An alternative to abortion

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Re: Statistics
    July 29, 2008 9:37 p.m.

    "Suicide rates for women POST Roe v. Wade have actually DROPPED. You might want to go to factcheckdotorg to help you better understand."

    For women over all, yes they have. For women who have had abortions in their lifetimes, however, it has more than tripled. You may want to do a little factchecking of your own.

  • I agree....
    July 29, 2008 7:14 p.m.

    It's none of anybody's else's business what a woman has to do regarding her reproduction abilities. That is between herself, her doctor (and her religious beliefs...if that applies). I have had miscarriages (also called abortions). This wasn't my choice, but it was nature's way. My doctors had to use pretty much the same techniques as when they are doing an abortion. Sometimes these things are done because a doctor suspects problems with the women's health. Leave your mis-informed opinions out of women's lives!

  • Anonymous
    July 29, 2008 6:24 p.m.

    To those opposing women's reproductive and privacy rights:
    Contact your elected officials if you are dead-set about jailing women who choose to exercise their reproductive rights.

  • What right
    July 29, 2008 6:20 p.m.

    Anonymous said

    Roe v Wade upheld one of our most beloved items from the Bill of Rights - The Right to Privacy.

    This is something neocons will never understand as they continue to support wire-tapping from their neocon administration, But the Founding Fathers did.

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Can you point out where in the constitution especially in the Bill of Rights, that a womans right to an abortion is part of that right as outlined in the fourth amendment found in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution?

    Also read amendment 10

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    Roe v Wade has nothing to do with the constitution. We neocons are anxiously awaiting your reply.

  • how will they answer?
    July 29, 2008 5:09 p.m.

    If a person is pro- life or pro- choice is that position linked to religious beliefs? Women have a right to make decisions about their reproductive lives but they also must accept the long- term consequences of those decisions. If they believe in God, how will they answer him when he asks why they aborted their unborn children?

  • Anonymous
    July 29, 2008 1:54 p.m.

    Roe v Wade upheld one of our most beloved items from the Bill of Rights - The Right to Privacy.

    This is something neocons will never understand as they continue to support wire-tapping from their neocon administration, But the Founding Fathers did.

  • Statistics
    July 29, 2008 12:16 p.m.

    Abortion and suicide rates can be easily manipulated and people duped if they don't understand them. Suicide rates for women POST Roe v. Wade have actually DROPPED. You might want to go to factcheckdotorg to help you better understand.

  • Planned Parenthood v. Casey
    July 29, 2008 11:51 a.m.

    Supreme Court already changed Roe v. Wade.

  • @ ANONYMOUS 6:45 AM
    July 29, 2008 10:42 a.m.

    Try looking into catholic beliefs, thats pretty much what they think.

  • To Chris Plummer:
    July 29, 2008 9:43 a.m.

    "A first trimester abortion doesn't end a human life. It rids the body of cells that will form a human life over the next few months."

    Four to six weeks into that first trimester (before most women even know they're pregnant), those "cells" already have brain activity and a heartbeat. They already react violently to pain. Their bodies are already developing. They may not look like your or me yet, but they are most definitely already alive.

  • Sarah
    July 29, 2008 9:35 a.m.

    It's funny, people keep going on and on about the benefits of having a "safe" abortion as opposed to giving birth and giving your child up for adoption.

    Suicide rates in women who have had an abortion within 10 years of killing themselves have skyrocketed. In fact, a study in Finland in 1997 found that women who have had an abortion in their lifetime have a 248% MORE chance of dying over the next 13 years than women who have not. A separate study in California in 2002 found that in over 8 years after an abortion, women have a 154% more chance of committing suicide than women who don't. And a third study in England in 2001 found that women who have abortions have a much higher risk of long-term depression than women who don't. There are countless other studies showing similar results.

    It's important that women and young girls know the facts and the long term risks before they agree to end a human life. Many people do this without any long term consequences in this lifetime, but countless others do not. I don't think teaching those risks before an abortion is going too far at all.

  • Anonymous
    July 29, 2008 6:45 a.m.

    The same argument could be made with a sperm and an egg.
    Both have potential to develop into something else.

  • to: Anonymous | 10:01 a.m.
    July 28, 2008 10:01 p.m.

    If you let a hunk of steel alone, it will not turn into a car. If you let that fertilized egg alone, it has a very high chance of becoming a baby. Anyway it was weeks before my kids would respond much, does that mean that they are not a baby? My 3 pound and some odd ounce girl, I mean fetus by some peoples definitions, when she came came home, was basically just a few cells. It was quite a while before she even cried much. Just a fetus?

  • Anonymous
    July 28, 2008 4:49 p.m.

    Ever given any thought as to why Roe v Wade still stands?

    How about prayer in public School?

    How about censorship?

    How about stem-cell research?

    The neocons can whine and act as sanctimonious as they want, these laws will remain in our land and are so for a reason. And it isn't because Satan has taken over the U.S. (as the wacked-out neocons like to say each election year)

  • Dane
    July 28, 2008 4:41 p.m.

    Interesting how many of the liberal, "pro-choice" people are the same ones who would put you in jail for harming a dog or cat. America the beautiful, right!?

  • Raymond G.
    July 28, 2008 4:10 p.m.

    There was a time when LDS leaders taught that using any kind of birth control was a sin, including abstinence. Those days have passed for the most part. You still find some fanatics in the Church who preach that a man and a woman should live together naturally and let the children come, but most recognize the value of birth control even within marriage. And most LDS leaders have admitted that it is almost impossible to say WHEN that tiny sperm and that egg actually become a life that is murdered when it is terminated. Unfortunately, even fanatics who claim life begins at conception cannot tell when that is. Now we have the morning after pill, and a number of ways of ensuring an ovum does not adhere to the wall of the uterus. The bottom line is that conception is not as clear-cut as fanatics would like to believe. The reality is that women will continue to terminate unwanted pregnancies, and there are good reasons why they should have that right, up to a point. But fanaticism and simple-mindedness do not help anything. They only make things worse. Inform yourselves instead of continuing the ignorant binary thinking.

  • to learning curve etc...
    July 28, 2008 11:50 a.m.

    i think it's unfair to put 100% reproductive responsibility on women, many people here seem to be doing that.

    how many men do you know that have taken 100% responsibility and had a vasectomy?

  • abortvsadopt
    July 28, 2008 10:42 a.m.

    living with an abortion is easier than living with putting a child up for adoption. With abortion you know where the child went, with adoption you worry about the child that was born.

    Children end up in the foster care system for whatever reason are later adopted out. The reason - and it doesn't matter what state you live in - the mother is labeled a drug addict. I met three moms awhile back while traveling to Ogden - they all had adopted their children and the story they gave - the mom was a drug addict. I know someone right now who is going to be taking in foster kids - the first one she will be getting is the child of a druggie.

    So single mom's to be - keep your child or abort it - don't have lies told about you so that those who want it can make themselves feel better by calling you a drug addict.

