews need to stand up for what is right, and this is one subject we must make/take a stand on.

Abortion is WRONG!

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 28, 2000.

If there were a being as powerful as the Christian god who were offended by abortion, then that being would never have allowed abortion to be invented in the first place, nor would that being have allowed it to go on as long as it has (women have been aborting children for centuries).

Since we have abortion, we have three options; there is a god who is just fine and dandy with abortion, there is a god who is displeased with abortion but who isn't powerful enough to do anything about it directly (for instance, a good old fashioned Biblical miracle), or there is no god period.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 28, 2000.

Tarzan,

That is the *most* inane comment you've made so far. Not only are there other possibilities, but if we were puppets on a string, you'd be railing against God over that. Besides, maybe God deals with these things in a way you haven't yet realized.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 28, 2000.

So what are they?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 28, 2000.

Hi all,

I found this essay very interesting as it explains, better than most essays I've seen, why the woman's rights are paramount, and shows the gaping hole in the anti-abortionists' tactic of presenting photos of aborted fetuses.

Supreme Court Should Protect Right to Abortion in Current Partial-Birth Case By Glenn Woiceshyn Anti-abortionists are making a comeback. A womans right to abortion is rapidly being eroded by the proliferation of state laws banning certain types of abortions. On April 25th, in a case known as Carhart vs. Stenberg (No. 99-830), the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of one such law: Nebraskas law banning so-called partial-birth abortions. When abortion was illegal in America, many women died or suffered serious medical problems from either self-induced or illegal back-alley abortions. Women streamed into emergency rooms with punctured wombs, massive bleeding, and rampant infections. Thanks to the Roe v. Wade (1973) Supreme Court decision, women today have access to safe abortions by medically trained professionals under sanitary conditions. But anti-abortionists  so-called pro-lifers  are changing all this. State laws banning partial-birth abortions establish a precedent for criminalizing other types of abortion  as America slides down the bloody slope to back-alley abortions. Those who are truly pro-life must grasp the ominous implications of and underlying motives behind such anti-abortion laws  before its too late. Partial-birth abortion, most commonly known as intact dilation and extraction (D&X), is designed primarily to be used in the case of 5- and 6-month-old fetuses that are dying, malformed, or threaten the womans health or life. The procedure involves pulling the fetus from the womb, except for the head which is too large to pass without injuring the woman. The head is then collapsed to allow removal. This procedure is designed for the maximum protection of the woman. The late-term alternative to D&X, one that doesnt require partial removal, involves dismembering the fetus in the womb before extraction  a much riskier procedure. Anti-abortionists coined the term partial birth to suggest that the partially removed fetus is no longer unborn, and, therefore, Roe vs. Wade no longer applies (so they allege). But linguistic manipulation cant create an essential distinction when none exists. A woman has a right to her own body, and, if she chooses to abort, then all effort should be made to protect the woman from injury. To rule otherwise is to negate this right. Banning any type of abortion to protect the fetus necessarily grants rights to the fetus  an utter perversion of individual rights. If a woman has no right to her own body, then by what logic does a fetus (which, by definition, is a biological parasite) have a right to the womans body? Properly, an infants rights begin after the fetus is removed from the mothers body and its umbilical chord cut. It is a womans individual rights  to her life, to her liberty, and to the pursuit of her happiness  that sanctions her right to have an abortion. Once fetal rights are granted to one stage of the pregnancy, nothing will prevent their extension to all stages. Fetal rights are a gimmick to destroy a womans individual rights. Tragically, many pro-choicers have conceded the partial-birth debate to the anti-abortionists and accept a ban as a compromise (and merely quibble about its scope). Such pro-choicers have apparently been hoodwinked by the anti-abortionists strategy of emotionalism and evasion designed to disguise their deeper purpose. The anti-abortionists strategy involves focusing solely on the fetus and describing the abortion in gruesome detail. Their professed compassion for the fetus apparently leaves no room for considering the womans health and happiness. For them, waving a picture of a bloody, mangled fetus constitutes an argument. If so, then so does waving a picture of a woman whose future was ruined because she was denied an abortion  or of a woman bloody and mangled by a back-alley abortion. A picture is not an argument  and should not be allowed as a cover-up. While anti-abortionists attacks are primarily focused on rarely performed late-term abortions, they zealously want all abortions banned. Helen Alvare, a spokeswoman for the Catholic Bishops and a staunch enemy of D&X, has declared, In a moral sense all abortions are equally awful. According to anti-abortionists dogma, God places the soul in the womb at conception. Hence, via a leap of faith, the fertilized egg  a tiny speck of cells  is granted the status of human being. At that moment, the womans status is demoted to that of slave and breeding mare  and her womb becomes Gods property (which, in practice, means the governments property). The rights of the woman have therefore been sacrificed to the alleged rights of the fetus. According to this dogma, abortion is murder at any stage of the pregnancy (which explains why some pro-lifers feel morally sanctioned to kill doctors and bomb abortion clinics). The anti-abortionists war against partial-birth abortions is a smokescreen to ban all abortions. Abortion is a womans moral right. To protect that right the Supreme Court must declare Nebraskas law prohibiting partial-birth abortions as unconstitutional. Furthermore, pro-choicers must reject compromise and fight any law prohibiting abortion on principle  the principle of individual rights  the principle upon which this pro-rights country was founded. Glenn Woiceshyn is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, California. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2000.

