Action vs talk - George Carlin on the anti-abortion movement

Yesterday was the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. I came across this Carlin quote last night while searching for something else. It actually does a pretty good job of describing a good many people I know or have encountered online. I won't actually quote it - the language is typical Carlin.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Carlin

Scroll down to the "Back in Town" section, and then the relevant quote is the paragraph right underneath it.

Yes, I'm a theologically conservative Christian, but I'll be voting for Obama again this fall. Social welfare programs that might actually help reduce the abortion rate are a danged sight more useful than marching around and doing little else.

Amen! Preach it George.

I am prime fodder for the Republican party, but because the reversal of Roe v. Wade is part of their platform I vote their way as little as possible.
I am an Independent with cafeteria style stances.
I was raised in what felt like the epicenter of this mindset Carlin describes and I just didn't get it and really still don't.

That's great. I wish George Carlin could have had a "news" show like Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert. He was so on-point most of the time. I've often wondered how many abortion protesters would actually volunteer to be responsible for the upbringing of the unwanted child they are so desperately trying to save.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

I've often wondered how many abortion protesters would actually volunteer to be responsible for the upbringing of the unwanted child they are so desperately trying to save.

---

Isn't it a shame that even one "unwanted child" is destroyed? And further, that we would think negatively about those who don't want it to happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Isn't it a shame that even one "unwanted child" is destroyed? And further, that we would think negatively about those who don't want it to happen?

---

There are many things about this subject that 'are a shame' that is for certain.

Oh good--another thread about abortion. This time I'm sure we'll solve it, and will all come together in peace and love and harmony. Oh wait--this is the SLN board where the religious bashing will soon commence. All "arguments" here are predictable.

For those who think the religious right who opposes abortion all march around without doing any practical good, they need to actually inform themselves of all of the mother-support services provided by the--to cite one example--Catholics. When I wondered into a nearby Catholic church in one of my 1X biennial trips, I heard their recitation of fundraising for mother-support and I was surprised that this was a charity center for this particular congregation which is well known for services to the (mostly male) homeless. It's really tiresome, this idea that there is no practical support, that only Nanny G and Big Govt and President Obama can solve your problem if you are female and pregnant and without means.

Let me also state for the record that I am not a believer, I am as pro-abortion as anyone on this board in my personal beliefs, and I will be voting Republican. Roe V Wade is an important decision but it's not THE defining issue for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

... I've often wondered how many abortion protesters would actually volunteer to be responsible for the upbringing of the unwanted child they are so desperately trying to save.

---

Seriously? Do ya know how much in demand tiny new babies are? If only bulldogs were that popular we wouldn't see our placement rate up a bazillion percent this year!
We are in a sellers market with babies and any one baby would have scads of parents wanting to raise it.

I am not saying that adiption is the universal answer to an unwanted pregnancy, but it's certainly the answer to your argument.

Iris, I was referring to individuals I actually have encountered. I know folks who like to gab about how many people they help send to the March for Life or go pray and demonstrate outside a Planned Parenthood clinic. Or their contributions to politicsl candidates/lobbyinh groups But when asked what concrete things they have done - volunteer, give money to organizations that help those in need - their answer is *nothing.*

If these folks I know (from different religious backgrounds) actually coupled their marching and political activity with concrete action to help both single mothers, the babies, and others in need, that's one thing. But a large number of them do not.

What set me off was the amount of stuff on my Facebook newsfeed yesterday about the March yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tradd

Social welfare programs that might actually help reduce the abortion rate are a danged sight more useful than marching around and doing little else.

---

:+1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Isn't it a shame that even one "unwanted child" is destroyed? And further, that we would think negatively about those who don't want it to happen?

---

Alan, just to clarify, I agree with you. Because of my beliefs in the sanctity of life, I oppose the death penalty, stem cell research, and I'm vegetarian. What's more, I once had a pregnancy test in an abortion clinic, ready to have one because I was probably the most unfit mother there was at that time. But something divine spoke to me and by some miracle I listened, and as a result I have been blessed with one of the greatest gifts of my life: a beautiful, intelligent, funny, kind, compassionate, wonderful daughter who has taught me the meaning of the word hope.

But that was my choice, and it doesn't negate my feeling that there are a lot of people out there who protest and demonize women, but who are unwilling to take part in the solutions that will minimize the tragedy of abortion from occurring.


