I'm a pro abortion extremist.

Where's my tee shirt?

Right here, Kiala:
http://www.zazzle.com/obamas_for_partial_b…

Omg. If I wore that ironically do you think people would get it?

I still think 'pro-abortion extremist' sounds like someone who wants to force everyone to have abortions whether they want one or not...

Typical of your ilk, you have not only completely misrepresented Professor George's views and arguments for your own twisted purposes, you have maligned one of America's most esteemed and accomplished thinkers in the process. Robert P. George is a tenured professor at Princeton (hardly a bastion of conservatism) and one of the most respected and in-demand teachers on campus. He also happens to be one of the most gracious and warm individuals you will ever meet.

So-called "pro-choice" folks don't like to hear the lucid reasoning of people like Dr. George because he makes clear exactly what the "choice" they support is: a choice to extingusih an innocent human life for the sake of, in almost all cases of abortion, convenience.

The truth hurts, even if doesn't make for a hip t-shirt.

I used to think proclaiming to be "pro choice" was okay. I now beleive the REAL choice is the choice to have have sexual intercourse with a male and especially not to use birth control. Women and girls have been dumbed down to a lower irresponsible level. We women have power, more power than men. We can say "no". Stay away from cads! In most cases of rape, it is a case of "poor judgement/aka choice" due to putting yourself in a risky situation. Alcohol and drugs create a supreme disadvantage for females. I know rape does exist, sadly I do know victims. I am Pro Life, not Pro Abortion. Odd, how pro abortion people find it uncomfortable to proclaim the truth, and try to soften it by saying they are "Pro Choice"

Women are at fault for their own rapes if they use alcohol or drugs?! Are you fucking serious? I don't know if I'll ever wrap my mind around the puritanical idea that there must be a terrible punishment for any "vice" such as having sex, or as Epogu has extrapolated, drinking or doing any drugs.

Elpoqu, I am pro-choice. I personally think that birth control should be the first priority. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs, abortion (which is still legal) should be an option. That makes me PRO-CHOICE.

You however are not pro-life, you're a forced birther!

Do you think there is a difference between abortion and infanticide? If so, what are the key differences that make one (infanticide) illegal and the other (abortion) legal. I think this concept helps make the issue more clear.

z

Elpogu, you seem to hate women, which is a tragedy, since you claim to be a woman yourself. To blame a woman for being raped is disgusting, and for that you should be ashamed. I am with the previous poster, childfree: Birth control should be the first option, and abortion should be the last resort. I don't think I could personally have an abortion, but I will defend a woman's right make the choices concerning her own body.

Vitamin Z - the difference is that infanticide involves killing someone who is capable of thought Abortion involves getting rid of a foetus, and a foetus is (in my mind, and the mind of scientists who know far more about it than either of us) not capable of thought. Comparing infanticide to abortion is like comparing killing a puppy with killing a bacteria. something which most of us do on a daily basis, every time we have a shower.

In the third presidential debate Senator Obama made the claim that he would ban Partial Birth abortions if protection was given with regards to the health of the mother. This is an empty argument since the baby is killed after it has been 90% delivered and only its head is still in the womb. The mother's health is not in jeopardy for that last second it takes to deliver the baby. He is just being dishonest. Take a look at this video which goes into detail of this hideous procedure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5qu87aXc20

Read the article and do some research! Obama is much farther left than just pro-choice.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarti…

Stu,

Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development (i.e., higher brain function) decisive rather than another? Why shouldn't it be, "they have fingernails now, thus they should be protected?"

If something is incapable of thought then we should kill it? What about people who are severely mentally retarded? So since one is not as developed we should have the right to kill it? Why does "thought" allow killing? That is certainly arbitrary. Can you give reasons why that is good criteria? I am sure that we both would want our personhood to be defined my something a bit stronger than "my thoughts" (I know what Descartes said).

Animals don't think (like we do) should we have the right to kill them at will? Further, how could we ever know when they start thinking and thus should not be killed? Do babies begin thinking when they exit the womb? I'm sure that you would say no. Do you believe that traveling 6 inches down the birth canal somehow automatically begins the "thinking" process? Thus the arbitrary nature of your argument is clear.

True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Stu, I am sure that you are sincere and know that I am all about a woman's right to choose lots of things: Her doctor, her religion, her job, her friends, her choice of childcare, her parenting style, etc, but I am just not in favor of a woman's right to choose to kill another human being because it is in the way and can't defend itself.

Dear 'The Truth Does Hurt',
You are a prime example of the ignorance found in the typical city or suburb-dwelling liberal. A chicken will lay an egg wether it is fertilized or not, and only unfertilized eggs are sold in stores. Research before speaking ensures that one's credibility is not compromised. Yours is zero and you drag many down with you.
One point I would like to make is that many moderate "Pro-Life" supporters only fit that description because they believe in personal responsibility. They do not want to subsidize abortion.
After knowing women that have gone through abortions and seeing the harmful effects the abortions have had on them, I am in the "Pro-Life" column.

Dear Truth Hurts,

Dinner at my house is definitely interesting because we have lucid, well-reasoned, and intelligent discussions. We know the difference between chickens and eggs (which, as trappedinliberalville points out, you clearly do not).

But let me address your main point concerning where life begins. Only a pro-abortion ideologue can deny what embryology clearly shows: that life begins at conception. The pro-abortion Barack Obama says, like many pro-abortionists, that he does not known when life begins (it is "above his pay grade"). I think he chooses to be ignorate on the matter, but let us say for the sake of argument that he doesn't know when life begins. Given this admitted ignorance, why would he not error on the side of caution and assume that life may begin at conception?

Most people get abortions for the sake of convenience, and in doing so they are sacrificing a human life. I am tired of the phony compassion of phony liberals. Mr. Obama sees babies as "punishment." So, apparently, does the vulgar Dr. Something.

DogStar,
Help me out here and review your spelling. Let's quit giving "The truth does hurt" cheap ammunition.

The truth does hurt,
After Obama wins the election, I am going to quit my job, sign up for a welfare check, and use my food stamps to buy eggs. Someone has to save those eggs...