  • Sure it's a choice
    July 28, 2008 10:29 a.m.

    It started when the man and women decided to have sex.

    Then there's a choice to commit murder - abortion.

    Yeah, it's all a choice.

    But "NEOCON" writer doesn't want judgement. Sorry, dude. We have to call them like we see them.

  • Anonymous
    July 28, 2008 7:31 a.m.

    The Roe v Wade issue is always politicized by the wacky and sanctimonious conservatives every election year. (what else do they do or "accomplish?"

    Then time go by and Roe v Wade remains unchanged.

  • Read it
    July 27, 2008 7:18 p.m.

    I would be willing to bet my back teeth that nobody who has commented against abortion has even READ Roe vs Wade!

    I HAVE! It is a good decision. Read it before you blindly attack it in the name of your religious bigotry.

  • I am a Democrat who loves
    July 27, 2008 5:23 p.m.

    Children! I had two of my own after losing five to miscarriage....(did you know that miscarriages are medically termed "abortions" too?) I love life, but I also accept that sometimes life wasn't meant to be either by nature (nature causes about 20% or more of pregnancies to be ended naturally)or by sad circumstance. Woman will not give up their choice to have control over their own bodies...that will not happen again so you might as well accept it. Stop judging women for tough things they may have to go through. That is between them, nature and their doctor. Also, many women will choose to have a baby for another couple to adopt if their bodies and minds can handle it. That can be a wonderful choice too!

  • Maria
    July 27, 2008 7:16 a.m.

    and even more.... I volunteer rocking special needs/medically fragile babies. What I find most interesting is that other volunteers seem not to be the anti-abortion crowd but homosexuals. It seems the anti-abortion crowd only care about babies when they are in the uterus, not out. This runs especially true when they are not born perfect. Perhaps this crowd understands what it is like to feel tossed from society so feels a special compulsion to help while the anti-crowd is big on words, not actions.

  • Maria
    July 27, 2008 7:12 a.m.

    And more....I have a special needs child that I did not abort. My child will never grow to be independent like yours. Instead I have concerns over who will care for my child after we are gone.

    Another close relative gave birth after being strongly advised to have an abortion because of severe birth defects of her child. She opted to have that child and after two YEARS was able to take her home for the first time but certainly not the last. Half of her life has been spent in the hospital and she will very likely die before she reaches the age of consent.

    What I find most odd is that the people that scream the loudest against abortions seem to be the very people that refused to touch my child because of appearance while other pretty and normal babies were being passed around. The same occurred with my relative.

    My new motto based on my life experience: Her uterus her business.

  • Maria
    July 27, 2008 7:01 a.m.

    First, women that have abortions do quite well emotionally post abortion. First month abortion is the equivalent of ridding oneself of a's still human.

    Second, I still find it humorous that men consider themselves pregnant or state "we are in labor." No buddy you aren't.

  • This eternal argument
    July 27, 2008 3:09 a.m.

    will never be concluded to everyone's satisfaction. Each state needs to decide where the line between legal abortion and murder lies, and then pass laws accordingly. EVERYONE needs to be responsible about when and with whom they have sexual relations. Unfortunately, it ain't ever gonna happen that way. People will get pregnant irresposibly, and others will suffer because of it. Such is life on this planet. Just make sure YOU aren't part of the problem, and stop getting so bent out of shape when the problem rears its ugly head every once in a while. It is tragic that abortions occur, and they should be discouraged by any human being with a sense of compassion, but they ARE going to happen from time to time whether you want them to be legal or illegal. Just do what you can to influence people to be the best they can be so that fewer of these abortions are ever considered.

  • to KVC
    July 25, 2008 11:07 p.m.


    To answer your question:

    I know that when I have sex, it could result in pregnancy. Although I use condoms AND am on the Pill, there is still a SLIGHT chance that one day, it could happen.

    However, there are women (myself included) whose life plans do NOT include becoming a parent. This is a decision that is personal. However, I am not going to live my life without EVER having sex, just because I don't want to have kids.

    In the event of pregnancy, I will know within a month at the ABSOLUTE longest, and my husband and I will take the steps that we see as necessary. Ending a two or three week long pregnacy is not "murdering a baby."

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 10:10 p.m.

    @Oscar 9:39,

    You quoted me accurately, but you missed one other point that I think is very important and that point is that the mother of that unborn baby must have had a choice to have had sex. In the case of rape or incest, when that mother had no real choice in becoming pregnant, abortion is an option.

    Personally, I would never advise abortion, even in those cases, because there is still another life, a very innocent life at stake, but I believe that agency is absolute and when there is no agency (choice) then very special circumstances apply.

    However, I think that we could both easily agree that of the 48,000,000 abortions that only a very small percent would have been the result of rape, incest or dire heath issues.

  • Oscar
    July 25, 2008 9:39 p.m.

    It's getting late, but I want to thank you Mike Richards for responding in a very civil fashion. Although we disagree on the subject, your statement was appreciated.

    However, for Charles, he cracks me up with his vitrole and pomposity. I suggest you read Mike Richards' post (8:21 p.m.) and see how he has responded. Perhaps you could then differentiate between providing a religious-based response and a non-religious-based response without diverging into a Twilight Zone of accusation and innuendo.

    One last point: Mike has made it very clear his position about when a woman might rightfully (in his opinion) to have a termination of pregnancy: " . . . EXCEPT when there is a real (read absolute) possibility that the mother will die."

  • bottom line
    July 25, 2008 8:53 p.m.

    No one should EVER force a woman to carry a fetus to term unless she chooses to. Anti-abortionists are relics from a time when patriarchal powers were able to dominate and force women to do their bidding. Allowing women safe abortions, access to divorce, coupled with more fair property and legal rights has greatly undermined patriarchy's evil hold in society. The decision to abort or carry a fetus to term rests with the women who is pregnant.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 8:29 p.m.

    KVC, perhaps no one has answered your question about why women have sex even if they know they don't want to become pregnant because it seems like a question that no adult would ever need to ask.

    Why do women choose to be sexually active? What could POSSIBLY be the reason? How could anyone possibly have sex when they know there might be negative consequences?

    Why do men have sex when they don't want to have children?

    It's such a puzzle. I'm sure no one on this board has an answer. I can't think of a one!

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 8:21 p.m.

    Oscar @ 3:22

    Several of my posts never made it past the moderator, because, I suppose, I used the word "murder". Let's see if this one works.

    You want a non-LDS viewpoint on abortion? Well, you're going to have to ask someone who is not LDS.

    You want a viewpoint from a matriarchal society? You'll have to ask a matriarch.

    All that I can give you is what I know to be true, and that is that no one, once having "chosen" to engage in sexual intercourse has the right to abort that baby EXCEPT when there is a real (read absolute) possibility that the mother will die. That choice has never ended in an abortion with anyone that I know, including my wife. Her uterus did not rupture and our youngest child, who is 22 and getting married in two months has had a exceptional life.

