Posted by bakunin (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't see these people out there "protesting" for life when George Bush and Dick Cheney were taking the U.S. into a pointless war (no, excuse me, a war that has made the world and country far worse places), a war that has slaughtered at least a half-million innocent civilians. These protesters were too busy being religious I guess. The one war has cost, the gov says, 3 trillion dollars, but it's more like 6 trillion, money that would have kept the U.S. economy in very good condition, instead of in a state of a ruin, a situation that will cause terrible hardship on millions, but again, religious folks don't want to be consistent.

Posted by BenWyles (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Comparing this issue to the war issue is the most ignorant statement I've seen recently. This nation went to war for the cause of liberty. You'd do well to study history, for your knowledge of the cause of freedom is seriously devoid of substance.
For thousands of years oppression has existed. That's one problem, many fail or refuse to believe that evil does exist. Terrorists held power in Afghanistan and our own version of Adolf Hitler ruled Iraq. Have you taken the time to determine just how many innocent people have been murdered by these two governments, in place supposedly for the good of the people? Had people like you been in power here in 1941 we would have never taken on Germany and on 9/12/2001 we would have all joined hands, sang Kum Bay Ya and apologized for placing our buildings in the way of those jetliners!

Throughout history, when people have suffered powerlessly under oppression, somewhere in the world some little guy has always been willing to stand up and take the brunt of the fighting for those who can't. God bless the American soldier!

You wonder why innocents die in war? It's because the cowards hide behind their children! You wonder why we're still there? Simply because we're the only nation that ever stays behind to rebuild what was destroyed and to establish a free government.

Abortion is just slaughter of completely and utterly innocent life for the sake of convenience.

Posted by momoftwo23 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sentas - If you think you are so smart why don't you go to work for the ND?

I am actually glad that there was one-side to this story because the other side is nothing but MURDER!!!

Bakunin - I totally agree with Ben on this one. You should get a history book and do a little reading! There is a huge difference in protecting our FREEDOM as AMERICANS and KILLING UNBORN CHILDREN!!! Say what you must, but I am sure you know what is right in your heart even if you must be in denial.

Posted by kangaroochaser (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We managed to have a perfectly civil discussion on the issue on a Top of the Morning thread, with the exception of a couple of trolls who tried to start something and were quite properly ignored. It is possible if people enter into the discussion without making unfounded assumptions about the people on the other side of the issue.

Posted by getreal (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

people--this was a pro life rally if it had been a discussion on abortion then i could see opposing views in the artical, but it was not. this dicussion should only be about abortion, nothing more or nothing less, when you bring other topics into the discussion, such as war, that gets people away from the topic at hand, and to top it all off you tend to generalize when you do not have a clue as to these peoples views on tne other topics are.

Posted by priya (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

there was still abortions before this Roe Vs Wade. It was just done illegally and hidden. I dont want to go back to the days where women's lives were in danger.

Posted by bellesouth (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe this could have been included in the article.

The White House press office released a powerful statement from the new President:

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.

On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We have a pro choice president that releases terrorist from prison . We're off and running. The poor babies in the womb and on the battlefields! I really do respect the presidency of the United States of America. I really do want our new president to do a good job. It is just really hard to agree with all his politics. I wonder if he ever looks at his beautiful little girls and thanks God they weren't aborted. There're a lot of beautiful souls in heaven that didn't have the chance to become president because some mother decided it wasn't TIME for HER to be a mother. It's a good thing for President Obama his unwed mother didn't feel that way. Abortion is murder and murder is never a choice. It's a sin.

Posted by kangaroochaser (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Priya, there were several states where abortion was perfectly legal prior to the passage of Roe. The effect of Roe was to remove the decision regarding the legality of abortion from the hands of the people of the states and put it in the hands of the federal government.

Posted by kangaroochaser (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Addendum: there is an excellent graphic on the legality of abortion pre-Roe in the Wiki article "Abortion in the United States".

Posted by rgn661 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Abortion is a SIN !! If the mother doesn't want an unplanned pregnancy, she shouldn't engage in sex to start with. There should be provisions made in the case of rape or incest.
God says in His Word that He knew each of us before conception. A life is a life no matter how young and to abort that life is MURDER !!! As for medicl issues, it should only be done when the doctors can show through amniocentesis that the baby is dying.
Also, SENTAS...the abortion issue will not be resolved in ANY message board! This issue can't have two sides to the story when the innocent little babies cannot even speak up for themselves. I look forward to seeing what kind of derogatory comment you have about me since you obviously don't like to be called out....ALSO, you don't know what kind of character MOMOFTWO23 is ....you just don't like her views and feel threatened by her comments. SO, go ahead and make a comment about me so I can be characterized in the same sense as her! I am for PROTECTING THESE INNOCENT BABIES!!! It don't matter what people like you say....God hears and knows ALL!!!!

Posted by SandraSue (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with BenWiles and southernbelle.The American soldier VOLUNTEERS to take the risk of bodily injury and even death to serve our nation and for the cause of freedom.On the other hand, the unborn does not volunteer to suffer the pain of abortion.Bellesouth commends government staying out of "our most private matters" and protecting a woman's right to choose. If government should stay out of private matters, why should the tax payers support the women's right to choose abortion as birth control? The new president wants to give 1.5 billion tax payer dollars to support abortion clinics,AKA Planned Parenthood.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

War is a totally different subject. All of our military is now voluntary and everyone of our service people know when they join the possibility of going to war.
Unborn babies have no choice. It has always been up to the parents to choose wisely for their children, but too many parents now are too selfish. Another question that brings to mind. What about the fathers? When are they going to get a voice in abortion? How many men would be willing to take their child and raise it properly? Probably not a lot, but some I am sure would jump at the chance.
And pryia, women are still hurt today in abortion clinics. Stop and think about it. If chemicals are put into her body to kill a baby, don't you think she sustains injury? If a vacumn is shoved up inside her to suction out a baby, don't you think it can suction out more than an innocent life? And think about the psycological consequences. I have a friend who had an abortion about 26 years ago, and she still suffers severe depression to the point of hospitalization each year. She already had 2 and thought she wasn't ready for another. After the "legal" abortion she found out she can no longer have any children, even though now she desperately wants one. Abortion is not just the killing of what some want to call "tissue mass", it damages the whole family.

Posted by kangaroochaser (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is no particular secret where I stand, but I also believe that we can discuss the issue without descending to the level of name calling and ad hominem. Since you seem to know who I am, you probably know that I am quite active in my church, however, it may surprise you to know that my opposition to abortion does not stem from any particularly religious motivation. I was sensitized to the issue some 30 years ago when I attended a presentation by a lawyer. At that time the "It's my body" argument reigned supreme. The lawyer read excerpts from what everyone in the audience assumed was a current court case dealing with the abortion issue. Imagine our surprise when he revealed the source of the quotes--the Dred Scott Decision. The humanity of the unborn child was further bolstered in my opinion when advances in medical technology combined with what I already know from my professional training put paid to the "Its just a mass of cells" argument in my mind.

Posted by momoftwo23 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Getreal - I will take a stand and be a voice for the unborn children that can not speak for themselves. For someone to even compare the war to murdering unborn babies is ludicrous.

Priya - Maybe we need to go back to those days. I am sure there were far less abortions then because of the fact of how high risk it was. I dont mind these woman that choose to have an abortion putting themselves at risk. In my opinion if something happens to them maybe that is their punishment for murdering a child that will or has never been able to speak for themselves or defend themselves.

I think all women who have abortions BECAUSE OF THE FACT THEY DONT WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILTY should be worried about the risk of being CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER WITH THE PUNISHMENT BEING THE DEATH PENATLY!!!!!

Posted by bellesouth (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bush has already released gitmo prisoners who are back on the battlefield. It is his fault for setting up a system that was bound to fail which about sums up his presidency.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Abortion is a SIN !! If the mother doesn't want an unplanned pregnancy, she shouldn't engage in sex to start with. There should be provisions made in the case of rape or incest."

Either it is a sin or not...you can't have provisions.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bellesouth,two wrongs don't make a right.We can't do anything about a President Bush administration. It's history. We can't do anything about a President Obama administration,we've elected him. I still don't agree to murder unborn babies.I don't care who is president. I don't want my hard earned tax dollars used for it. That's aiding and abetting in my book. I don't want that on my conscience . I have enough there already.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Notfrom, I do have to agree with you there. A sin is a sin.

