LETTER: Stand up for the unborn child

There have been many people outraged by the treatment of dogs and animals in recent letters to the editor.

[marysaidyes2life]

Tony wrote:

Get involved make a diffrence. contact [e-mail] and get info on prolife rally near you.

thanks for your hard work
May God bless you and yours

[JayDubya]

It always sickens me to see people up in arms about animals when our society allows the legal slaughter of its own young.

[Writing in Paradise]

I'd rather stand up for women's rights. Thanks.

[John Coffey]

Writing in Paradise wrote:

I'd rather stand up for women's rights. Thanks.

So you stand up for a women's right to kill. Is that what you are saying wip?

[Writing in Paradise]

John Coffey wrote:

<quoted text>
So you stand up for a women's right to kill. Is that what you are saying wip?

In some situations, yes.

[Sue]

John Coffey wrote:

<quoted text>
So you stand up for a women's right to kill. Is that what you are saying wip?

That's what she's saying.

[John Coffey]

Writing in Paradise wrote:

<quoted text>
In some situations, yes.

I don't care what the "situation" is as you call it. Murder is murder. Plain and simple. Lets get real honest here. The term "pro-choice" is just candy coating abortion. Those that say abortion is ok are not "pro-choice" because the baby has "no-choice". Lets call it what it is. "Pro-death".

[Writing in Paradise]

John Coffey wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't care what the "situation" is as you call it. Murder is murder. Plain and simple. Lets get real honest here. The term "pro-choice" is just candy coating abortion. Those that say abortion is ok are not "pro-choice" because the baby has "no-choice". Lets call it what it is. "Pro-death".

Perhaps you should look up what "murder" means.

[Johnny13]

John Coffey wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't care what the "situation" is as you call it. Murder is murder. Plain and simple. Lets get real honest here. The term "pro-choice" is just candy coating abortion. Those that say abortion is ok are not "pro-choice" because the baby has "no-choice". Lets call it what it is. "Pro-death".

If murder is murder, please describe another murder that resembles an abortion. It is called pro-choice to illustrate the choice you would deny. Everyone supports a woman's right to choose to bring a pregnancy to completion and keep it, or allow it to be adopted. The embryo deoes not get a choice, because it is incapable of making a choice. It is blank tissue. A potential proto human. No more a person than a chicken egg is a hen. Pro-death is less correct than calling you anti-choice. I use the term pro-life in an attempt to keep the conversation from becoming childish most of the time, but it hardly seems accurate. The woman is certainly more alive than the microflesh, and you don't support her at all.

[jeopardynerd]

John Coffey wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't care what the "situation" is as you call it. Murder is murder. Plain and simple. Lets get real honest here. The term "pro-choice" is just candy coating abortion. Those that say abortion is ok are not "pro-choice" because the baby has "no-choice". Lets call it what it is. "Pro-death".

thank you. its not spiritual.....once concieved, the "fetus" is no longer the same being as the mother, if it is not ok to do it in later pregnancy, than why is it ok before 22 week?

[jeopardynerd]

Johnny13 wrote:

<quoted text>
If murder is murder, please describe another murder that resembles an abortion. It is called pro-choice to illustrate the choice you would deny. Everyone supports a woman's right to choose to bring a pregnancy to completion and keep it, or allow it to be adopted. The embryo deoes not get a choice, because it is incapable of making a choice. It is blank tissue. A potential proto human. No more a person than a chicken egg is a hen. Pro-death is less correct than calling you anti-choice. I use the term pro-life in an attempt to keep the conversation from becoming childish most of the time, but it hardly seems accurate. The woman is certainly more alive than the microflesh, and you don't support her at all.

im sorry, but i have a one year old daughter, and until she was about 3 months old outside my body, SHE WAS ALSO INCAPABLE OF MAKING CHOICES, now she can make choices, what tou to play with, how much to eat, ect. so whats your point? someone of any age that is handicapped in the mind can not make choices, so we should kill them too, if they are not wanted? i guess you support the terry schivo murder?

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

It's pretty sickening when religious bigots get to define what is legal and what is not. All based on THEIR narrow interpretation of their own faith.

It's a clear violation of the separation of church and state clause.

The definition that "all abortions" is "murder" is SOLELY based on RELIGIOUS ideas. SUBJECTIVE religious ideas, at that.

And NOT on anything objective.

Sickening, really.

[Johnny13]

jeopardynerd wrote:

<quoted text>
im sorry, but i have a one year old daughter, and until she was about 3 months old outside my body, SHE WAS ALSO INCAPABLE OF MAKING CHOICES, now she can make choices, what tou to play with, how much to eat, ect. so whats your point? someone of any age that is handicapped in the mind can not make choices, so we should kill them too, if they are not wanted? i guess you support the terry schivo murder?

Congratulations on you daughter. Mine is 3 years old. I did support the Schivo decision. The conversation was so muddy, but I would not want to live on in that state, and it seems reasonable that the Schivos could have had the same conversation that my wife and I have had as well. If it came to that, I hope you would respect out right to die in dignity.

Lastly. You daughter was born into the world, capable of functioning independently of your wife. The embryo cannot. It is very frustrating to have people continually imbue the equivalent of an appendix with all the rights and privileges of a full born person, at the expense of the person most affected by the decision.

[jeopardynerd]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

It's pretty sickening when religious bigots get to define what is legal and what is not. All based on THEIR narrow interpretation of their own faith.
It's a clear violation of the separation of church and state clause.
The definition that "all abortions" is "murder" is SOLELY based on RELIGIOUS ideas. SUBJECTIVE religious ideas, at that.
And NOT on anything objective.
Sickening, really.

that comment was sickening really. how is a heart beating at 18 days after conception and fully formed body at 6 weeks religious....and not scientific fact? our country determines the laws, and if you can rememeber.....slavery was also legal at one time, or is the idea of freedom for and equal rights for EVERYONE a crazy christian belief?