    I have no acquaintances who have found an excuse to suggest abortion. Everyone that I know, men and women, know the sanctity of life. None would ever consider hurting a child, born or unborn.

    So, Oscar, I'm very sorry. It's not often that I don't have an answer. You'll have to look elsewhere.

  • Charles
    July 25, 2008 8:00 p.m.

    Oscar...stay on point? you seem to be the only one playing the LDS card.

    So please spare us the overly-sensitive liberal card. You are what you are.

    Can you please tell me how it is ok to kill an innocent unborn child without saying it's a woman's body and she can do with it what she wants?

    I bet we could go out into the middle of some jungle somewhere and ask them how they feel about abortion. I'd bet that they would laugh you off to Siberia because they couldn't figure out why someone would want to kill their unborn child. You know, people who don't have ultrasounds, hospitals, etc.

    You're a pompous windbag who can't stay on point. It's wonderful that you have rationalized away in your mind that abortion isn't killing an unborn child. Commonsense tells me this. I don't need religion to tell me when something is wrong.

    As Mike Richards said before, it's you who needs the law to tell you that you are doing something ok, not the other way around.

    You are weak in substance and short in style. And you're obviously an religious bigot.

  • Cameron
    July 25, 2008 7:16 p.m.

    Oscar -

    Out of compassion? It is compassionate to end the life of someone who is a "defect"?

  • Oscar
    July 25, 2008 7:04 p.m.

    Charles --

    Re-read my post. Give it some thought before responding, and put away your "You hate us" mantra.

    I asked that Mike provide an argument not dependent upon LDS teachings to support his position. If he is talking with an agnostic or a Methodist, using LDS talking points and biblical references doesn't cut the mustard.

    Certainly, criticism of the LDS church as a male-dominated and male-oriented group is valid and does apply to this case. However, the same could be said about Muslims and its variants, the Catholic church, and various Christian fundamentalist sects.

    As for yourself, do you have a non-religious, non-sectarian argument against a woman's choice to have control over her own body? And, please, don't take my words out of context and launch into a "You hate Mormons" diatribe. Try to stay on point!

  • Oscar
    July 25, 2008 6:37 p.m.


    As a physician, are there not certain genetic problems that may lead to severe physical or mental disability and can be easily diagnosed during pregnancy? If so, do you also believe that the woman who is diagnosed with such a fetus should not have the right to choose whether to carry that fetus to term or end the pregnancy?

    I'm not talking about abortions of convenience because the child will be of the wrong sex or even the financial burden the woman might incur. It is a simple question. Is there a type of birth defect that you could identify that would, in your mind, be sufficient justification to say, "Yes, an abortion would be in order"?

    There are some parents who will take a child with severe birth defects and love that child until it dies. However, there are others who may want to make a different choice out of compassion for what lies ahead for that child.

    Do you not see the complexity here? Do not say because some will choose to carry the defective fetus to term means that everyone should carry a defective fetus to term. That is ridiculous.

  • Charles
    July 25, 2008 6:37 p.m.

    Oscar, you are kidding right? This is an LDS issue? Wow, when did it become that?

    Unfortunately you are just showing your own hatred to anything LDS. I have neighbors who are pro-life who aren't LDS. There are whole states of people who believe that killing an innocent unborn child is wrong.

    What arrogance on your part to try to say this is an LDS ideological issue. Are you really that poor in your education that the LDS card is played when you have no other recourse?

    As all you liberals like to say, can't you think intelligently on this one on your own and understand that a child is being mutilated? Of course you can't; you are a liberal.

  • Lionheart
    July 25, 2008 6:21 p.m.

    @Anonymous 4:24: Perhaps I have lived longer, but I have known women who didn't think anything about their abortions until much later in life, and then came to regret. I know one women who uses her grief over her numerous abortions as a excuse for her miserable life. I have also known women, who got pregnant diliberately to snag a husband, and I have known men who paid child support for their illigitimate children for 18 years, also deliberately conceived by women. It depends on where your compassion and sympathies lie. I have a lot of compassion for all the parties involved. I have seen tremendous suffering. I have yet to see anyone whose life was improved by their abortion. Give me some winning examples. Someone who wrote the great American novel, or cured cancer, or went on to be a tireless worker for the downtrodden, or a better mother or father to other children, because they were relieved of a 9 month burden.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 5:12 p.m.

    A woman's reproductive rights are between she, her physician and her god.

    Everyone else (big government included)has no business interferring, judging or mandating anything to her in this extremely private matter.

  • RedShirt
    July 25, 2008 4:54 p.m.

    To "Gus Talwynd | 11:35 a.m" you say it is a woman's choice to have an abortion. You say it like it is an individual freedom.

    Since we don't know when a fetus becomes a person, how do we know that the fetus has not developed suficiently to grow into a fully functioning adult? How do you know that the fetus' rights have not been stamped out by aborting it?

    For the rest of you pro-abortion people, if you read most of the anti-abortion posts, they are advocating RESPONSIBILITY. Women have a choice, the difference is where one believes that choice was made.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 4:24 p.m.

    Conservative Lionheart tells us that a woman exercising her reproductive rights must
    'think about the ramifications of her actions'.

    I have never heard of one single case where a woman just simply can't wait to have an abortion because she will now no longer have to think about it.

    Very thoughtful and compassionate remark from old Lionheart it seems to me.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 4:22 p.m.

    Conservatives are constantly talking up smaller government, less government intervention, lower taxes ... blah, blah, blah, (you know the song).

    Yet they want government to have the power to tell an unmarried 14-year old pregnant girl what she can and cannot do with her reproductive rights.

    A confused group these neocons are.

  • KVC
    July 25, 2008 3:41 p.m.

    I am still so amazed that not one single person will answer the question as to why women do something that they know full well could lead to pregnancy? Is this just too difficult for the Pro-choice crowd to come up with a reasonable response to, other than just saying, "its a privacy issue and women should have reproductive choice." They completely ignore the fact that women do have reproductive choice. Its called have sex or don't have sex. One can lead to pregnancy the other does not.
    If you could lose your job if you get pregnant, all the more reason to choose not to have sex and take the risk. Should you go to the casino in Wendover if you can barely pay rent. If you can't afford the consequences you are stupid to take the risk.
    I am not a sex for procreation purposes only person, but my wife chose the most effective birth control method known to man aside from abstinence, menopause, or a hysterectomy. It is a choice almost all women can make, and it is cheaper than an abortion as well.

    PS: anonymous, the government does dictate morality. It is called the legal system.

  • Lionheart
    July 25, 2008 3:24 p.m.

    We should expect that abortion will continue to be available in the foreseeable future. Thank goodness the partial birth abortion late term has been outlawed, it is just too barbaric for a society to condone. Always, liberties can degenerate into vices. Abortion was rare before Roe V Wade, but did exist. Roe V Wade has not changed the tendency for the poor to have more children than the middle class or well off, that was suppose to be part of the deal, less poor and neglected children. Didn't happen.