Posted by rgn661 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are right .....you can't have provisions. It IS a sin to kill an unborn child. Maybe the child should be brought into the world and given up for adoption....there are plenty of people who want kids and can't have them. I'm only saying that those who choose to have sex shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a means of birth control.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you don't believe that war should be brought into this discussion about abortion, then you are sadly mistaken. Some people may not wish to bring an innocent life into a world with wars, a bad world where bad things happen to innocent children, a bad world that will force that innocent child to go to war should he/she make it to that age when they can enlist or be drafted, a bad world that would punish a child whose parent is unable to provide for them. All day everyday people are on here and other comment boards bashing people on welfare or getting food stamps and talking about them as if they are dogs, and then you want to force that mother to bring another life into this world that they can't afford to take care of or feed, a child that you could care less about once it starts gasping for breath. First of all we need to address the real reasons that a pregnant female would consider abortion, then we need to find solutions to end unwanted pregnancies, then we need to help males understand that they too can take control of ending unwanted pregnancies by having a vasectomy if all they want to do is poke fun instead of taking it serious when having sex.

And you say those people over there are hiding behind their children and using them to fight their wars? Really? Well are you hiding behind yours and using them to fight your wars? Have you not instilled in your childrens' minds that it is their duty to go fight for YOUR freedom? You say they strap bombs on theirs, but you sit yours in jets that drop bombs! If they had jets then maybe they wouldn't be strapping bombs on theirs. But have you ever considered that their kids are volunteering just like yours to fight for their freedom too? Have you ever considered that their kids wouldn't be fighting your kids if your kids weren't in their country dropping bombs and blowing them up?

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

time4, my son was not sitting in a jet, he was fighting on the ground. You really need to find an Afgan or Iraqi veteran and talk to them about the changes our soldiers have help bring about in those countries. And yes, the people we are fighting do use their young children as shields and do blow up markets with children in them. War is hell, honey.
As for affordable birth control - how about free at the Public Health Center? Pills, condoms, shots - and you don't even have to get permission from your parents if you are underage. There is absolutely NO excuse for women to get pregnant and have an abortion. There are, in my own opinion, many reasons to go to war.

Posted by momoftwo23 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Time4Change – I have to disagree with you on a few points. The answer is plain and simple as day – if you don’t want to bring a child into the world because of all of the reasons you listed then Don’t have sex! Another thing I disagree with you on is the fact the whole war philosophy paragraph at the end of your post. If they would have never came over here and killed innocent people we would not be over there! If we would have done nothing, they would have just kept on doing it.

But I Do agree with you on this statement you posted.

“we need to help males understand that they too can take control of ending unwanted pregnancies by having a vasectomy if all they want to do is poke fun instead of taking it serious when having sex.”

Posted by Natchezbear (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bush Lied! This is fact. Money and lives have been wasted ,American and Foreign. This also is a fact because of this lie. Funny how the same people who support Bush's killing machine condemn aborting of unwanted children. What a world....What a world.......

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You know time4 something just struck me in what you said:

But have you ever considered that their kids are volunteering just like yours to fight for their freedom too?

At least those fighting have a choice about joining - aborted babies do not have a choice to do anything with their lives.
Now can we please stick to the subject of right to life for all children?

Posted by educationplease (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Apparently many people who post to this site feel quite comfortable judging the behavior, motivations, feelings and spiritual condition of other people, all in the name of "speaking for the unborn," etc.
I invite you to look at things from another perspective before you are so quick to judge others. Spend your time and energies assisting health care workers who treat victims of child abuse. Volunteer in a children's advocacy center. Talk to the young victims there. Visit an orphange. Look into the eyes of the teens who sit there year after year, unadopted. Visit in the homes of the poverty-stricken. Look into the eyes of children who have never had a loving home, a stable family life, or adequate food. If you actually do these things, you may reach the same conclusion that I did: There are things far worse than abortion in this world. There are things far worse than never having been born at all. And those things include being born into a world where all you know is pain and suffering. When we have cared for all the UNWANTED children who were not aborted, then let's talk about banning abortion. Until you are willing to take on the responsibility of the unwanted/unloved/uncared-for, don't preach to others about their "sins."

Posted by educationplease (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To freedom42: Have you never heard of rape?

Posted by rgn661 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

over 30 posts and still not shut down.....

Posted by bellesouth (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Those who believe abortion is a sin are entitled to their beliefs, but that is all it is -- their beliefs. Not everyone shares this belief. So....?

Posted by donna (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I attended this and it is so nice to have a gathering without problems and this should show us to enjoy our freedom of speech and this includes you ND

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's talk about sin. What is sin? Sin is anything that you do that is against the commandments of God. Sin would be worshipping something other than God, that could include your money that you hoard up in the bank and the taxes you resent having to pay; yet weren't you told in the bible to give unto Ceasar that which is his? Sin would be not remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy. Most of us don't even know when the Sabbath is; according to the jews it is from sometime on Friday until a certain time on Saturday, while most Christians worship on Sundays, and Muslims on Friday. Exactly when is the Sabbath? That depends on which calendar you go by. God's commandment was thou shalt not commit adultery. Sin would be committing adultery, even in thought, and that would include having sexual discussions via instant messages over the internet, or any sex outside of marriage. God's commandment was thou shalt not kill, but Jesus said thou shalt not kill nor hate. I think the hatred is pretty apparent in the comments on here and all over the internet. And don't you think it's pretty hateful to drop bombs on whole villages? You hate all muslims, and you say, but they crashed planes into our buildings...we can all agree that was wrong, but apparently where we all disagree is it was also wrong for us to start behaving like the ones who wronged us, and that was by dropping bombs on several countries, and taking the lives of innocent people who didn't have anything to do with those who crashed the planes. I could keep going on, but perhaps you can get my point. Abortion is a sin, but we all sin, and who among us is to say which sin is the worst or the least? Only God, and only He can judge each of us, because He can see the whole picture where we can only see what is right before us. We don't know what causes females to decide to abort their unborn babies, but we can try to understand, and we can try to find solutions instead of attempting to shame their decision to abort. Is abortion more of a sin than; adultery, rape, stealing, anykind of murder including murder of innocents via wars, lying, greed, slavery, kidnapping? God knows.

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rgn661, you took the words right out of my mouth. IF YOU DON'T WANT A BABY or can't afford one, DON'T HAVE SEX. It's plain and simple. If this country would go back to teaching our children to abstain until marriage, we might just be able to avoid a situation where there is an unwanted pregnancy. But instead, the TV, music, and government want to promote sexual promiscuity so long as you wear a condem. Gimme a break! I can't watch a decent program on TV with my daughter, much less a commercial, without some sexual content or reference (and cursing and violence). And people wonder why our kids are having kids. They are exposed to sex everywhere they go. Magazine ads and commercials sell so much sex, I'm usually not sure what product it is they are trying to sell.

We as parents need to take a stand for our children. Contact the FCC and let them know you are sick of what's coming into your home through the TV. Contact your senators and representatives and let them know it is unacceptable. But most importantly, we need to teach our children the value of life, including the unborn.

Posted by momoftwo23 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Educationplease – So you are telling me it is ok to murder an unborn child for the sake of another?

How exactly do you know which one of us on here has or has not spent time assisting children that needed it? I can tell you that I have looked into the eyes of many children who have never had a loving home, a stable family, or adequate food, and I can still honestly say that I don’t believe in or support abortion.

Have you ever tried to have a child and had multiple miscarriages, and wanted to have a child so deeply. Have you ever watched someone you love suffer thru miscarriages and then look around and see others having abortions? Do you even know how painful that is?

I know everyone is entitled to their own point of views and opinions, but I just don’t see how anyone can justify murdering a child!

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And I believe that if a woman has children and is receiving federal assistance (i.e. welfare, medicaid, etc.), she should be required to take some form of birth control that can be monitored (i.e. IUD, Depo, etc.) so that she can't continue to have more babies so long as she is depending on the government to take care of the children she already has. Once she is off the program, she can have as many children as she wants. But to keep having baby after baby while the taxpayers foot the bill is unacceptable.

Posted by fantasialuck (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How could anyone kill a child? Abortion should not be used as a method for birth control as it all to often is! I feel sorry for the poor children who will never get a chance in life because their mothers were useless peices of @#$@!!!

Posted by hitchcock (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momoftwo23
They will still have to stand before God. That's when they will realize it is MURDER.

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sentas, you asked LOL

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

education(?)please - just how many foster children have you taken in? I have had 2 foster daughters, both victims of rape at an early age. I hope I helped them, I know they both live normal lives now and keep up with them often. How many hours have you volunteered at a crisis pregnancy center? I was in Meridian when I fist volunteered and plan to do so again here.
I know personally of only one child who got pregnant as the result of rape/incest. She was 12, had not started her periods, was very overweight to start with and no body knew she was pregnant until she went into labor. BTW are you all aware than less than 3% of aborted pregnancies nationwide are the result of rape/incest? Are you aware that if you go to the hospital or a doctor within 24 hours of a rape, before the spern meets the egg, there are pills and/or procedures that can be done to prevent a pregnancy? Please get educated about what you are commenting on, and please don't try to judge those you are don't know.