[steph]

ok, here is a hypothetical for all you pro-life people equating abortion with murder.

a woman, lets call her jane, decides to have sex, gets pregnant and gives birth. shortly after, the doctors tell her that her baby is ill and needs a bone marrow transplant to survive. jane is the only matching donor, without the transplant her baby will die. jane has decided motherhood isn't as great as she thought it would be and declines to donate bone marrow to her child. do you or the state have the right to force her? she may be morally bankrupt but legally, has she committed murder?

another woman, we'll call her jill, has sex and gets pregnant. jill has never wanted childern and, considering that the mortality rate for carrying a pregnancy to term is 10 times greater than having an abortion (stats from the CDC, 2000), jill decides she does not want to donate her uterus and the majority of her nutritional intake to the embryo inside her body. even assuming the embryo has the same rights as the child in scenario A, can you or the state force her to undergo the medical option you would choose for her (laber & delivery)? morally, her choice may be questionable but legally, is it murder?

the only difference between the two scenarios is one is outside the woman's body and the other is inside. why should the state give the embryo in scenario B a greater right to life than the child in scenario A?

[Child Of God]

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts ...

Worldwide abortions in a year: 46 million
Worwide abortions in a day: 126,000
Abortions in a year in the United States: 1.37 million
Abortions in a one day in The United States: Appox. 3,700

Abortion is about death! A Pro Life position is to defend life. A human fetus has the potential to become a person, and a fetus is already alive and living.

To destroy any form of life can only be defined as killing life.(Period!) So those who defend freedom of choice as pertaining to abortion, are actually defending the destruction of life, that has the potential to develop into a fully developed human person.

So it's really about Pro Life or Pro Death! It's not really about choice. The mother will live either way, whether she destroys the life in her womb or not, but the life in her womb depends on the mother for survival.

The choice isn't about the mother's body, as so many Pro Choice activists continually blurt out. It's really about the body of a fetus in the womb, which won't ever have a chance for life if killed and destroyed prematurely.

46 million worldwide abortions every year, which also means 46 million more people won't be alive in a few years because of abortions.

That adds up to about 460 million in ten years, or adds up to 1380 million people in 30 years. Which means there's over a billion people who aren't here today because of abortions in the last 30 years.

I believe that's a figure that's hard for anyone to justify. Over a billion people destroyed while still in their mother's womb.

Never has a baby's life been threaten or in more danger, than in the mother's womb today! The one place a baby should be safer than anywhere else.

By the way! Some will say I object to abortion because of my christianity, but I was debating this issue before I ever picked up a Bible.

I picked up a Bible in 1969, but I was debating this issue with radio talk hosts since 1964, before I even understood what Christianity was all about.

Abortion is wrong!(Period!)Abortion is about snuffing out a heartbeat! ProLifers fight to keep that little heart beating.

[Johnny13]

jeopardynerd wrote:

<quoted text>
that comment was sickening really. how is a heart beating at 18 days after conception and fully formed body at 6 weeks religious....and not scientific fact?

Because the body is not fully formed at 6 weeks. It is the size of a grain of rice, and is only vaguely human shaped. It has the rudimentary idea of organs, and begining formation of a brain. That is why it is not scientific. Your person is not yet a person at all.

[jeopardynerd]

steph wrote:

ok, here is a hypothetical for all you pro-life people equating abortion with murder.
a woman, lets call her jane, decides to have sex, gets pregnant and gives birth. shortly after, the doctors tell her that her baby is ill and needs a bone marrow transplant to survive. jane is the only matching donor, without the transplant her baby will die. jane has decided motherhood isn't as great as she thought it would be and declines to donate bone marrow to her child. do you or the state have the right to force her? she may be morally bankrupt but legally, has she committed murder?
another woman, we'll call her jill, has sex and gets pregnant. jill has never wanted childern and, considering that the mortality rate for carrying a pregnancy to term is 10 times greater than having an abortion (stats from the CDC, 2000), jill decides she does not want to donate her uterus and the majority of her nutritional intake to the embryo inside her body. even assuming the embryo has the same rights as the child in scenario A, can you or the state force her to undergo the medical option you would choose for her (laber & delivery)? morally, her choice may be questionable but legally, is it murder?
the only difference between the two scenarios is one is outside the woman's body and the other is inside. why should the state give the embryo in scenario B a greater right to life than the child in scenario A?

well, A is sick and you cannot force someone to harvest tissue from the body.

B is killing the baby.

the same as if someone's brother needs a transplant, and they are the only one able to, and decides not to, that also not "murder".
its not right, but its not murder.

to take someones life by dimembering them or cutting their head off os murder, no matter what age. why dont they get that? its fact, not opinion.

look at abort73.com

[jeopardynerd]

Johnny13 wrote:

<quoted text>
Because the body is not fully formed at 6 weeks. It is the size of a grain of rice, and is only vaguely human shaped. It has the rudimentary idea of organs, and begining formation of a brain. That is why it is not scientific. Your person is not yet a person at all.

get your facts straight, there are photos of each week starting at 7 weeks at abort73.com.

[Lucy Lui]

Tony wrote:

Get involved make a diffrence. contact [e-mail] and get info on prolife rally near you.

I'd love to get pregnant by you and then abort your "unborn child" out of spite. You'll be crying yourself to sleep on your big pillow! Meh, probably not, because you really don't care or believe about fetuses, you just want to oppress women.