    Conservatives such as myself, realize that abortion will be there, but I can hope to make someone think about the ramifications of such a travesty before they commit to such a course. As consciousness raises and people become more educated and enlightened, unwanted pregnancies will go down. Saying that you can't control your sex urges or your procreation is not a very flattering way to define yourself.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 3:23 p.m.

    KFC is conveniently confused.
    The Supreme Court is primarily conservative.
    In the current court the swing vote is held by Justice Anthony Kennedy -- nominally a conservative but who voted to for Guantanamo prisoner rights and against imposing the death penalty on child rapists.

  • Oscar
    July 25, 2008 3:22 p.m.

    So Mike and the other anti-choice individuals on this thread:

    How do you present your arguments to those who do not share your religious beliefs? I realize that you expect those who are LDS to conform to the teachings of that church, but many are not LDS and your arguments appear to be dependent upon LDS theology?

    It is a male-dominated theocracy that appears to have a history of dictating a woman's role in society and what she can and cannot do. I guess a woman's choice is not even a consideration!

  • more wacky neocon drive-by stuff
    July 25, 2008 3:17 p.m.

    The US Supreme Court has nine justices, of which five are considered conservative and four are considered moderate or liberal.
    Source: The Washington Post

    Nice try KFC. I am quite sure you will now say this report if wrong because it's from the drive-by media or some outlandish Rush Limbaugh thing such as that.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 2:54 p.m.

    Look, women are going to have abortions. We have no right to ask for bigger government interfering with private lives and dictating what she should or shouldn't do about an unwanted pregnancy.

    I thought conservatives were dead set against big government and big government intervention?

  • running out of people
    July 25, 2008 2:53 p.m.

    This abortion thing is getting out of control. Do you realize this planet is down to its last six billion people?

  • KVC
    July 25, 2008 2:49 p.m.

    To Anon 1:24-
    There are 5 liberal judges, again Kennedy is not considered a conservative. Understand your facts and judicial history before making false claims. I think you are jealous of conservatives success in life. Studies show Republicans are much happier than democrats on average, by 15-20 percentage points in a recent study. Liberalism drags you down.

    Actually I am a physician who has a fairly good knowledge of embryology from my medical studies. ALS is not diagnosed during pregnancy, Lou Gehrig lived a productive life before it killed him. You believe he should have been aborted?
    Severity becomes a tricky slope to climb. Is Down's severe enough, even though most parents of Down's children would never consider giving them up, and they can have productive lives. In addition, most physician assisted abortions are not the result of defects. Is the wrong sex enough reason to abort? A couple in England had IVF to get pregnant and had twins of the wrong sex. Now they want to give up their newborns and undergo IVF again hoping to have a boy.
    Partial bith abortions are performed at up to 38 weeks gestation in Kansas. 37 weeks is considered full-term

  • learning curve
    July 25, 2008 2:48 p.m.

    The FDA approved the controversial French abortion pill RU-486, permitting non-surgical abortions in the U.S. for the first time

    If women can deal with unwanted pregnancies safely without it destroying their lives, how are they ever going to learn?

  • anniec
    July 25, 2008 2:43 p.m.

    woman had abortions prior to Roe. Actually at the time many states were changing their laws to permit abortions because so many woman were injured or died during illegal abortions. Legal or not, woman have abortions. Those who have money can afford safe ones, those who don't buy what they can. The outcome is the same for the fetus. Whether a woman's life is of value depends on your political viewpoint.

    Instead of arguing about immorality or illegality, why isn't energy expended toward helping women continue pregnancies? Losing one's job is not "an inconvenience". If a woman works for an employer with under 50 employees or for a religious organization, she can be terminated for being pregnant. Not being able to afford to continue the pregnancy or being forced to bankrupt your family because of the birth of a disabled child is not "an inconvenience".

    I have to laugh at the posts that talk about how glorious a baby is but in the same breath indicate that a baby is punishment for sex. Yeah, some gift. Bad girl, now you have a baby.

  • sincere question
    July 25, 2008 2:25 p.m.

    The following predicament has long confused me:

    Why is it that our country allows a woman to abort her own baby without legal ramification, but if someone else attacks her and kills her baby, he/she can be charged with murder for the killing of the baby. In other words, we call it murder if anyone harms that baby unless it's the child's mother.

    As both have the same result, it seems that both situations should be labeled murder or else neither should. If we are going to allow the mother to kill the baby without consequence then should we reasonably be allowed to charge an attacker with murder for an unborn baby? Our society thinks so, but it seems like a double standard.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 2:25 p.m.

    Mike Richards talks about "WE don't kill all the babies." (emphasis on WE added)

    Now THAT is an interesting generalization that suggests that our society just can't wait to have that abortion and to build a political case by focusing on an individual group that is supposed to be FOR it vs the other group that is supposed to be AGAINST it.

    See how the game is played?

    And, this always comes to light in any election year. I've even read letters to the editor that tell people this:
    Democrats are liberals. Liberals don't want government dictating morality to them so they are pro-choice and therefore want dead babies. Vote Republican.

  • Oscar
    July 25, 2008 2:14 p.m.

    Poor Oscar (1:16 p.m.)

    How did we go from a baby one minute before birth to a third-trimester situation. My comment was in response to the reference of an abortion basically as the baby was being delivered at term. I was being very specific as to timing. Of course, you may been saying that some women have the life of the fully-developed fetus terminated as it is moving through the birth canal. Perhaps you can elaborate.

    Mike Richards (1:18 p.m.)

    Left-handedness is not a developmental defect and cleft palate is not of the severity that I had in mind when I made the statement. Although not specified, I include Neural Tube Defects, Anencephaly, and Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also called Lou Gehrig's disease, to name a few. However, I did forget "being born a Democrat" as a serious disorder requiring immediate abortion.

  • Chris Plummer
    July 25, 2008 1:36 p.m.

    My own mother died after giving birth and choosing not to abort the baby. And that was her choice. And 20 years later I don't fault her for it, and of course love my brother. BUT... it was a option for her. And a tough decision to make. It was back in the 80s. She was facing cancer and could have had treatment if the pregnancy wasn't there. So it always isn't as simple as choose life. In her case she choose life for the baby and died. There is more to abortion then selfish desires and killing fetus's. It is complicated and emotionally involved whatever decision you make. BUT IT was her DECISION to make. I would hate to have seen it play out with no choice at all on her part.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 1:24 p.m.

    There are only 4 liberal judges on The Supreme Court yet Roe v Wade decision making it unconstitutional to ban abortion based on the right to privacy arguments (hooray for the Bill of Rights).
    So, why are the remaining conservative majority of justices continuing to support the Roe v Wade decision?

    Seems to me the neocons who like to brag about their "moral superiority" should be going after their Congressmen, Judges, etc. rather than playing the stupid Rush Limbaugh "conservatives are #1" game and letting it go at that.