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is great. Some people think abortion is murder, and for those people, congratulations. You live in a world of black and white, good for you. That means that if you should ever get pregnant, that you will have the kid regardless of your marital status or income or any other life circumstance and for that ,you should have a statue built in your honor. But here is a newsflash for you: No one wants to have an abortion. For the rest of us who understand that not every woman is the same, there are laws that protect our choices. Choices that women throughout history have died for. No government, man or woman should ever be able to tell a person what they must do with their body. Women create life, and it's every womans own choice whether or not she is up to the challenge. No one WANTS to have an abortion. But who are you to take that right from someone? And to say "oh, I think abortion is ok if you were raped...." is just proof of how stupid pro lifers are. When you take a stance against abortion, be all-in or all-out. Otherwise your argument is completely weakend. It's never been an argument for or against human life...it's ALWAYS been an argument of rights. Lets be frank - women are not in control of men's bodies. We don't CONTROL the action that creates the seed. Why should a man be in control of what happens to the seed?

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and I completely agree with whoever said this was poor journalism.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Very true time4, but when we sin, we should come to God on our knees and ask forgiveness, and help to not sin again. We have to do our humanly best, poor as that is, to follow His commandments. War, specifically, was never mentioned in the Bible as a sin, and if you remember His people have always been at war with others. I honestly believe our war against terrorists - please note I did not say Muslims - is an honest war which needs to be fought. I am not a general in charge, or I might do it differently. But I cannot second judge those in charge, because we are told in the Bible also to pray for our governments and leaders and we don't know everything they know.
I beleive even Obama is in place for a reason. We are not priviliged to know why God does certain things, we can only follow as best we can and stand up for what we believe is wrong. I don't believe war is a sin, wrong maybe, but necessary at times. But the intentional murder of babies is just plain sick.

Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

freedom42,

In regard to public health and the availability of birth control... you go try it.

While attending a local university in this area, I was subjected to a presentation on sex and STDs in a college biology class by a woman who could not bring herself to utter the proper names for male and female reproductive organs. Additionally, all she spoke about was abstinence and the "scare em celibate" photos of advanced STD/STI cases were either mislabeled, or they were conditions that had nothing whatsoever to do with sexually-transmitted conditions. We were told that having sex would increase risk for breast and testicular cancer, and all sorts of ridiculous claims intended to demonize sexuality. When students ASKED this woman from a local health department about birth control options, we were dismissed and told that if we didn't practice abstinence, we were practically as good as dead. Finally someone flat-out asked if we COULD get birth control from the health department and we were told that we would have to fill out a form declaring ourselves sexually active, and that we would have to pay fees comparable to that of a doctors office because the health department would not foot the bill for our "risky behavior". She then told us that the other option was to fill out the same form and declare ourselves abstinent, but as such we couldn't expect to get birth control from the health department because the form would indicate that we didn't need it.

So, I asked the question "What if you declare yourself abstinent, but a year or so later you come back with a baby and need help or birth control?" Her reply was "Having that baby should have been birth control enough. You can't expect the health department to help you when you LIED on a legal document and now have evidence (the baby) that you engaged in sexual activity despite claiming that you were abstinent"

I excused myself at that point, thinking of the innumerable things wrong with the presentation, what she was saying, how illegal, illogical, and as far as I am concerned, inhumane implications to all that this STATE HEALTH REPRESENTATIVE was telling us. In a college classroom, no less.

So you go have fun trying to get the health department to help you out with anything. Especially if you're young, unmarried, and low on income. In other states? Yeah, health departments are very helpful in obtaining birth control. It usually works along that whole "separation of church and state" thing, wherein personal expectations of people based on certain religious dogma do not determine whether they will be able to get health care or not. In Mississippi, it's nonsensical, superstitious, and backwards, like most things.

Even if the woman was talking a lot of nonsense, this was a public health representative who just scared the living hell out of a bunch of college students who now won't even TRY to get help based on the information she gave them.

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

.....Why should a man be in control of what happens to the seed ESPECIALLY when he enjoys the freedom of being able to WALK AWAY.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, oh! I think Sentas is judging me. No, I am not better than anyone else. Just maybe more informed about the subject than some, and very PROUD of my sons, my husband, my brothers, and all my nephews and cousins who are willing to keep our freedoms in America so YOU can write whatever you want to.
Sorry Sentas, I have just always had a heart for children and young things, especially those who are hurting. I am sorry for you if you are so hard-hearted you can't find it in you to help others.

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

geauxtigers, women do not create life on their own. And if they weren't doing things with "their bodies" in the first place, they would not be in a situation where they would even need to consider abortion.

And what you simply refer to as a seed is actually a precious human life. When a woman finds out she is pregnant, she doesn't refer to it as a seed. She refers to it as her baby. A baby that will be born in time to come so long as somebody doesn't decide that that baby doesn't deserve to live. Those babies have develop heartbeats very soon. I don't understand how anyone can be so cruel that they just want to murder that precious little life.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

djarum_black, I have accompanied young people who were absolutely bent on having sex to the Health Department to get info and protection. Never had a problem. Sorry for your experience in class, that is definately not the way to teach sex-ed.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Guess who's having a baby ya'll? And guess what, I'm keeping it.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey sentas, I should have taken you up on your bet! We've hit 57 comments and no body has called anyone a Natzi or a racist yet!

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momof1 - are you saying that women should not be allowed to like sex? Only men? So .... the only reason that a woman should ever go to bed with a man is with the intention of getting pregnant.

I guess that means you have only had sex once in your life, judging by your name. What a pity.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Congratulations draws! I'm excited for you. Can we have a baby shower?

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CONGRATULATIONS!!!! draw! I saw that in your post yesterday. I wish you and your new husband the best! So long as there are 3 of you in the marriage (husband, wife & God) I know you will have a long happy life together.

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

geaux tiger..I'm referring to unmarried women & girls. Please do not take my comments out of context

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me post this scenario:

If a woman wants an abortion, but if the person that got her pregnant wants to keep the baby...well they are pretty much out of luck. The woman will have the abortion.

Now if she wants to keep the baby, but the person that got her pregnant doesn't want the baby...well they are out of luck too.

So to be fair, it takes two to make a child so then it should take two to decide. But if the woman doesn't want it she gets rid of it.

So why is it that if a man doesn't want it, why doesn't he have the option to NOT pay child support? He doesn't want it so why should he be responsible. If a woman doesn't want it then she just aborts.

Hmmm....

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momof1 - given that you did not specify "unmarried women and girls", your comment was not taken 'out of context' as you put it. You said women and that is exactly what I said. And it is not a crime for unmarried women to have sex.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am pro-choice, perhaps the ONLY thing I agree with Obama on.

Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momof1, even better.. you're only allowed to enjoy sex as a married woman.

So much for equal rights. As soon as you can find some men who'll agree that they only enjoy sex while married, and you can make enough of a movement out of it, MAYBE you'll have a point.

However, the extremely high number of women raising children ALONE should tell you something. It must look like a pretty sad world to you if you honestly believe that every one of those women are just loose and easy. The truth is that a lot of them start out married and men leave to go enjoy sexual freedom outside of marriage.

but apparently in your narrow, black and white world, it's okay for women to be nothing but breeding stock that must be "managed" properly

Posted by fantasialuck (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What if every woman from now on decided to have an abortion?

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

notfromnatchez, that is interesting to think about. It is my very humble opinion that when a woman carries a baby, she develops with the child a certain bond that the father might not necessarily either share, or understand, or be able to replace. A man can say all day long that he wants to support a child, but when it comes right down to it - SHE is the reason it exists. SHE is the alpha and omega to the child. Why should she have a peice of herself walking around on the planet that she either didn't want, or couldn't support...it's the continuation of family that should be preserved. She should be able to choose when and with whom those bonds are formed. It came out of her.

And about child support...again, women don't control the male ejaculation. Men do. If you put a woman in the situation to get pregnant, it changes her entire life. Sorry.

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It may not be a crime according to the laws of our country, but it's a sin according to the Laws of God and each of us will have to stand in judgement before him one day, whether you believe it now or not.

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The woman usually PUTS herself in that situation. And THAT is the root of the problem. If women would stop

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"women don't control the male ejaculation. Men do."

I disagree to a point. Women can us birth control pills to "control" the ejaculation. Or they can tell the guy to use a condom.

If you are having sex without birth control, you are trying to get pregnant.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know the due date yet, Freedom. LOL! I just found out on 5th of this month.

I will let you all have this argument, because it's too sensitive to me. I will get upset with some people, and I'm trying to stay cool for my baby's sake. Abortion is wrong, and murder, but I'm sure the woman who has one has already thought things through before she did it. I have mixed emotions about it. I'm enjoying reading you all views and comments.

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

momof1 don't preach to me. God sets rules to help us live easier lives. He might not be as black and white about things as you believe and I'm almost positive he takes things on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise he would not give us human will.