ETA: Iris Lily, thanks for the shout-out to the Catholic church. They deserve it.

I know of NO person who is 'pro-abortion'.

It is pro-choice, or no-choice. Semantics are important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

I know of NO person who is 'pro-abortion'.

It is pro-choice, or no-choice. Semantics are important.

---

I think we well understand the importance of semantics in the debate. Pro Death or Pro Infanticide is so distasteful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

I think we well understand the importance of semantics in the debate. Pro Death or Pro Infanticide is so distasteful.

---

I don't know. You can consider abortion to be a distasteful last resort, that should still be legal. Call it discretionary infanticide.

***MOD HAT ON***

Just wanted to remind everyone to take a deep breath. Abortion is a subject where feelings are usually fairly well entrenched. We've been down this road before, sometimes with less than stellar results, which is the reason for this somewhat more proactive than usual mod comment. Please just keep in mind that everyone here has the right to respectfully voice their opinions and beliefs without worrying about being chastised. Carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tradd

Social welfare programs that might actually help reduce the abortion rate are a danged sight more useful than marching around and doing little else.

---

Might I suggest a couple minor changes? Education that might actually help reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate (is) a danged sight more useful than anything else.

I don't know anyone who thinks lowering the number of abortions performed by lowering the number of women/girls who get pregnant is a bad idea. It's easy to see where moral opposition to abortion comes from. Not hard to figure out why some are theologically opposed to birth control. But its impossible for me to comprehend why we do not start teaching our kids basic human biology at a very early age and continue that all the way through high school.

I am not "pro-abortion," I am "pro-choice." If there were never another abortion performed on the planet because women had no further need for the procedure, it would be fine with me and every other pro choice person I know. We have no attachment to abortion. We don't hold it as a sacrament. But in this world, the real world, where real women are often faced with unplanned/unwanted or harmful pregnancies, the option must exist. When it is criminalized, women suffer and die.

What makes me angry, almost rageful, is the notion that anyone else, particularly some man, should dictate to me that I must be forced to bear a child against my will, that THEY have the right to tell me I must use my body in any particular way or that they have the right to intrude in MY private decisions about something that is so very personal. They would tell me that a fertilized egg or cytoblast or newly implanted embryo have more rights than I do, a grown sentient woman. I also hate the patronizing attitude as though women don't know what they are doing or the gravity of the decision. What makes me also very angry is that many of the same people who want to control women in this way and force childbirth on unwilling women in the name of protecting "babies" are the same folks who don't want to pay taxes to help other people with medical care, education, etc. So, all the instincts to protect life seem to end once the baby is born. Some of these same people support war, support the death penalty, want to eliminate foreign aid to starving children, don't want to spend any money so that poor women have access to birth control, applaud assassination of abortion doctors, harrass women going to clinics, have a punitive attitude towards women who have been brutalized by abortionists where the procedure is illegal. These attitudes which often, not always, but often, go hand in hand with the "pro life" movement have nothing to do with compassion and reverence for life but with imposing their belief systems on other people and in particular with controlling and punishing women.

BTW, a fetus is not a baby no matter how many times you say that. That is a belief, not a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

BTW, a fetus is not a baby no matter how many times you say that. That is a belief, not a fact.

---

If a fetus survives an abortion, is it a baby?

Rosebud, brava!

I knew from an early age I didn't want children, so I was very careful not to get pregnant. I've never had to face the abortion issue directly. But I have an observation and a question.

My observation is that adoption is no panacea. The idea that unwanted children invariably find themselves in happy homes, with never a thought about where they came from or who rejected them is a myth. If you don't believe me, take a stroll through Bastard Nation or any other adoptees' rights site. And every day, it seems, there's another horror story about actual children--not zygotes or fetuses--being neglected, tortured, killed. Given a choice, they might have preferred to materialize in some other situation--or not to have been born at all.

Which brings me to a religious/philosophical question. For those of you who believe in an eternal soul (as I tend to), wouldn't any individual whose earthly journey was cut short through failure to implant, miscarriage, abortion, or stillbirth just return to its spiritual home to await another opportunity? That seems like the logical course of events to me, but as far as I know (jump in here; I'm no religious scholar) no religion spells that out. Certainly there's nothing in the New Testament about it, or about abortion itself, as far as I know.