    What a bunch of whining jokesters!

  • Cameron
    July 25, 2008 1:24 p.m.


    The more severe cases of pregnancy due to rape or incest account for mere tenths of a percent of the abortions performed in this country.


    How did we jump from a 1 minute old, newly fertilized egg to "the decision needs to be made in the first 3 months"?

  • Charles
    July 25, 2008 1:24 p.m.

    come on Chris, you came around on another topic, you can too on this one.

    Why do you put a condition on partial-birth abortion? No doctor does. There haven't been any partial-birth abortion for the life of the mother; none. Doctors say it isn't medically necessary. It actually takes longer to perform the abortion than it does to deliver the child. So why the conditions when no doctor puts the conditions on it?

    You aren't a bad person for thinking a woman has a choice over her body, all the way up until she has sex that results in a pregnancy. At that point, she is the custodian over another human being and she is making choices for another.

    Do you condone smoking and drinking while pregnant? If not, isn't it her choice and her body? She can do what she wants?

    When did caring for the unborn turn into something so cavalier as calling the killing of that unborn; choice?

    It's incomprehensible. I really don't understand how you can rationalize it in your mind.

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 1:18 p.m.


    I'm left handed. In some societies, left-handers were not allowed to live. I had a very good friend in grade school who had a cleft palate. In some societies, he would not have been allowed to live. Even right now, today, right here in Utah, one of my best friends is a Democrat. Can you imagine how he, living in Utah, was allowed to take his first breath?

    Since I don't believe in gambling, I'm not even willing to flip a coin to see who lives and who dies. How about if we give them all at least three years before we make up our minds on which ones to "abort"?

    Let's give life a chance. Wonderful things happen when we don't kill all the babies.

  • Poor Oscar
    July 25, 2008 1:16 p.m.

    my friend've never heard of partial-birth abortion? Where have you been? What planet do you live on?

    It's defended by the entire Democrat Party, particularly Obama. If you are unaware of the T minus 1 minute abortions, you need to become more educated.

    Read the description in the post above. That's how they do it.

    Sad that you don't even know what you are defending.

  • Charles
    July 25, 2008 1:11 p.m. one needs to answer your hypothetical...when that time comes, we'll address it...

    How about you answer how you think it is wonderful to kill an unborn child? You tell us how partial-birth abortion is necessary for the life of the mother when no doctor is saying that.

  • Chris Plummer
    July 25, 2008 1:13 p.m.

    Charles: I did contribute, my personal feelings. I specified a first trimester baby, and no I do not defend partial birth abortions unless the mother would die because of pregnancy complications.
    I dont' believe its a child when the egg is barely fertilized. You do. The choice needs to be made in the first 3 months. I don't think I am a bad person for believing that a woman should have a choice when it comes to her body.

    And Mike Richards... lol I'll pass on the hymns and scriptures, but I'm sure your granddaughters are lovely.

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 1:10 p.m.

    Grover @ 12:56,

    You seem like a nice guy, so I'll tell you the truth. I believe 100% in fair play.

    Abort the mother and abort the doctor. That's fair, isn't it?

    You believe in the scriptures don't you, "Whatsoever ye would that men do unto you, do you even so unto them"? Those women (and the men with whom they had sex), and the doctors showed what they would do, so, let's let them have the same wonderful experience, after all, they're just a clump of cells.

  • Oscar
    July 25, 2008 1:06 p.m.


    What is a 1-minute old baby? My understanding is that one minute after conception, there is a fertilized egg! There is nothing that differentiates this as a "baby". Also, have you somehow become an embryology expert to say that the fertilized egg will naturally go to term?

    And what is this comment about a baby 1-minute prior to birth? If there are decisions to abort a fully-developed baby one minute before birth, it is news to me and probably everyone else.

    And your comment that "sex has no health benefit" I will leave since you appear to be a member of the "sex only for procreation" crowd. Your whole argument is both irrational and self-serving.

    However, you have not even touched the more severe issues of pregnancy by rape or incest, or the decision to abort a fetus because it will be developmentally defective.

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 1:01 p.m.

    @ 12:51,

    It's not moral superiority, it's simply morality. There is no such thing as moral superiority. You either have morals or you don't.

    The problem is that you can't buy morals. You can't steal morals. You can't lie about morals. You either earn them or you do without.

    Is that why those who have no morals are so upset? When they find that there's not even a ten-minute blue-light special at K-Mart on brand-new, never-been-used, morals, they get really, really frustrated and spout off about the most childish things.

    Oh well, if you really want some morals, start exercising good principles and someday you'll notice that your morals really do exist. If you work at it hard enough, someday, someone without morals will chide you for your moral superiority, then you'll know that you really do have morals.

  • Grover
    July 25, 2008 12:56 p.m.

    Mike: there is a least a 50-50 chance your guy wins in November. If he wins the chance is much higher you get the 5th (non swing) vote to overturn you know what. Now, answer the question: how long do you want the mother and the doctor put in jail?

  • Selfish
    July 25, 2008 12:55 p.m.

    Legal or not, in 99% of cases abortion is based on selfishness. Abortion is selfish. Adoption is selfless. I am pro-choice and I choose selfless. Please, choose adoption.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 12:54 p.m.

    To KVC:

    Contact your congressmen and give THEM an earful.

    I'm quite sure they will immediately march into the conservative-heavy Supreme Court and overturn that evil law.

  • To: Chris Plummer
    July 25, 2008 12:51 p.m.

    So Chris, you and most of the liberals support killing babies and protecting murderers. Are you sure you stand by that? Aborting babies is okay, but it is evil to execute someone convicted of murder or kill an animal for food. That is equivalent to saying: Put all the honest people in jail and let the criminals walk the streets of freedom. Respecting the sanctity of life of a convicted murderer over that of an innocent baby seems a little sick.
    Chris, you do know women can choose to not have sex right? I am a doctor, and sex has never been seen as a necessity in life.

    As for legislative action to outlaw abortion, because of liberal judges, it requires a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Due to the required 2/3 majority in Congress and 3/4 of states voting for it, makes it impossible due to Democratic opposition. The Supreme Court currently has only 4-conservative judges, which, if my math is right, is not a majority of 9-judges. Kennedy is not a conservative. The only way it will change is for a Republican President, which I am working very hard for right now.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 12:51 p.m.

    Neocons like to pull the "we're against the killing of unborn babies - not like those evil liberals (aka Democrats)!" every election year.

    They think this sets them apart as being the most moral therefore a vote for a Democrat is a vote for evil .... so you should vote for ... blah, blah, blah (you know the rest) You hear this BS on almost every blog today.

    And they think they are pulling the wool over the eyes of society with their non-stop "moral superiority." Nothing new here. They've been doing the same thing for years.

  • Charles
    July 25, 2008 12:49 p.m.

    Chris Plummer...please contribute something. Mike was correct in his post. There is no denying it.