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

notfromnatchez - agreed, women have a responsibility. But some women cannot take birth control for medical reasons. And some people are allergic to condoms. All of that is splitting hairs.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If they can't use BC because of med reasons or allergies to condoms, why have unprotected sex unless they want to get pregnant?

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm off to go enjoy some unmarried, unprotected sex now. Peace everyone.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Splitting hairs, Geauxtigers? LOL!. I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself on that one. This comment might get removed.

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

....notfromnatchez....maybe because they're in love and they are having sex with someone they love and trust.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at noon (Suggest removal)

ROFLMAO!

Posted by elvisss (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at noon (Suggest removal)

I agree with NFN... any female who does not use *any* form of birth control (too many to name here) and has sex is trying to get pregnant.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And there is nothing wrong with that, but if they get pregant then they need to deal with it. Not abort it.

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sex should simply be prohibited.

Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof1,

NEWSFLASH

Not everyone believes in your God.

*GASP*

No matter how biblical you want to get on here, it won't make a bit of difference to a legal citizen of this country who is interested in his or her own personal legal rights that shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with your personal religious preference.

oh oh oh.. omg.. and guess what? There are people who DO believe in your God and have different interpretations of the bible. There are probably things that those people believe that would leave YOUR congregation with a case of the dry heaves.

That's actually supposed to be one of the PERKS to living in America. Freedom from religious persecution. Those American freedoms are what we've used to indoctrinate and inspire all those poor men and women who are overseas getting killed and losing limbs to PROTECT those fundamental American freedoms.

Guess what, Momof1? What you and other people who are demanding an end to choice are preaching, IS religious persecution. YOUR religion persecuting others who want nothing to do with your overbearing religious dogma. If you can't understand this, you'd best STAY in this end of the country. It's not acceptable in most other places.

if you're so secure in the righteousness of your beliefs, I fail to see why you need to bolster it by forcing them upon others.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good one Elvisss...TOO MANY TO NAME. LOL.

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People, peace....it IS OK to disagree about this....it is NOT ok to take away a womans right to choose.

Posted by elvisss (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Djarum... unfortunately if you reside in the Miss-Lou area, you are rarely allowed to enjoy freedom from religious persecution.

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geaux tigers. We are the ones that try to make the gray areas but He has laid it all out in black and white. Usually when we are trying to reason with God it's because we know WE are wrong. And i'm not preaching, I'm just telling the truth. Unfortunately it's a truth many people don't want to hear because they are not willing to exchange their ways for His ways. Honestly, I have a burden on my heart to reach all of the lost because I don't want anybody to spend an eternity in Hell. And I have a burden for the innocent lives that are being murdered daily.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I totally agree with Geaux...it is completely okay to disagree.

But if it isn't okay to take a way a woman's right to choose, why can't a guy have a right to walk away?

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momof1 - don't stress. The thought of abortion is rather sickening. But luckily you won't ever have to deal with it. And that is your right. In communist China they regulate how many children you have - you can only have 1 because they want to control the population. Here in good ol America you can crank out as many as your body will allow and the government will even help you take care of them financially.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I have a burden on my heart to reach all of the lost because I don't want anybody to spend an eternity in Hell."

WOW...that's a big burden.

It is so much easier not to believe in either place...so that way you won't have to worry about where you end up. See...now wasn't that simple.

BTW...has anyone been to heaven? If so, why aren't tickets being sold on eBay?

Posted by elvisss (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we should throw momof1 a parade for being such a martyr for us all.

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

notfromnatchez - many of them do. The vast majority.

Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momof1, by that logic, you bear a burden for suicide bombers, homeless people, welfare fraud, substance abusers, the economic crisis, the Kennedy assassination, the innumerable violations of civil rights in Africa, etc, etc, etc..

you better get hoppin.. that's a whole lot to answer for.

Black and white, all or nothing right?

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geaux...True but they are looked down upon...but the aborted mother is praised for having a choice.

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Djarum, you don't have to believe in God and you may never, but as a christian it is my responsibility to share the gospel with you so that you will have the option to either accept the Lord or to turn away. It's your choice. Heaven or Hell?

Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof1,

don't you think it's a LITTLE presumptuous to think that, as an adult, I haven't made my choice already? Or that you are going to be the one that gets the "soul saver" points because you're going to be the one and ONLY person who I've ever heard this from?

you know, the "hard sell" thing doesn't work very often, if anything it drives people away because it insults their intelligence and comes across as short-sighted and/or manipulative.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momof1 - you have friends who believe as you do. Don't let those so vocal against God get you down. I've had them at my throat before, but I know Who I believe in and Who will bring me safely home. I got my ticket to heaven and Jesus paid the whole price.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow...St. Momof1

Someone call the pope-hotline and get things going to get her beatified.

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geaux, Djarum & Elvis, I don't expect you to understand. When I was lost, I responded in the very same way you do and I don't blame or judge you for it. And I am being absolutely sincere. I took several years after people began to share Christ with me before my eyes were actually opened. And you can call me martyr or whatever you want, but it doesn't bother me. Christians are persecuted all over the world for sharing the gospel and speaking up for what is right.

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Christians are persecuted all over the world for sharing the gospel and speaking up for what is right."

What is right or what THEY think is right?

There is a difference and I think it is the latter.

Christians think they are right and everyone else is wrong.

How does the follow Jesus's teachings?

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Freedom42. You are SO right. Now you've got me singing the song :) I know whom I have believed

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

typo...Should say: how does that follow Jesus's teachings?

Posted by momoftwo23 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love how people on here say that every woman has to right to choose what she does with her body. Well shouldn’t everyone get that same choice? No, because some of them are killed and have no say so about whether they wanted to live.

Geauxtigers and notfromnatchez - I will be praying for you and hopefully someone close to you will reach out to your souls and save you before it is to late.

I wish someone would quote me somewhere in the bible where having an abortion is not a sin. Tell me how you interpret that in a different way.

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was lost myself, but I found my way through religion. It is my duty to share our own gospel :
http://www.venganza.org/spread-the-word/...

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why don't you quote the bible and show where it says "Abortion is a Sin"?

Don't get me wrong...I am against it, but not because of some Religious Fiction Book tells me.

I just think it is wrong...it is that simple for me.

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Personally I thank God for separation of church and state.

I mean, the mormons think it's ok to force 12 year old into marriage. If we were all forced to think a certain way by religious people, who would get to choose which one? Perhaps we should ask the Muslims in Iraq?

Posted by momoftwo23 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are not going to believe a religious fiction book as you call it, then why should I even tell you? But I will anyway in hopes that you might look it up. Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, and James 2:11.

It states in a lot more places in the bible Do Not Murder!!!!!!

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Religious Fiction Book : that's why we call it The stories of the Bible.
But still, people believe literally what is written in that book. walking on water, adam and eve... that's why you find some loones' theories such as creationism. but that's cool, at least it's hilarious. we're living in a futuristic middle-age.
don't walk too far on the water... our planet is flat, you could fall...

Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well personally I kick butt at work...my bosses think I walk on water. Does that make me Jesus?

LOL.

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well, if ever you are Jesus, I want you to sign my bible, so I can make a load of money on ebay ! :))

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dragonflyday : keep posting on the website !
I save all of your quotes, I want to publish a book with what you write, you are a true genius. Could you tell us again what you think about Obama and his links to terrorism? PLEEEAAAASSEEEE !!!!

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momoftwo23- I would rather you pray for a more tolerant viewpoint.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, Obama has pledged to protect a woman's right to choose to about her baby and to ignore our right to choose whether or not to pay for it.

Some facts:

Since 1973 the black population has decreased by 25%.

Twice as many blacks have died from abortion as have died from aids, cancer, heart disease, accidents and crime.

The largest operator of abortion clinics in the US is Planned Parenthood. 80% of their clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

Every three days more blacks are killed by abortion than were killed by the Klan in its entire history.

Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger, a right-wing socialist eugenicist, and taken into the black community by W.E.B. Dubois, a black left-wing socialist eugenicist.

Margaret Sanger promoted the eradication of the black race. Dubois promoted the eradication of that part of the black race he was ashamed of. Where does Obama fall on this spectrum?

“The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.”
NAACP founder W.E.B. Dubois.

"The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets."- Margaret Sanger

MLK was awarded, and accepted the Margaret Sanger Planned Parenthood Award in 1966.

"A woman's right to choose" is merely a phrase promoting eugenics under the guise of sexual liberation and equality. The people who started this movement publicly regarded the sexually liberated as degenerates, whether they be white or black, and thus not deserving of extending their family lines.

Women should pay more attention to birth control than men because they are the ones left with the child if they get pregnant.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We all sin. None of us are innocent. At least I'm willing to admit that I'm a sinner, while some of you on here seem unable to admit that you sin too, and think that you alone will be allowed to enter those Pearly Gates. Remember what Jesus said about let him without sin cast the first stone?