Jane, that sounds almost like reincarnation to me.

Something like that, though if its embodiment was thwarted it might not count as an incarnation at all. Also, if we have eternal souls, do we just get one shot at an earthly experience and then it's all harps and enlightenment? That doesn't seem right, so I lean toward reincarnation. I have many questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

If a fetus survives an abortion, is it a baby?

---

Only 1.5 percent of abortions in the US are performed after 21 weeks. There is zero viability outside the womb prior to 21 weeks, so really, this is not an issue that comes up and if it does come up, it is usually in the context of the mother's life being in danger or some fatal defect in the fetus. So, your question doesn't deal with the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

Only 1.5 percent of abortions in the US are performed after 21 weeks. There is zero viability outside the womb prior to 21 weeks, so really, this is not an issue that comes up and if it does come up, it is usually in the context of the mother's life being in danger or some fatal defect in the fetus. So, your question doesn't deal with the real world.

---

That doesn't answer the basis of the question. If you declare that a fetus is not a baby, at what point does it become one? Is it a baby at 21 weeks, 22 weeks, at successful full term birth?

I understand that it's important to get the terminology right when discussing this subject since any indication that an aborted fetus is an actual person harms the "pro choice" movement, so, I'm trying to understand when that change actually takes place. If it's at viability, let's say 21 weeks, does it make a difference if it's 20 weeks and 4 days when the mother decides to abort?

My conservative nature forces me to always err on the side of caution. That's what makes me suspicious of all loaded terms and convenient absolute truths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

If you declare that a fetus is not a baby, at what point does it become one? Is it a baby at 21 weeks, 22 weeks, at successful full term birth?

---

I've always felt that an abortion is between a woman and whatever God she prays to. In a perfect world the father/sperm donor, depending on your point of view, would also be part of deciding what to do. Abortion would never have been considered as an option in our home because privately we both believe life is possible without a fully conscious realization of the world. Like you Alan I always prefer to err on the side of caution, but that is also where our roads diverge. My pro-choice stance should in no way be construed as approval, but at the same time I am simply not qualified to make such decisions for anyone else.

The few female friends I have that chose abortion at some point in their lives without fail feel remorse and regret. That may not compare to what their fetus' endured, but it is nonetheless a very high price to pay for their decision. I can't even tell you what that means, but somehow I know that any choice that carries such a weight is beyond what I have capability to decide for anyone else.

Alan, I don't think you really understand the nature of abortion. In the vast majority of cases, the fetus is aborted through a tub a little larger than a straw. There is no viability there. This fetus would not survive outside the womb at any time. Just wouldn't happen.
The one or two bizarre cases aside, women do not wait until the 7th month to 'just abort' cause they don't want it. This just doesn't happen. I know the anti-choice people will find the one case, and then probably distort the truth of it to fit their agenda, but the vast vast majority of cases just aren't like this. Most are in the first couple of months. Do late abortions happen? Sure. But a real examination of the case will probably show that it was a case of dead fetuses, mothers life in very real risk, or a fetus laking a brain, for instance. Yes, that actually happens, and it is an extremely sad, soul wrenching time for the parents. People don't carry a baby that far just to 'get tired' of it. It doesn't happen. Nurses and doctors aren't killing babies and just keeping quiet about it. Do not believe the rhetoric. An IUD is an abortion. The pill is an abortion. A miscarriage is an abortion. This is a woman's life. You have absolutely no credibility, or say in it.

You keep talking about, railing against a personal mandate to buy into the national insurance pool, yet why can't you see this as a personal, the most personal mandate, to support, with your very health at risk, and carry a zygote until it becomes a person. It isn't even a person for many many months. And on top of that you don't even want to pay for the health care of the host-body in this religious mandate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

..... but somehow I know that any choice that carries such a weight is beyond what I have capability to decide for anyone else.