    The choice is over for the woman when she has conceived. You can rationalize it in your head however you wish. The fact remains that anyone who has an abortion is killing another human being.

    That's not a choice. How do you justify killing an innocent unborn child and call it choice? That concept is incomprehensible to anyone with a conscience.

    Since most are not done for the life of the mother what other conclusion is there? Convenience.

    And do you defend partial-birth abortions too? Do you know that there isn't any doctor who says that those are done for the life of the mother? It's a baby, delivered feet first; stop the delivery to insert scissors, puncture back of head, get vacuum, suck out brains, collapse skull, finish delivery.

    Yep it sure is a choice. One that each mother and father who participate in this will have to explain to that soul on the other side....will be some interesting explaining; "you really are a human? I thought you were just a chunk of steel."

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 12:48 p.m.


    Why are you so upset today? Is it because I defend babies? Is it because I favor destroying terrorists? Is it because I favor letting criminals be punished for the crimes that they chose to commit?

    I'm scratching my head at your 12:30 post. If I take it literally, you want to kill all the babies and save the criminals and the terrorists.

    Thanks for accusing me of suffering from self-proclaimed religiosity. I'm always happy when others notice a small religious streak in me. I do my best to hide it, but sometimes it just comes shinning out. Those halos are so hard to keep hidden.

    As for dripping with self-righteousness, I'm afraid that you've confused good, honest sweat with self-righteousness. I've got a big garden to tend. It's a hot day and that sweat just keeps dripping off my brow.

    Come on over tonight. We'll read the scriptures together and sing a few hymns, then you'll feel better. I might even invite my little two-year old twin granddaughters to join us. You know, the ones that were allowed to live. They're so full of life. Their joy is contagious.

  • Gus Talwynd
    July 25, 2008 12:44 p.m.

    The Father (12:19 p.m.)

    Re-read my post.

    "If anything, a man, not married to the woman, has absolutely no say in the matter!"

    Again, you have no legal rights if you are not married to the woman. If it is a fetus conceived out of a legally-recognized marriage, you have no rights since you have no responsibility until the decision to proceed with the pregnancy and birth has resulted. At that point, you have responsibility!

  • KVC
    July 25, 2008 12:36 p.m.

    Not one pro-choice individual is willing to answer this simple question: Did the woman make a conscience choice to engage in activity they knew could lead to pregnancy? If so, why are they allowed to chose to abort ? When does their right stop? If they give birth, but taking care of the child becomes tasking do they have a right to kill the baby then?
    GUS- She has a right to her reproductive capabilities, have sex or don't. Is this really a difficult concept to understand. She has the right to not have sex. Sex is not a necessity to survive in this world, or even to be healthier, so why take the risk of pregnancy if you are unwilling to accept the consequence of the risk. GUS, or anyone else for that matter, why is it acceptable to take have an abortion when the risk of pregnancy is well known, and sex has no health benefit whatsoever? Why does a 1-minute old baby have full rights, but a baby 1-minute prior to birth has none?
    I hate to harp, but women know the risk, and voluntarily accept it when they have sex by choice.

  • Chris Plummer
    July 25, 2008 12:30 p.m.

    Mike Richards... so you want to save all the babies and kill all the criminals and terrorists. Your self proclaimed religiosity is dripping with self righteousness.

  • a little angry Charles?
    July 25, 2008 12:29 p.m.

    oops you where right Charles it is projection. my bad!

  • get to work!
    July 25, 2008 12:29 p.m.

    Sounds to me that Mike Richards and his neocon ilk have an issue with Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court and his elected officials who are in charge of the entire legal process.
    Yet he and his ilk believe they are doing some sort of service by slamming liberals (it's all they're good at) and this is supposed to be the answer to the problem.
    Get out there Neocons and change the law if you're that passionate about it! Otherwise you have no credibility whatsoever by the usual whining about everything under the sun you don't agree with.

    Then go after:
    Prayer in public schools
    stem-cell research
    gay unions
    liberal internationalism

    Then you can say that you have accomplished something other than the incessant whining about how terribly immoral your world is.

  • Chris Plummer
    July 25, 2008 12:24 p.m.

    So Mike Richards... the law was made for you then? Get real, no one PRO abortion... they are for The CHOICE a woman should have over her own body. I know you don't like women to have choices. that messes up the patriarchal order of things for you.

  • The Father
    July 25, 2008 12:19 p.m.

    @ Gus Talwynd

    Is it really only the woman's choice? Have I no right to my offspring? This is very sad for me.

    She (the mother) is not making a choice for her life. She is making a choice for my life. She is making me not a father when I expected to become one. This impacts me very profoundly and I am saddened that I have no say in the matter.

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 12:20 p.m.

    @ 12:07,

    Yes, you are correct. Only those who want abortions need Roe v. Wade. Only those who believe in killing babies need Roe v. Wade. Only those who don't believe in the sanctity of life need Roe v. Wade.

    Those mothers who cherish life don't need Roe v. Wade. Those mothers who know that the baby growing within them is a human being don't need Roe v. Wade. Those mothers and fathers who know that they used their agency to create a new life don't need Roe v. Wade.

    Only those who would murder a baby need Roe v. Wade. Only those who hope to someday murder a baby are worried that Roe v. Wade might be over-ruled.

    To the righteous, Roe v. Wade is only a foot-note in history. To them, Roe v. Wade does not exist because they would die before killing a baby. It doesn't have to be overturned in court. It has already been overturned in their hearts.

  • Chris Plummer
    July 25, 2008 12:14 p.m.

    A first trimester abortion doesn't end a human life. It rids the body of cells that will form a human life over the next few months.
    So having someone tell you something that is a elaboration is over the top.

  • come on Gus
    July 25, 2008 12:12 p.m.

    If I were to argue that I could gain human rights by relegating women to subhuman status, I would be considered a sexist. When feminists to it; it is called "choice". How dare you condemn others for "imposing their morality" when you advocate worse.

  • Why bother fighting?
    July 25, 2008 12:09 p.m.

    So what if you think abortion should or shouldn't be legal. No one has been able to change this law, and how many years have the Republicans been in the white house? It's simply a distraction, an issue that is no longer worth fighting about. Let's work toward helping women realize that they DO have other options and quit worrying about what is legal or illegal. 'Nuff said.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 12:10 p.m.

    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a controversial United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.

    The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable, that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These court rulings affected laws in 46 states.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 12:07 p.m.

    What has Mike Richards been smoking today?

    He tell us: "The only people who are talking about changing Roe v. Wade are those who are for abortions."

    Roe v Wade is the name of the law that allows abortions. It is in place and except for the political (our morality is better than yours) groups who want it overturned ... never mind.

    Nobody can stop Mike Richards from smoking but him.

  • Isn't it in scripture?
    July 25, 2008 12:03 p.m.

    Now, hold on there. Isn't there a line in The Bible specifically prohibiting safe, non-invasive, affordable medical procedures for women?

  • a little angry there Charles?
    July 25, 2008 12:00 p.m.