You can't agree with me about war, yet war aborts not only the unborn child, but also the mother, the father, the siblings, and the whole village, plus the dogs and cats, the cows, destroys the water, buildings, utilities, food supplies, etc and so on. If you're gonna point your finger at evil, stand up and point your finger at evil, but turn all the way around when you do. If you believe that innocent babies aren't killed during wars, then you better think again. What makes you think that your FREEDOM is more important than those innocents killed during war?

Look at all the wrongs going on in this country that needs to be fixed, why do we think that we can fix another country when we can't fix this one? And think about all the wrong that has come out since we began this war on terror.

Some of you have made excellent comments, even the ones I don't agree with, and I always give your comments some thought. I'd like to thank you for giving me another perspective.

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a sidenote, I would like to point out that the vast majority of abortions are by minorities. I wonder how all of you bible beaters would feel about doubling or tripling the amount of brown people in this country. Chew on THAT. Are you going to be standing in line to adopt a brown baby?

What would God have to say about your vehement "hell no" answer to that question?

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just hope I'm not gonna get killed by an abortion !!!

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

geauxtigers, blacks account for 13% of our population and 35% of abortions; there are more abortions among whites.

Also, it should be noted that worldwide there is little difference in abortions per thousand in countries where it is legal and in countries where it is illegal.

For that argument about some kids being poor and neglected and all that, let them reach the age of majority and then give them a choice of living or choosing termination at age 21 to make up for missing their earlier chance at abortion.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you haven't seen it already there's breaking news on the main page and a vigelante commentor wants to make sure they don't make it long enough to stand before the judge.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Am I the only one who's noticed that many of the pro-lifers sure have an aching to pop a cap in someone's you know what? LOL

Posted by hello (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is a difference in the killing of innocents and punishing the guilty

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur - that sounds like a great idea. Now all we have to do is find a way for 6 month olds to have the motor skills to support themselves until adulthood.. Wait, I forgot. That is the sole responsibilty of the mother.

And black people are not the only minorities to which I am referring. Although I know that they are probably the only ones you see or think about.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That difference is too subtle for some to notice hello, but you are very right on that.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You aren't very good at debating geautiger. One of Blackmun's arguments for his decision in Roe v Wade was that a fetus was not human until it was viable, able to survive by itself. Your argument is that a six month old is also elgible for termination and points out the moral flaw in Blackmun's argument. And what about 20 year olds with Down's Syndrome or MS, or any other disease that requires they have care from another? Should they be terminated as well out of compassion for their misery and to prevent the possiblity they may breed?

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for your other comment, the law that got all this slippery slope stuff started, the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, used as it's test case a young Native American girl, Carrie Buck. It began with sterilization, then went on to abortion, and now sterilization is making a comeback, being promoted in young women's magazines as a hip thing to do. Once there is enough public support we can probably expect involuntary sterilization to resume. I wouldn't be at all suprised if this occurs within the next eight years.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no wish to terminate anyone anywhere, but as far as abortion goes, prevention is the best cure. In the long run, it would be better to pay for vasectomies than abortions. Plus, vasectomies can be reversed later on down the road.

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur - IM not a good debater? Nothing you said made any sense at all. It's really exhausting to explain, but I'll try.

I wasn't suggesting that 6 month old could be aborted. That's just.... stupid on your part.

And who is talking about downs syndrome or mental illness? You are coming in on the tail end of a conversation and quite frankly you are boring the hell out of me.

Posted by barbarj1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BenWyles you are great. Cowards come along everyday but men of honor are few and far between. I hope we remain the country that comes to the aid of others. When a man or a woman commits to the service these days I believe they are standing up for their family, friends and country. They are the true heros.
When their family complains about the war and what they are doing for their country I feel like they are saying your are stupid for joining the service. They should be proud of these men and women. They are the best we have in these United States and I use that word united with much dismay.
These men and women are keeping their butts safe even though they are to dumb to realize it.
I am proud of everyone of my family that has served in the armed forces. They serve well and make their family proud.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_o...

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's how involuntary sterilization got started before time4change, through sentiments like yours. "Let's just sterilize the men", "let's just sterilize the unfit", "let's just sterilize the unproductive".

There were even proposals that almost became law requiring couples to obtain a license to have children. This proposal was promoted as a way to prevent blindness. As you can see, we are not overwhelmed with blind people because this bit of idiotic eugenics was unsuccessful.

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

" kooky talk masked in a flurry of historical footnotes " : sentas, you're right ! and it's not the only time he's using pseudo-scientificity to make his point. Last time he presented fake statistics to make us swallow that Norway was a poor country. But, that's typical right-wing. Even creationism has a taste of science.

Posted by barbarj1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, I was so caught up in Ben`s statement about our men and women and the war that I forgot to tell you all that I don`t believe in MURDERING babies for the sake of birthcontrol and that IS all it amounts to really. There are other forms of birth control that would not bring a precious child to a death sentence. Get real people. When it all comes down to it if these people`s morals were a little higher they wouldn`t find themselves in this position.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What I say doesn't make sense to you geauxtigers because, like sentas, you can't follow an argument well enough to understand its points.

If you like, I will lead you through it, and you can take notes and do it on your own later if you should ever have the intellectual restlessness to attempt such a feat.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Enki, I didn't say let's make them, I said offer them that choice. I was talking about the young men that want to have fun without taking on the responsibility of the results of that action to cut down on abortions. That's a big difference in what you're talking about Enki.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

None of us want our 14 year old daughters to have sex, but the fact of the matter is that when our daughters go off alone they will do what they will do. Sometimes they get tricked into it, but we can't control what they do when we aren't with them. We can tell them not too, but it is unrealistic to think that abstinance is going to work these days when a date more than likely will result in sexual relations and sometimes sexual relations happen even without a date. We can put the girls in chastity belts. That might stop it, but did it really stop it when they did that?

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some people need to get out more.

EnKiKur you oddly remind me of my grandfather. Boring and not coherent enough to make any sense. And so full of personal insults that you completely take away from whatever the real conversation is about.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Time for change has come.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are misrepresenting what I said about Norway broonzy, but here goes again. Norway's GDP is about the size of Minnesota's- one of our states. We have 49 more states. I believe your contention was that socialist Norway was just about the best place in the world to live because they had fewer people living in poverty than Lake Providence does. But do they have fewer people living in poverty than Manhattan does?

And I wonder how Norway is faring now that oil is back below forty dollars a barrel, since their prosperity is directly tied to the revenue sharing of their nationalized oil fields.

At any rate, you didn't see that argument through to the end, just like neither you, nor sentas, not gt will see this one through to the end. You don't have the stamina.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not insulting you gt, I am offering constructive criticism. You simply don't know how to make a good argument. If you did and you have some wisdom I do not, then perhaps through use of your skills you could lead me to greater wisdom. As it is you are hiding your wisdom beneath your inadequate conversational skills.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wouldn't go so far as to call EnkiKur boring or incoherent and believe that he has made many great comments on here. He's one of my favorite reads. geauxtigers you are insulting Enkikur. I don't think you should be insulting with your comments either. Maybe I insult people too, but I don't intend to do that, sorry if I am.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"As it is you are hiding your wisdom beneath your inadequate conversational skills."

This I know was meant for me and I agree.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, ya'll! I've met and talked to Enkikur on several occasions, and he's a really nice fellow.

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For all of you pro-choicers...I believe women have a choice. They choose to have sex or not to have sex. End of story.

Posted by geauxtigers (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Time4change I only respond to what this person has said here. I only respond with insult those who insult me, because that is life. Sorry to offend.

Posted by drawpaintsing (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bobcat1974, that Lacy/Scott Peterson argument was on point. There have been ladies to die from abortions, not counting the ones who have near death, post-abortion problems. Some teenage girls have abortions without their parents even knowing it, until they become sick. They are afraid of what their parents would say, and in the end finding out that they would have supported, even if it is disappointing.

Momof1, you are correct also. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what happens when two people have "relations." Personally, I thought that was the main reason to have "relations" anyway. To reproduce, right?

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know of some men who are married and have children with several other women. When the women make them pay child support these men will quit their jobs to keep from having to support their children. Sometimes men forget to tell women that they are already married and by the time the woman finds out he's married she is already pregnant. Sometimes women taking birth control pills still get pregnant. I've been trying to say that men like the ones I've mentioned that cheat on their spouses could have had a vasectomy and then they wouldn't have outside younguns to support.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Offer free vasectomies at health clinics along with your family planning.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You didn't offend me geauxtigers. I enjoy reading your comments. I was just making a point. Sometimes we all offend others without meaning too.