---

And yet, that choice is made for babies every day. If we define it as a matter of choice, I choose to advocate for the unborn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Alan, I don't think you really understand the nature of abortion. In the vast majority of cases, the fetus is aborted through a tub a little larger than a straw. There is no viability there. This fetus would not survive outside the womb at any time. Just wouldn't happen.
The one or two bizarre cases aside, women do not wait until the 7th month to 'just abort' cause they don't want it. This just doesn't happen. I know the anti-choice people will find the one case, and then probably distort the truth of it to fit their agenda, but the vast vast majority of cases just aren't like this. Most are in the first couple of months. Do late abortions happen? Sure. But a real examination of the case will probably show that it was a case of dead fetuses, mothers life in very real risk, or a fetus laking a brain, for instance. Yes, that actually happens, and it is an extremely sad, soul wrenching time for the parents. People don't carry a baby that far just to 'get tired' of it. It doesn't happen. Nurses and doctors aren't killing babies and just keeping quiet about it. Do not believe the rhetoric. An IUD is an abortion. The pill is an abortion. A miscarriage is an abortion. This is a woman's life. You have absolutely no credibility, or say in it.

You keep talking about, railing against a personal mandate to buy into the national insurance pool, yet why can't you see this as a personal, the most personal mandate, to support, with your very health at risk, and carry a zygote until it becomes a person. It isn't even a person for many many months. And on top of that you don't even want to pay for the health care of the host-body in this religious mandate.

---

So, if you don't accept the heartfelt opinions of others your preferred recourse is to question the motives or sincerity of the holder? You could do better if you wanted.

As a parent and grandparent, I believe strongly in my responsibility to place my offspring's interests above my own, whether they're considered human (by other's standards) or not. I simply can't do otherwise.

My understanding is that the majority of abortions are performed in the embryonic or early fetal stages well before neural development occurs. The idea that termination procedures are commonly performed on human tissue that's even recognizable as fetal, let alone that there's a "silent scream" involved is mostly promulgated by anti-choice advocates. But the more successful their efforts are, the fewer clinics exist, the more likely desperate women will require later-term procedures.

I agree with those who say it's all about control of women's sexuality. Many anti-choice people rail against any and all birth control and extra-marital sex as well. I'm inclined to think they descended from witch burners, but perhaps that's a bit harsh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

And yet, that choice is made for babies every day. If we define it as a matter of choice, I choose to advocate for the unborn.

---

I have no problem with someone using moral persausion to try to convince women not to terminate their pregnancies. I do have a problem with eliminating safe legal abortion as an option for women. I have a problem with harrassing women and their doctors and patronizing women and putting undue burdens on them I will continue to advocate for women.

You ask me when a fetus becomes a baby and I say there is no bright line that will satisfy everyone other than actual birth at a viable stage. Asking me about a live birth in the context of an abortion is not a serious question and you know it. I could ask you what if an 11 year old mentally ill girl is raped by her father and has a medical condition that would kill her if she did not abort and the pregnancy was caught within a minute so that the fetus was only a day old and it was known that the child would be born with severe and painful deformities. Is abortion ok in that situation?

I will ask you this: Is a fertilized egg a baby? A human being?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

I will ask you this: Is a fertilized egg a baby? A human being?

---

I'm not sure. You said a fetus is not a baby. Was that simply the language of pro choice? It's not a baby until I decide it is?
I couldn't possibly speak with that degree of certainty, although I'm pretty sure a baby exists within the time frame of legal abortion. That's why it's important to me to err on the side of life and dispute self-serving rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Asking me about a live birth in the context of an abortion is not a serious question and you know it.

---

Sure it is. Even though our medical professionals are very good at what they do, baby's still occasionally survive abortions. Then Senator Barack Obama thought it was problematic enough to sponsor legislation forbidding medical care to those who do survive while serving in the Illinois legislature. He was serious about it, wasn't he?

[QUOTE=alan;63866]I'm not sure. You said a fetus is not a baby. Was that simply the language of pro choice? It's not a baby until I decide it is?
I couldn't possibly speak with that degree of certainty, although I'm pretty sure a baby exists within the time frame of legal abortion. That's why it's important to me to err on the side of life and dispute self-serving rhetoric.K


Sure it is. Even though our medical professionals are very good at what they do, baby's still occasionally survive abortions. Then Senator Barack Obama thought it was problematic enough to sponsor legislation forbidding medical care to those who do survive while serving in the Illinois legislature. He was serious about it, wasn't he?[/

First I am quite sure that more girls and women have been harmed by forced continuation of dangerous pregnancies than than there are babies born in the aftermath of botched abortions. Certainly more women die in childbirth than die as a result of complications following legal abortions. And we know for sure that women will risk their own lives to terminate unwanted pregnancies when abortion is illegal and a significant number of them die So you can continue to focus on the tiny tiny number of babies who survive abortions if you like but I'll take the utilitarian approach and focus on the much much larger number of girls and women who get hurt when safe legal abortion is not an available option.