    I think the word you where looking for there Charles was displacement, but lets not quibble over words.
    You know these posts kind of remind me of church ball, people act in ways on these posts and say things to others on that they never would in real life situations.
    Come-on admit it outside these post you are a decent people arent you Charles, Grover, Mike, Gus and the rest of you.

    Alright I will go away and stop bugging people, back to the nastiness.

  • Just playing the morality card
    July 25, 2008 11:57 a.m.

    The Supreme court is mostly conservative.
    They are upholding Roe v Wade.
    What are the neocons on this post doing wasting their time here when they should be doing everything they can to save fetuses?

    Sitting around telling everybody how much more moral they are than others accomplishes nothing but inter-group high-fiving.

  • Charles
    July 25, 2008 11:45 a.m.

    Cameron, point understood and you can do what you wish, but I'd recommend you don't take the bait. The foolishness in the posts from them stand on their own.

    My 2 cents..

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 11:45 a.m.

    The only people who are talking about changing Roe v. Wade are those who are for abortions. So, is the liberal left ready to admit that they made a mistake with Roe v. Wade, or can they just not read their own posts?

    Or, are you pro-abortionists so hostile to women that you're going to march every pregnant female to the closest abortion mill and demand that she abort her baby? Is that what you want? Are you demanding that every baby be killed?

    So, "Herod", have you been raised from the dead to kill the babies again?

    Are you pro-abortionists so foolish as to think that just because the Government says that you can do something, that you must do something. Are you foolish enough to smoke, just because you're of age and it is permitted? Are you foolish enough to drink, just because you finally reached twenty-one?

    Paul, got it right when he wrote to Timothy, ". . .the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers . . ."

  • Lessons from Juno
    July 25, 2008 11:39 a.m.

    "All babies deserve to get borned"

  • Cameron
    July 25, 2008 11:40 a.m.

    The only way to change Roe v. Wade is through the Supreme Court. Calling Orrin Hatch or Jim Matheson won't do much.

  • Gus Talwynd
    July 25, 2008 11:35 a.m.

    It's a woman's choice.


    Exclaimation point!

    This is a privacy issue. It's no one's business except that of the woman making a choice regarding her own life.

    For those who clamor for minimal government, what about you keeping out of a woman's life and giving her back the right to control her own body!

    Enough of this debate. It isn't going to happen. Each woman has the right to her privacy and make whatever decision she wants regarding herself and her reproductive capabilities. If anything, a man, not married to the woman, has absolutely no say in the matter!

    It is noted that this goes against LDS theological beliefs, but keep these beliefs to yourself and don't go around trying to impose your values on others. If being LDS requires that a woman have as many children as she is capable of having in her lifetime, then that is her concern and not the concern of others.

    So, leave it alone. Until men can get pregnant and start having babies themselves, they have no place in this debate. And then it is only for their own situation that they have a say, not someone else's.

  • We're holier than you ...
    July 25, 2008 11:35 a.m.

    After decades of divisive debate, the U.S. Supreme Court finally agreed to disagree Monday on the hot-button issue of abortion. "It is the opinion of this court that we could go on and on arguing about this forever," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion in the 9-0 decision. "But in the end, that serves nobody. So, finally, we threw up our hands and said, 'Let's just agree to disagree.'" The court's ruling contains language that specifically prohibits justices from bringing up the matter again.

  • Ignoring the power-brokers
    July 25, 2008 11:32 a.m.

    Neocons Mike Richards, Charles, KVC know the only way to change Roe v Wade is through their elected officials: Hatch, Cannon, Leavitt, Bush, Cheney, etc.
    Yet they do nothing but whine at liberals as they try to play the morality card.

    Ain't they cute?

  • Charles
    July 25, 2008 11:21 a.m.

    Nice projection on your part.

    And thanks for asking about my blood pressure; it's extremely low and doing well. I'll keep you posted on my physicals; ok?

    Grover, those are questions that will need to be answered when abortion becomes illegal. Until then, let's just worry about getting RoevWade overturned for the sake of at least 1 million children killed each year in the name of "choice".

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 11:23 a.m.


    Why are you changing the subject? The thread is not about punishment. You do know that, don't you?

  • a little angry there Charles?
    July 25, 2008 11:12 a.m.

    nice to see you understood "A final thoughts" post there Charles. One question though how is your blood pressure?

  • Grover
    July 25, 2008 11:06 a.m.

    Mike R.: you have questions for everyone else, here are two for you. How long should the mother having the abortion be put in jail? How long should the doctor performing it be put in jail? When abortions become illegal, these questions will have to be answered.

  • Charles
    July 25, 2008 11:00 a.m.

    Abortion is the biggest stain on society today. When a human life is referred to a clump of cells so they can eradicate the stain on their souls, I'm constantly amazed.

    As for the chunk of steel, it will always be a chunk of steel; nothing more, nothing less. That clump of cells was/is you. Aren't you glad your mother saw you as a human being and not some chunk of steel?

    A Final Thought...are you going to post your same thought on every single board that you go on today and forever? The same could be said for you....just move along...

    It's nice to know that all these pro-abortionists don't want the death penalty for the "clump of cells" who has done something horrible to another human has a choice, the other depends on the selflessness of the mother, not the selfishness...

    jr, please get come statistics before you so you can post intelligently....

  • what are you waiting for?
    July 25, 2008 10:53 a.m.

    So, why are you neocons wasting your precious time on this blog?

    There are fetuses to be saved and women put to death for having abortions! eye-for-an-eye, right?

    Get off-line immediately and start hounding Hatch, Bennett, Leavitt, Cannon, your Governor, Bush, Cheney ...
    to get that liberal Roe v Wade overturned - NOW!

    What the {bleeps} is the matter with you?

  • A Final Thought
    July 25, 2008 10:22 a.m.

    Dr. Pausch how just died of pancreatic cancer once stated "I mean I don't know how to not have fun. I'm dying and I'm having fun. And I'm going to keep having fun every day I have left. Because there's no other way to play it. You just have to decide if you're a Tigger or an Eeyore. I think I'm clear where I stand on the great Tigger/Eeyore debate. Never lose the childlike wonder. It's just too important. It's what drives us."

    Does anyone else ever wonder if we spend to much time on these forums with our sanctimonies arguing and acting like Eeyores and not enough time out in the world acting like Tiggers?

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 10:24 a.m.

    @ 10:05,

    When someone dies of natural causes are YOU a murderer? There is a difference, a very, very big difference. You know it. I know it. The mother knows it. The baby inside her knows it.

  • KVC
    July 25, 2008 10:19 a.m.