Posted by broonzy (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur. I just don't have the time to go back on your scam about norway. I just see you're playing again your "scientific card" to make your point, and see that you finish by "You don't have the stamina." Meaning that if you can't discuss ideas you have to attack individuals. Classic right-wing.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The origin of Planned Parenthood:
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html...

American eugenicists join forces with Birth Control Federation of America to create Planned Parenthood:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/pphi...

"Eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house built upon sands...The eugenicists wanted to shift the birth-control emphasis from less children for the poor
to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought to stop the multiplication of the unfit." Margaret Sanger, Autobiography p. 278-279

From Oxford University Press, Virigina Sterilization Act used as models for Nazi racial hygiene laws:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/su...

American Philanthropies and Eugenics:
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

More of Margaret Sanger's views:
Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common
household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No women shall have the legal right to bear a child, no man shall have the right to
become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for Parenthood shall be issued to married couples upon application,
providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications
needed for proper rearing of the child [which qualifications, presumably, would be decided by
eugenicists’ criteria, as happened later in Germany].

Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with
inheritable diseases, and others found biologically unfit [i.e., Jews] should be sterilized in cases of doubt and should be isolated [i.e. concentration camps] so as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.

A little bit of reading will show very clearly that this abortion movement was anything but a compassionate movement aimed at improving all people's lives, though it could be said that it is aimed at improving some people's lives. Sexual liberation, freedom from responsibility, moral degeneration are all seductions which prove to the eugenically minded that they have correctly pegged you and your progeny as fit targets for extermination.

Margaret Sanger speaking on the 1939 launch of her Negro Project:

"The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the Minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their rebellious members."

Martin Luther King Jr. receiving the Margaret Sanger award, evidence that Planned Parenthood carried out their promise to use the black ministry to promote racial genocide:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-u...

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Enkikur please tell us how you would prevent so many abortions?

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's all very interesting Enkikur. Thank you for the information.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for the vote of confidence drawpaintsing, and congratulations on your new child. We may need his or her help in preserving our democratic republic so take good care of our new countryman!

For the record, drawpaintsing represents all the things that are right about America and personal achievement, and she's a nice fellow too! :)

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We have to morally regenerate our culture time4change. We need to reaffirm the value of extended family and the right to property so families have a base of operations that provides them with food security. We need to end the trend of infantilizing young people, the APA says the average age of psycholgical maturity is now leaning toward the late twenties, when formerly it was toward the early teens.

Instead of spending money on abortions we should divert that money to care for the infants and for use in reforming adoption laws to make it easier for families wanting children to have them.

Part of what I left out about Margaret Sanger was that she and her movement acted and agitated against charities, viewing them as enabling an increase in what the eugenicists considered a plague on society, the birth of the unfit. She was very vocal against charities formed for placing unwanted children.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well, yall have a great day...and a good weekend.

Red USM Fan

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why Red in the redusmfan?

Posted by Hardcorps (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sav dem babie!!! Scuuuuuuuuuuuuse me while I kiss the sky.

Riff & Stu SF

Posted by BenWyles (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Time4change, let me set the record straight on your earlier comment about "hiding behind my children to fight." Maybe this will set things in a more proper light for you.

I do not hide behind my children. Quite the contrary. As I have reached what some would consider middle age, I am no longer "age-eligible" to volunteer. Believe me, I know.

I have spent the better part of my life crawling through disasters of various sorts. This includes fires and floods along with other natural disasters and man-made emergency situations. I am a firefighter, a paramedic and a hazardous materials technician. I've strapped on the gear and entered places "where angels fear to tread." I've heard bullets fired in my direction, I've hidden behind my ambulance for cover and pulled people from burning structures. I've worked in areas other than the Miss-Lou and trust me when I say, emergencies exist everywhere.

I don't ask for any credit, I don't request accolades but at the same time I don't back down from the danger when it comes to doing what I've trained to do. My respect for the military comes from the tales of numerous family members who have fought and been wounded on foreign soil in defense of my way of life.

But another area from which I will not retreat is the issue of the murder of the unborn. Let me make it simple for you. The "mass of cells" argument is a load of bunk. It's alive. Any cellular mass that divides and grows is alive. To stop the cell division is the definition of death. The cells are going to become a human baby. You show me a single case of two human beings giving birth to any other species and maybe I'll rethink my position. To destroy this "mass of cells" or to stop its growth in any way is simply to destroy a human life, period.

And please don't hand me the argument about a woman's right to do as she pleases to her body. There are countless things that no one can legally do to their body. Every person has the right to be stupid, but the law attempts to preserve life even in these cases. Besides that, abortion destroys the body of another, not the mother.

Trust me, I have researched the issue of abortion from every imaginable angle for the past 25 years. I've read every position paper you can throw at me and I have found NO argument in favor of the right to destroy our own children which has altered my stance in any way.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you EnKiKur and BenWyles. As far as I am concerned there is nothing further I could add to your posts. People will believe what they want to believe, no matter what truth is right in front of them. It makes them feel better about themselves and the warm little world around them. They have my pity and my prayers while you two have my undying thank you for standing up for the unborn, and for those who risk their lives to make sure the rest of us are safe.

Posted by hello (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with freedom42 - Thank you to all who fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.

Posted by momof1 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everything Enk, Ben Freedom & hello said, the same goes for me...May God bless you all!

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So Ben Wyles, if your 10 year old daughter, who had already begun to menstruate, were to be brutally raped, you would force her to go through the trauma of a pregnancy, even if it could rupture her uterus and/or end her life?

But then, it's ok to drop bombs on villages full of pregnant women and children if it means that you will continue to have your freedom?

You said this war was for liberty. But I remember Bush saying that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that the Taliban were refusing to hand over binLaden in Afghanistan for the reasons to go to war in the beginning of all of this. That's one of the problems I see with this war on terror, the reasons for it keep on changing.

Well Ben Wyles, as long as there are people like you, we won't be melting our weapons into plow shares and practicing war no more anytime soon. I have my opinions, as do you; otherwise, there would be no need for discussion as we would all think alike. When there is no difference in opinions, it means that some of us aren't thinking.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, Ben Wyles, I do believe that you missed my point entirely. That may not be your fault; however, since I admit to not having the necessary conversing skills to carry on a great debate as Enkikur pointed out earlier. But, all of us will be judged by the only One who can truly judge us. I have never killed anyone, supported war, nor aborted a baby, and I trust God that I am not going to die, or be killed, until He decides it is my time to go. I simply try to understand why one would consider abortion without denying the real facts; such as, rape, incest, and inability to provide. I don't hate anyone for the color of their skin or religious beliefs, nor do I resent anyone who needs assistance, as many on here do.

Posted by BenWyles (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I won't for a minute try to tell you what I'd do in that situation. I know what morality tells me. I know what my faith in Jesus Christ says that I should do. But I also know that the father in me may react another way. I've never claimed to have all the answers. Personally, I think if we made sure that rapists received the death penalty and that execution was both swift and sure, it may put a dent in that problem.

By the same token, I spoke to a woman once who had been raped but decided to keep the baby. She told me that God had used her son, though every look into his eyes brought back memories of that horror, to teach her that He can bring good from any tragedy. But I wouldn't force that on anyone. We live in an imperfect world and our solutions are imperfect at best.

I also believe that Saddam had WMD and that 8 years of appeasement gave him the time he needed to hide them. I think that if we were to move into Syria we'd find them in the Bekka Valley. But that's fodder for another debate. I think Bush's mistake was not claiming that we were there to liberate an abused populace.

Rest assured, we will be making war and weapons until Jesus Christ returns and brings an end to the madness. We're human, we're selfish and we're sinful. Only He can change all that. I just can't for the life of me understand the mind which says that abortion is the solution to any problem. I think that if we clean up our lives, stop having sex just for the sake of promiscuous fun and then make SURE that the men making babies bear their responsibility then some of these arguments would shrink in importance.

We've sacrificed an entire generation upon the Satanic altar of convenience and personal freedom. With freedom comes with liberty. With liberty comes rights. But with rights comes responsibility. It's time we accepted ours.

Posted by sayitloud (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is so pitiful....debating on this thing about what a woman should do with her own body. Does NOT matter in my mind WHAT the man says he wants because he will change hs mind in a NY second when he chases another mini skirt.
PRO CHOICE!

Posted by Taylor (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can someone please tell me why if a woman is killed while pregnate the killer is charged with 2 murders, but it's ok for a mother to kill her unborn child? I just can't seem to understand.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, I don't know why you waste your time trying to enlighten and educate all the Obama supporters. They are Democrats and liberals for the same reason that they'll never understand any of your well reasoned and well researched points: they don't have the intellectual capacity to follow a logical argument. They're all KoolAid drinkers, the useful idiots that comprise the Democrat base. They are the reason that an IQ test should be required before a person can vote. But it's nice to see that you still care enough about these misguided souls to try. You are a saint, my friend.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ben Wyles you were the one who said, "they hide behind their children and that is why their children are killed in war."