I agree that the more a fetus developes the murkier the line becomes and the more difficult it becomes to balance the interests. But there is a distnction between the potential for human life and human life. We know for sure that a woman is a human being. And there is no other situation in which you would advocate the violation of a person's liberty and bodily integrity. You don't even think people should be forced to pay taxes. You 're saying you have more rights to your property than women have to their own self determination. In the balance of interests, you don't think you should be forced to pay any amount of money to save the life of another person but a woman must be forced to essentially save the life of another person by sacrificing her body to the task of incubation. I don't understand why your property rights are more valuable and sacrosanct than a woman's privacy rights and rights to her own body. Ultimately it always has to be the woman's decision. Not your decision.

Smooth move squishing more anti Obama propaganda into the conversation. I know these charges have been debunked time and time again so I'm not going to bother to respond. Another day another canard...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

You 're saying you have more rights to your property than women have to their own self determination. In the balance of interests, you don't think you should be forced to pay any amount of money to save the life of another person but a woman must be forced to essentially save the life of another person by sacrificing her body to the task of incubation. I don't understand why your property rights are more valuable and sacrosanct than a woman's privacy rights and rights to her own body. Ultimately it always has to be the woman's decision. Not your decision.

---

I know quite a few people who are pro-life. I can not think of a single one who I suspect of holding that position due to any antiquated notion regarding the suppression of women's rights. If there is a canard to be had, that is it. Women's rights, or the desire to limit them, have nothing to do with why those people oppose abortion. There is no bright line between fertilized egg and sentient being. Without fail the people I know who oppose abortion do so because they firmly believe they are advocating for those without voices of their own. To claim that the desire to take away the rights of the mother is a motivation for the pro-life movement is at best a strawman deflecting us from the deeper questions raised in the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

Smooth move squishing more anti Obama propaganda into the conversation. I know these charges have been debunked time and time again so I'm not going to bother to respond. Another day another canard...

---

Well, Mr. Obama does have a very strong pro-abortion record of votes and appointments. Some will support him for that, others will oppose him, but his record is public knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

Certainly there's nothing in the New Testament about it, or about abortion itself, as far as I know.

---

The one instance of abortion that I know of in the Bible is Numbers 5:11-31. According to this, abortion is okay if the wife has committed adultery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

Smooth move squishing more anti Obama propaganda into the conversation. I know these charges have been debunked time and time again so I'm not going to bother to respond. Another day another canard...

---

Debunked...Canard? I'll admit I mis-spoke when I mentioned Senator Obama sponsoring legislation when he actually blocked legislation which would have legally classified abortion survivors as "live birth".

Providing an example to dispute your contention that my question doesn't deal with the "real world" isn't anti Obama. It's simply evidence that it's "real world" enough for our top elected official.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

I know quite a few people who are pro-life. I can not think of a single one who I suspect of holding that position due to any antiquated notion regarding the suppression of women's rights.

---

That's not what rosebud is saying at all. I realize there are probably very few pro-life people who are pro-life in order to keep women down. The point is, they don't have the right to legislate a woman's personal choice. Is the right of a sentient human being greater than the right of a mass of cells that are housed in that human beings's body, especially when, as you pointed out, there is no "bright line"? I believe so.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, because of my personal experience, I am as pro-life as you can get, but I'm not about to legislate my beliefs and impose them on another woman in the absence of that bright line. It's not "women's" rights--I also don't have the right to legislate how many rooms you should have in your house, or what color clothes to wear. I also don't have the right to dictate how many kids you have, or what career you must choose, or how much time you must spend with your family, or how much money you have to spend on charity. Imagine if someone did try to impose those kinds of laws on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

As I mentioned in my earlier post, because of my personal experience, I am as pro-life as you can get, but I'm not about to legislate my beliefs and impose them on another woman in the absence of that bright line.

---

Exactly my feelings as well Catherine. As I've said before, its a decision I'm only comfortable making for myself (or in my case with my wife). We've concluded that the "mass of cells" is alive and at the very least has all the genetic makeup of a human being and so abortion would not be an option for us. For that reason I do think the debate gets off course when people compare abortion rights to property or other rights. A governing entity telling you what to wear or deciding career paths intrudes on its citizens' liberty. That is something that should be rallied against, but is rarely actually life threatening. The difference with abortion is that it really is a life and death situation.