    I notice that many who support abortion rights appear to seem that people just can't help having sex. They have no inhibition to stop the process that leads to pregnancy.
    If you are not willing to fully accept the risk that a pregnancy could result from having sex, even with protection, then don't have sex. It is really that simple. Outside of rape and incest individuals are not forced to engage in sex. They make a conscience choice knowing full well what the consequences are. This being the case, abortion is simply a form of back-up birth control. As stated above, pregnancy is not an accident, it is the result of a choice with known risk.
    Maybe abortion advocates don't believe in convicting individuals for drinking and driving, even if they kill someone, after all they did not intend to kill someone, although they knew it was possible. Why should they have to face consequences for an "accident".
    Killing a baby to avoid some of the consequences of sex is highly immoral, and should be illegal. My newborn keeping me up all night is inconvenient. Is there a quick out for this too?Should we be allowed to murder colicky babies?

  • not a toenail
    July 25, 2008 10:05 a.m.

    But a not a human being either until further on down the road. Clumps of cells spontaneously abort all the time, do we wring our hands in grief and mourning for this loss of "life?" No. Why is it suddenly a human being because the potential mother made the decision rather than her natural biological functions?

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2008 10:01 a.m.

    Many of us disagree when a fetus becomes a baby. Some claim that is at the moment of conception (some might claim it is even before that), others assert it is at birth, but most (I think) realize it is somewhere in between. Just where is the sticking point. Calling a clump of cells a baby is like calling a chunk of steel a car. It may be someday, but not yet.

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 9:49 a.m.

    @ 9:29,

    Since when did the "Government" force a woman to have an abortion? This is something that the mother (and the father) have total responsibility to handle. It is not necessary to get a letter from a Senator or a Congressman to save the baby's life. It is not necessary that the President pardon the execution of that baby. The mother and the father can save that baby all by themselves.

    @ 9:38,

    At what age can a child burn himself? Can we outlaw the consequences of playing with matches? Teenagers are old enough to accept the responsibility for their actions. If they're mature enough to engage in sexual intercourse, they're old enough to face the consequences of their sexual activity. Adults do not help teenagers by making excuses for their "little darlings" who think that they can play "being married". Adults who are acting like adults tell teenagers the truth about sex, which includes the fact that sex causes pregnancy.

  • Cameron
    July 25, 2008 9:46 a.m.

    To Kids Having Kids -

    70% of abortions are performed on women between the ages of 20-34.

  • kids having kids
    July 25, 2008 9:38 a.m.

    The letter writer asks if "the women and men" think before they got pregnant. I don't know the statistics of abortions, but I would guess most are teens and very young adults. "Thinking" in regards to sex doesn't happen until about age 30.

  • lots of typical neocon talk
    July 25, 2008 9:29 a.m.

    This sounds like another neocon political maneuver to overturn Roe v Wade and attempting to set themselves apart from those godless, liberals (aka Democrats)

    And the same thing always happens -
    when you suggest to neocons that if they are so obsessed by the issue, why aren't they beating down the doors of Hatch, Bennett, Leavitt, Cannon, et. al, to get off their butts and overturn the law? They just dummie up everytime.

  • Mike Richards
    July 25, 2008 9:10 a.m.

    Is there a mother on this earth that could live with the knowledge that she killed a baby because she was embarrassed, or inconvenienced, or too busy to let that baby be born?

    If the mother has used her agency to participate in sexual activity and if that sexual activity results in pregnancy, then her greatest concern must be to see that the baby is born safely. Then, if she feels that the baby would have a better life with other parents, she would be noble indeed if she let other parents adopt her baby.

    A baby is not a toe-nail, it is a human being. If left alone, it will be born. It will live and breathe. It will run and play. It will learn and contribute to all of society. It is a sacred life. A unique life. Never again will there be anyone exactly like that baby.

    A baby's life is worth a little inconvenience, a little embarrassment, a little time in a busy schedule.

    Death if final - but the memories will never, ever end. The knowledge that a baby was killed will haunt forever.

  • Cameron
    July 25, 2008 8:22 a.m.

    To JR -

    Less than 1% of the 40+ million abortions performed have been because the life of the mother was at risk.

  • Indiana
    July 25, 2008 7:57 a.m.

    The writer is correct. She passed no judgements on sexual activity, she merely said that she believes we would be better served by not taking the life of innocents in the brutal fashion of abortion. SAhe rightfully judged the fact that killing innocent babies is barbaric and evil. It is. Why compound the situation? Isn't it better to give this new person to someone who wants it? Someone who will nurture, nourish and adore it?

    Abortion is evil and should never have become the law of this land. Shame on the US Supreme Ct that ratified Roe vs Wade... sinful

  • Gopherus
    July 25, 2008 7:52 a.m.

    You mean I have a choice?,
    Well, in Utah and some other states common sense is not allowed in the classroom.
    Common sense would dictate a discussion of both abstinence and contraception.
    Parents would have non-judgmental conversations with their children regarding sex.
    Many girls would be on birth control pills in their teens with their parents knowledge and yet still be told of the importance of using condoms to prevent STDs (the pill simply being insurance).
    Boys would be taught sexual ethics such as the responsibility of carrying and using a condom, the idea that it is wrong to pressure a girl into sex, and that it is wrong to tell a girl you love her when you don't.
    Plan-B would be widely available, well-known, and distributed at all pharmacies because of the inherent responsibility of those who choose to work in the medical fields.
    Abortion would be easy to get under control if those on both the left and the right would do what they are not doing today. Talk about sex and recognize that sex requires ethical discussion and action beyond a simple be careful or don't do it.

  • uncannygunman
    July 25, 2008 7:46 a.m.

    There are no real alternatives to abortion. Once a woman is pregnant, neither abstinence, contraception, nor adoption provide the exact benefits provided by a safe abortion. Whether or not it makes some people uncomfortable does not alter reality.

  • Cameron
    July 25, 2008 7:40 a.m.

    18% of abortions are performed despite using contraception.

    The Dave Thomas Foundation did a study where they found that there are tens of millions of people that have considered adopting. The two biggest reasons given for why they didn't: Long waiting list and cost.

  • jr
    July 25, 2008 7:11 a.m.

    Ann you are off the wall, some people are married but based on health issues sometimes a woman has to make the choice of her life or the unborn - not all abortions are about mistaken pregnancies. Walk in the shoes of a woman who has had to make that choice then make an educated comment.

  • No accidents
    July 25, 2008 6:50 a.m.

    There are no accidents when getting pregnant. When you have sex, pregnancy is the result. You *You mean I have a choice* make it sound like people didn't know they would get pregnant if they had sex.
    For everyone that doesn't know, if you decide to have sex, even when you use contraception, you can get pregnant. You accept that responsibility when you decide to have sex.
    I hope I don't get censored because I have written sex 5 times.

  • liberal Larry
    July 25, 2008 6:06 a.m.

    There is another great alternative to abortion, it's called CONTRACEPTION!

  • You mean I have a choice?
    July 25, 2008 12:41 a.m.

    So if two people get physical and accidentally get pregnant there is an alternative to abortion and it's called adoption? How ingenious! But that's like teaching someone that they can use a blinker to change lanes, or that a great way of birth control is abstinence! Why aren't these things announced more often?!