WE ARE IN THEIR LANDS.

It would be self defense if they had come over here, but since we attacked them in their land on the grounds that they might have weapons of mass destruction makes it pre-meditated murder on our part, because we were scared of being attacked. We know that China, Korea, Pakistan, and many other countries have weapons of mass destruction, as do we. We are the first and only country to have ever used ours.

Posted by educationplease (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Freedom42:
Yes, I actually have a foster child now. I have also been guardian of a teenage girl who became pregnant when her father raped her. She did not choose to abort. Yes, I have volunteered in children's advocacy centers, and I have provided medical treatment to abused children on dozens of occasions. I am not judging others, as you seem to think. But, having seen a month-old child that was so badly beaten it was simply an unrecognizable bloody pulp, I still think there are things worse than abortion. Indifference to the suffering of children is one of them, in my opinion. Forcing a woman to bring another unwanted child into this world is another, in my opinion. And, yes, to those who might wonder -- I am a Christian.

Posted by BenWyles (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Germany never attacked us. Italy never attacked us. Japan launched a raid on our naval installation, yet it was decided early on that Germany and Italy must be defeated first. I don't see your logic.

One of my uncles served and retired from the Special Forces, what some call the Green Berets. He served several tours in Southeast Asia during the Viet Nam war. I once asked him why he wanted to travel to some far-flung part of the globe to fight people he'd never met and with whom he had no personal beef. He told me, "Son, in the first place I don't want to go. I'm a soldier. I go where I'm told to go and fight who I'm told to fight. These people would think nothing of cutting your throat if they were here. But secondly, I go fight in foreign countries so that you, my family and my friends don't have to fight here."

These radicals we're fighting now have a vastly different thought process on the subject of warfare and even religion than do we. There is no word in Islam for conversion, as there is in Christianity. You either subjugate yourself, leave, or die. Radical Islam believes that those who are not subjugated are infidels and worthy of death. If we don't stop them there, we will be forced to fight them right here. People can say what they want about President Bush. Hey, I didn't agree with everything the man did in the past 8 years. But there has not been another successful attack on American soil since 9/11. That says something to me.

And by the way, we ARE the only nation to use nuclear weapons. But according to everything I've been able to research, conservative estimates of the death toll, both American and Japanese, of an assault on the home islands would have been 8-10 times higher than that of the two bombs. The job of any leader in a military setting is to avoid all possible loss of his own people. Truman did just that.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

omg,

http://www.kmbc.com/news/18549054/detail...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/23/flor...

Posted by BenWyles (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The sad thing is that the murdering piece of garbage will probably be found insane and locked away somewhere and his poor daughter will be scarred for life.

Just another example of how depraved this world has become. PART of the reason (notice I'm not laying all the blame in one spot) is the attitude developed since this nation LEGALIZED the killing of babies. Life means nothing!

Posted by sayitloud (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40 so basically if I do not agree with you I am an idiot right? Since you do not agree with ME I call that a debate, nothing more.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sayitloud, are you a liberal? Are you a Democrat? If you answered yes to these two questions refer back to my earlier post. But judging from your earlier posts, well...

I love the liberal line on abortion. If they'll be poor, kill them. If they're an inconvience to the mother, kill them. If they'll be abused, kill them. If the mom's having a bad day, kill them.

I wonder if all you rabid abortion supporters would be content if your own mothers had made the "choice" to abort you. It would be interesting to see, that if there were some way to travel through time and allow you to observe your own mothers trying to decide whether to abort or not, that the decision could go either way, if you would still fully support her decision if she decided that you would be too much trouble. But that's the point isn't it? Those babies don't get to decide. They just get to die. No chance at life. They don't get to say, "Oh well, if I'm gonna be beaten to a pulp just kill me now."

You know, there's a reason the Democratic party is known in Washington as the Evil party.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll show you some bull....

"Comparing this issue to the war issue is the most ignorant statement I've seen recently. This nation went to war for the cause of liberty."

This nation went to war based on fear, on oil, on Dick Cheney's long desire to invade Iraq and on misinformation. Liberty ain't really the truth about why we went into THIS war.

A lot of Americans want to outlaw other people from making their reproductive choices, but when it comes to killin innocent people to advance an idea, it's OK. Life ain't sacred in this country. If it was cigarettes and a lot of stuff would be outlawed and we would still be drivin at 55.

Posted by kangaroochaser (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sentas, glad to see you back. I would like to ask you a serious question. This morning when I posted regarding the legality of abortion state to state and the fact that Roe federalized this decision, you commented something about the irony of using a States' Rights argument in Mississippi. Of course, I know you are referring to the shameful history of using the States' Rights argument to defend both slavery and then Jim Crow. However, last time I checked the 10th Amendment to the Constitution was still in effect, and in Casey v. Carhart the Supreme Court's majority opinion stated that Roe did not establish an absolute right to abortion. What then, is your issue with letting the states decide how liberal their own abortion laws will be? After all, prevailing local standards is the yardstick used in deciding obscenity cases (a First Amendment issue), why not in the regulation of abortion?

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, Iraq violated nearly every UN security council resolution that was part of the cease-fire that ended the original Gulf War. Sadam used WMD's on his own people. He still had the people in place to produce and the desire to obtain WMD's. The Clinton administration as well as Congressional Democrats, Republican's, our intelligence agencies and the intelligence agencies of other countries all agreed that Sadam still had WMD's. The Democrat's voted for the war right along with the Republican's. Sadam was a destabalizing force in the region. The list goes on and on. So could you please come up with an argument that has at least some merit instead of parroting the liberal propaganda.

And it's not a "reproductive choice." Taking the pill is a "reproductive choice." Using a condom is a "reproductive choice." Having an abortion is denying life to another human being.

And while I myself wish that cigarettes were outlawed, they are not. And if someone wants to smoke them, that is their choice to make. It's their body after all. Funny how a woman should be able to decide what to do with her own body, as well as that of the separate and distinct individual growing inside her when she is pregnant, but smokers shouldn't. A bit of a contradiction there don't you think?

Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding viability, take your first trimester fetus out of the womb and see how well it does without brain development, adequate circulatory development, things like skin and lungs..

Most abortions are completed around or before the first trimester, somewhere between 12 and 15 weeks. Delays often have a lot more to do with the difficulty of getting to a clinic before further development of the fetus occurs, and this is usually the cause for an attempt at a "late term" abortion.

Pro-lifers seem to think this is just some casual decision like changing one's haircolor - that it's not a difficult choice to make. It's not like getting a manicure.. women are required to go through a battery of physical examinations and usually a 24 to 72 hour waiting period in which they are given time to change their minds when they schedule the procedure. Then, day OF the procedure, the woman is usually kept at the clinic for several hours more, and usually isn't even fully sedated - all so that she has an option to say "no" up to the last minute.

and kmbjd40.. if my mother had decided that NOT giving birth to me would have been in her best interest, how could I argue with that? Why would I wish suffering upon my own mother? I agree with another poster here in that there are worse things than not being born.

The hard religious line usually drawn in this debate never fails to surprise me in its unabashed lack of faith in the mercy and wisdom of its purported deity. It would seem to me if you TRULY believed in the omnipotence of God, you wouldn't feel the need to micromanage the issues which lie solely between himself and individual humans that are supposed to be in his hands, NOT yours. If you're so convinced in the power, wisdom, love, mercy, and grandiosity of God, who the heck are you to sit here on earth, committing your own brands of sin, and trying to do "corrective" work that's supposed to be within HIS jurisdiction alone?

Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, nothing like misspelled christian fanatic chain email in screaming caps and sans punctuation. Yep.

Posted by escapee (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Come on Natchez Democrat you can do better than this.

Very lopsided article if you ask me. All pro-life. Where's the other side of the story - the pro-abortion side?

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Djarum_black, for you to claim that you would not argue with your own mother's decision to abort you if it would cause her to "suffer" were she to keep you, is either the height of deceit or the height of insanity. But that's the problem with hypotheticals, you can answer whatever you wish with no real consequence. Honest can be left at the door.