That fertilized egg is a mass of human cells and there are people who feel a very deep obligation to protect it from harm. If I saw your 5 year old child being threatened on their way home from school I would intervene. Part of that reaction would be based on the fact that most 5 year olds can't adequately defend themselves. Wherever that bright line is, by kindergarten age most of us have an easy time agreeing that the child has crossed it. As that line moves backwards (chronologically) more and more variables enter into the mix. For my own family we believe that conception is the beginning of a new life. Others set the line at 21 weeks or birth or any number of other benchmarks.

Abortion is not a defining political issue in my house. It just isn't. The reason I am pro-choice politically, frankly, has nothing to do with women's rights. It's simply a matter of wanting the government to stay the @#&% out of what should be a very private matter. Our politicians have plenty of problems effecting far more people that they better start concentrating on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

So, if you don't accept the heartfelt opinions of others your preferred recourse is to question the motives or sincerity of the holder? You could do better if you wanted.

As a parent and grandparent, I believe strongly in my responsibility to place my offspring's interests above my own, whether they're considered human (by other's standards) or not. I simply can't do otherwise.

---

I didn't question your motives. I question your knowledge of abortions and what really goes on in the vast vast majority of cases. I"m sure your motives are completely honest. But your knowledge is fuzzy, and probably from the heightened rhetoric of the anti-choice crowd, who's motives are also probably honest.
I don't believe the motives are necessarily to control women, but that is the outcome. And as rosebud pointed out, it's kind of disingenuous that the crowd who cheers letting the poor slob die who failed to get insurance thinks it's just fine and dandy to force a woman to carry a zygote to person hood...just as long as they don't have to pay for it.

I wonder what those people would think if the government told them that because of their blood type, they have to be hooked up by IV to a dying man for 9 months to save his life, and that without this IV hook-up this other person would die. It's saving a life, right? They must sacrifice their 9 months, and put their health in danger to save this other person, who actually is a person. Government mandate. What would they say then? Do you think they would revolt? Would you? Kind of the ultimate government mandate, isn't it. Do we force people to give a kidney?

You have no credibility in this simply because you are a man. Period. Just a fact of life. Men, who have no idea what so ever, nor will they ever, in carrying and childbirth, should not be a part of the decision except where their own family is concerned.
You are against abortion? Fine, don't get one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

Exactly my feelings as well Catherine. As I've said before, its a decision I'm only comfortable making for myself (or in my case with my wife). We've concluded that the "mass of cells" is alive and at the very least has all the genetic makeup of a human being and so abortion would not be an option for us. For that reason I do think the debate gets off course when people compare abortion rights to property or other rights. A governing entity telling you what to wear or deciding career paths intrudes on its citizens' liberty. That is something that should be rallied against, but is rarely actually life threatening. The difference with abortion is that it really is a life and death situation.

That fertilized egg is a mass of human cells and there are people who feel a very deep obligation to protect it from harm. If I saw your 5 year old child being threatened on their way home from school I would intervene. Part of that reaction would be based on the fact that most 5 year olds can't adequately defend themselves. Wherever that bright line is, by kindergarten age most of us have an easy time agreeing that the child has crossed it. As that line moves backwards (chronologically) more and more variables enter into the mix. For my own family we believe that conception is the beginning of a new life. Others set the line at 21 weeks or birth or any number of other benchmarks.

Abortion is not a defining political issue in my house. It just isn't. The reason I am pro-choice politically, frankly, has nothing to do with women's rights. It's simply a matter of wanting the government to stay the @#&% out of what should be a very private matter. Our politicians have plenty of problems effecting far more people that they better start concentrating on.

---

+1

Thanks, Gregg. Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

You have no credibility in this simply because you are a man. Period. Just a fact of life. Men, who have no idea what so ever, nor will they ever, in carrying and childbirth, should not be a part of the decision except where their own family is concerned.

---

Thanks for your perspective.

Quote:

---

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me

---

Shouldn't that go more like "First, they came for her tonsils..." ?

As my mother used to say about the rabidly anti-choice "They love 'em up until they're born."
She clearly would have agreed with George Carlin, as I do.