I'm so sorry about the big paragraph. It was split up in the original article, and I could have sworn it stayed that way when I was posting it...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2000.

eve (<-insert irony here)

"For them, waving a picture of a bloody, mangled fetus constitutes an argument."

Unjustifiable death by any other name is still death. Hidding pictures hides the gruesome truth about what has been going on. A truth you would rather conceal/ignor and wish would go away. To coin a phrase: "If not us who? If not now when?" My God, please forgive us for not waking sooner to this terrible issue.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 28, 2000.

eve (<-insert irony here)

"Abortion is a womans moral right."

WOW! Kinda sounds like it's her duty to do it. Good thing your mother didn't take that little bit of advise eh?

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 28, 2000.

Stop the Murder,

Do you feel that the woman has a right to her own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? If not, may I assume that you assign those rights instead to the fetus, leaving the living, breathing woman with none of these rights?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2000.

"Do you feel that the woman has a right to her own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?"

Yes! And so does the 'BABY' she carries!

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 28, 2000.

Abortion has saved countless lives and has, perhaps, been the best thing for our country. http://www.cycad.com/upstream-list-archive/old-archive/msg02064.html

Here's an excerpt:

"The theoretical justification for our argument rests on two simple assumptions: 1) Legalized abortion leads to fewer "unwanted" babies being born, and 2) unwanted babies are more likely to suffer abuse and neglect and are therefore at an increased risk for criminal involvement later in life.

The first assumption, that abortion reduces the number of unwanted children, is true virtually by definition. The second assumption, that unwanted children are at increased risk for criminal involvement, is supported by three decades of academic research. If one accepts these two assumptions, then a direct mechanism by which the legalization of abortion can reduce crime has been established. At that point, the question merely becomes:

Is the magnitude of the impact large or small? Our preliminary research suggests that the effect of abortion legalization is large. According to our estimates, as much as one- half of the remarkable decline in crime in the 1990s may be attributable to the legalization of abortion. We base our conclusions on four separate data analyses. First, we demonstrate that crime rates began to fall 18 years after the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion across the nation, just the point at which babies born under legalized abortion would be reaching the peak adolescent crime years. In my opinion, this is the weakest of our four data analyses. In a simple time series, many factors are negatively correlated with crime. Furthermore, the world is a complicated place and it would be simplistic to believe that legalized abortion could overpower all other social determinants of crime. Second, we show that the five states that legalized abortion in 1970--three years before Roe vs. Wade--saw crime begin to decrease roughly three years earlier than the rest of the nation. This is a bit more convincing to me but still far from conclusive. Third, we demonstrate that states with high abortion rates in the mid- 1970s have had much greater crime decreases in the 1990s than states that had low abortion rates in the 1970s. This relationship holds true even when we take into account changes in the size of prison populations, number of police, poverty rates, measures of the economy, changes in welfare generosity, and other changes in fertility. This is the evidence that really starts to be convincing, in my opinion. Fourth, we show that the abortion- related drop in crime is occurring only for those who today are under the age of 25. This is exactly the age group we would expect to be affected by the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s. "

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 28, 2000.

Stop The Murder,

eve: "Do you feel that the woman has a right to her own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?"

STM: "Yes! And so does the 'BABY' she carries!"

What if there's a conflict? Whose rights would have priority?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 28, 2000.

Hey Stop,

Wasn't there an 'abortion doctor' who was killed by a 'pro life-er' awhile back?

I'd sincerely be thankful if you'd jot down your judgement on that incident.

-- flora (***@__._), April 28, 2000.

Can we move this discussion over here. It's getting to be too long a thread here.

-- Stop The Murder (abortion@kills_our_kids.com), April 28, 2000.