And my views on abortion are rooted in simple human decency and the belief that no person has the right to decide whether another INNOCENT human being will be denied life. The religious aspect is only secondary.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ben Wyles since you've justified the Iraq invasion on the basis that you believe that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction that he moved into Syria prior to the invasion, then logically you would have to consider that perhaps those terrorist flew planes into our buildings because they knew that we had weapons of mass destruction, knew we would use them, and that we were planning to continue developing those weapons as we continued to do the whole time Bush was pointing his finger at Saddam and accusing him of having them. Therefore, if it is ok for us to attack other countries when we THINK they have weapons, then it would have to also be ok for them to attack us when they know we do and God would be ok with that.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Escapee, this is an article about a pro-life rally. There is no other side to this particular story. If there were a pro-choice rally as well, then the story would be incomplete.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Time4change, I can only hope that your last post wasn't intended as a serious argument for your warped viewpoint. Your hypothesis contains no logic at all. We know why the terrorists flew those planes into those buildings. We invaded Iraq because we feared that Sadam would provide WMD's to terrorist groups. And since he financially supported terrorist organizations and he'd used WMD's on his own people before, this was a logical assupmtion to make and therefore a direct threat to our national security. My God, will you people pull your heads out of your rears.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good points djarum_black. God is still in control and could stop any abortion if He should choose to do so. And God is still capable of convincing those of us here on Earth to stop having sex outside of marriage, and rape, so that we won't have to make the choice whether or not to abort. God can stop rape, murder, abortion, and wars, but for some reason, He don't. I've been trying to help Him manage things, and worrying over the way things are, but thanks to Djarum_black I can now see that it is outside my human realm to tell God how to run this world. Thank you djarum_black. Maybe now, I can just enjoy the rest of my life without worrying about what other folks are doing and thinking.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmb stop trying to play God. Let go and let God. He doesn't need your help. Anyways, I'm not the one with my head up my batooty.

Posted by BenWyles (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WMD and 9/11 were separate issues altogether. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It just happens that both issues needed to be taken care of at the same time.

Listen, I never said that we were perfect in America. We make mistakes. Could the war in Iraq have been handled differently? Absolutely! But when a President looks at daily threat assessments, coupled with all the history of the Middle East, judgement is just that; a judgement.

I don't think Saddam planned or had a part in 9/11. But I firmly believe that he has financed terrorist activity around the world and even strikes against us. The simple fact is that he was an enemy not correctly dealt with in 1991.

How much better would people have been had just one plot against Hitler been successful in his early years of power? Would have saved countless innocent lives. But none succeeded. He had to be dealt with. We could have avoided the war in Iraq had the world taken care of Saddam and his cronies in '91. But they didn't. Patton said that the problem with war is that the politicians always leave the soldiers with another war to fight.

I submit that the President also considered that had we gone into Afghanistan alone searching for bin Laden, Saddam would most certainly haveused this as the impetus for his own strike on our troops. So many things go into these decisions, things we will never know, that it's impossible for us to pass judgement with the knowledge available to us.

By the way, Yeahuhuh. You're right about part of the reasoning being oil. If one dictator controls that region, he holds the world hostage by closing the Straits of Hormuz. But I challenge you to find for me a single war throughout all recorded history that wasn't fought ultimately over finances or territory. War is just an escalation of a financial dispute. And that all ties in with a nation's security. I don't like it any more than anybody else, but as long as sinful man exists on Earth, that's the way it is.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lol dragonflyday, that smack you wrote to djarum_black was way weird.

Posted by sayitloud (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kmbjd40 why are YOU a "labeler"? You are sure quick to not only judge but to also label everyone on here who doesn't agree with you.

Posted by kangaroochaser (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Enkikur, thanks for posting the information on Margaret Sanger. Most people are unaware of her background beyond the most surface information. In may opinion she was one of the most racist, evil figures of the twentieth century. I once read her autobiography and had a strong desire to soak in disinfectant for several hours afterward.

Posted by kmbjd40 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a "labeler" and "playing God?" Okay sayitloud, let's just say that you and your ilk are hopelessly misguided. As to the "playing God" comment, time4change, please explain, because I'm simply an advocate of nature taking its course in reference to abortion, whereas the pro-choicers of the world are the ones in support of a person making the God-like decision about whether another person lives or dies.

Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on January 23, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, she was pretty bad kangaroochaser but she had a lot of support and there are still a lot of people around who carry on her ideas. Back in the early seventies a representative of the Ford Foundation put forth a plan at a Population Council meeting to control the population of India by sending a fleet of airplanes to spray the people with a sterilizing agent.

And in recent months about five hundred thousand Africans were accidentally sterilized in a vaccination campaign for some kind of fever.

It just goes on and on. Obama today rescinded the ban on giving foreign aid to ngos who run abortion clinics as part of their birth control outreach. One reason for this ban was that the UN uses some of the money in China to support the one-child policy and involuntary sterilization.

One side depopulates through war and the other through abortion and sterilization. No matter who does it it is the poor among us who are singled out for eradication.

It surely doesn't make sense to run these programs in third world countries because their infant mortality rates are too high and they can't sustain their populations without a high pregnancy rate. Some people just think they know better than nature how to run things I guess.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Enk, I just saw that on the news. So not only will my tax dollars fund abortions here, they will fund them everywhere else in the world. With the increase in taxes that will mean we all will be living on even less than we do now.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4, you are so right. It is time to let God be in charge and not try to make His decisions for him. If God doesn't want that baby in the world He will take care of it, so women won't need to get abortions if they just give it all to God. God gave us free-choice, and I don't think He's going to interfer with that when people insist on having their "rights".
Do you all really think the monsters who abuse children would have considered an abortion? So how are you going to choose what child will be aborted based on what you know about the prospective parents?

Posted by crackbaby (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Being our new President's first order of business is to close Gitmo, and assure us there will be choice when dealing with the abortion issue, its possible he can get two birds with one stone. Maybe he can release the captured terrorist and set them up with a Federally funded abortion clinic. That way, they can keep killing Americans in a legal way. WOW< problem solved!

Posted by say31 (anonymous) on January 23, 2009 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad that my biological mother did not abort me! Instead she gave me up for adoption!!!!! I am thanking her in my prayers ever night for the wonderful choice she made. I can not tell anyone what to do with their body. I do not agree on abortion, but the ones who are raped or incest need other alternatives if they so choose.

Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on January 24, 2009 at 2:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In the fifties, I went to school with a product of incest. She was disfigured, but had a very sweet disposition. Cosmetic surgery could easily repair the disfigurement today. She made a lasting impression on me. Her mother was her sister, and she also later had a child by her father. Thank God that we no longer look the other way when such is happening. She dropped out of school when she got pregnant, but I ran into her years later. Her little boy was so very precious to her. We should prosecute rape and incest to the fullest degree and both should carry the death penalty. One very important thing to remember is that only one-half of the gene pool comes from that evil person, and a good environment can negate the damage from that. Giving nine months of your life to save another's life is something to be considered. That child could be put up for adoption.

I am against abortion, but I can put myself in another's shoes and imagine how difficult it would be when faced with such a decision. I do know a powerful God who can enable you to do the seemingly impossible.

For the ones who choose to use abortion for birth control purposes, I pray that God has more mercy for you than you have for your unborn child.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on January 24, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Frogprincenessntz, It is a sad day when people are subjected to rape and even sadder when it's incest. We don't know why God allows these things to happen,but He has His reasons. A time for everything. I have enough faith in Him to let Him handle it. And for those of ya'll that haven't given much thought to how devastating abortion can be for the sperm donor,I personally know of men that would have loved to have taken their little babies and raised them in a loving home but wasn't given the option. That's not right. It is usually out of cold blooded selfishness that these helpless little babies are MURDERED! The only good thing that comes from abortion is these perfect little souls are now with our heavenly Father.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on January 24, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And for those of you who think this is just Bible banging, well...God is a regular part of my life and it's only natural to bring Him up. I'm not a regular church goer but I'm a great believer. I fall short though.I just get a little bit disgusted with organized religion and that's another story.As a christian, I have to forgive other people and myself. Whether I agree with them or not. Even the women that have abortions.

Posted by CaptainObvious (anonymous) on January 24, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is one situation that lights my fire! I don not understand how we have taken a beautiful country that was founded on TRUST IN GOD and in every document our founding Fathers stated their belief that God is, and will be part of this country's success and people today are taking God out of it. It is disgusting and terrible.
I recently I have heard a statement that I now am believing it is probably the truth, "This country will continue to endure this grief, turmoil, and sadness unless we turn our faith back to God." Seriously if you look at the crap that is going on in this nation and look at how much God is questioned in the US today in our schools, homes, and government it kind of makes sense.
I believe no matter the circumstance abortion is wrong and I just hate it that those who do not see this will suffer for their belief.

Posted by lucky (anonymous) on January 24, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EITHER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT, ABORTION IS MURDER! GIVE THE CHILD TO SOMEONE WHO WILL LOVE, CARE,AND PROTECT SHE OR HE! I HAVE 3 CHILDREN AND 2 STEP-CHILDREN! I WILL GLADLY TAKE ANOTHER!

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on January 25, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Until they find a cure for this http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=67...
everyone should consider being on some kind of birth control. Your kids are not safe. Why subject more innocent children to this mess? Clean up this world and be willing to provide support to the already living and then perhaps females will stop wanting to abort their children. If you can't understand that then maybe you are the one with the warped mind.