Abortion consensus

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Aug. 23, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    the Truth,

    You seem to be talking in circles. I particularly like how in your first comment you say Nazis saw communists as a sibling and say "I think they knew more than you who they were", and now "what Nazis called other people is irrelevant."

    Like I said, just because both systems were used to oppress their people, does not mean they are both "baseball players" to use your analogy. Like I said, Theocracies are just as guilty, but they are as conservative as you can be.

    Nazism is absolutely fascism. Mussolini was also a fascist, you are correct. That is why he initially reached out to Hitler during WWII, because they were both fascists.

    As I pointed out previously, they actually are significantly different ideologically. One is international, and draws its ideology on the basis of class. The other draws lines on the basis of race and nationalism. In Nazi Germany, private property was fiercely protected (as long as you were of a proper race). In the Soviet Union it was abolished. Fascist ideology was centered around an all powerful state, Soviet ideology saw as the end result the dissolution of any form of government.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 5:30 p.m.


    That doesn't change anything.

    Nazis wanted that all power for themselves,
    what Nazis called other people is irrelevant, the left here calls the right here all sorts nemes that doesn't mean they are right.
    Anyone not a Nazi or supportive of the Nazi state were enemies of the state and treated accordingly.

    Let me give you an analogy:

    Baseball player 1 is a yankee (Nazi), player 2 is red sox (Communist),
    they are still baseball players (leftests siblings),
    they play for different teams and are competitors (enemies) fighting each other.

    Because they fare ighting for political power and control, and treat each other bad does not make them significantly different ideologically.

    Those who bring fascism up as some kind of proof are wrong also.

    Fascism is not Nazism, fascism was started by Mussolini and is neither left nor right. but is has both.

    Fascism is its own thing. while fascists and Nazis were allies they are not the same thing, not the same party, but do share bits and pieces.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Aug. 22, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" you did not name any actual policies enacted by Obama as evidence of anything that is even remotely center-right.

    Is the NY Times also a disreputable source? They claim Obama is a liberal and proposes liberal policies. McClatchy is also a liberal news source, and they claim that Obama is liberal in his policies too.

    Are you saying that you are more educated than the political analists at the NY Times.

    I have read the articles where some people claim that Nazis are right-wing, the sad part is every one of those papers that I have read ignore the fact that the Nazi government controlled the unions, and had direct government control over the large or stratigically important businesses. They also ignore the fact that Hitler and many high ranking Nazi party officials have declared themselves socialists. So, if you ignore large portions of history, yes you lie and say Nazis were right wing.

  • Kdee SLC, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    @ the DesNews Moderators: So, the comment thread on an editorial about abortion has turned into a thread about whether or not liberals - and President Obama specifically - are Nazis, fascists, communists, or socialists and these comments are accepted and viewed as on topic?

    So much for "civil dialogue" and the rest of the standards you profess to possess.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    At some enlightened point in the future the abortion mills will be viewed the same way as the holocaust concentration camp victims. Hitler's 'right' to kill 'undesirables' didn't squelch the conscience of the world, nor will the abortion rights crowd smother it. Life is beautiful and exterminated babies will one day voice their opinion about it.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Aug. 22, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    Redshirt - So, in review, I listed a series of actual policies enacted by the President as evidence of his center-right leanings and you respond, not by listing actions he has taken as a rebuttal, but rather cite randomly searched "news" articles from the internet, including disreputable sources like the Western Center for Journalism, op eds in Forbes, and Wiki Answers.

    I'm pretty sure actual policy trumps hackneyed talking points masquerading as journalism. To be honest, your apparent attempt at research explains a lot regarding why you take the political positions you take. Wiki Answers is great if you want to find out whether peanut butter helps get gum out of your daughter's hair. Political savants? Not so much.

    Regardless, you appear to fancy "researching" via simple google search. Perhaps you can do me a favor and list all the various news sources that note Obama is a center-right and/or moderate President. Oh, and while you're at it, do some "redshirt research" and list all citations/articles wherein Nazis are identified as right-wingers. Can you do that for me? That'd be swell. I'll wait.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Aug. 22, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    @the truth,

    I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you out on that. Being convicted of being a communist was an offense that carried a prison sentence in Nazi Germany. In fact, as John Toland has chronicled, Hitler routinely referred to the primary enemy of the state being "Jewish communism" (a majority of bolsheviks in Russia were Jewish). Likewise, the communists in that era in the Soviet Union were very much against fascism. Fascism is a hyper-patriotic ideology that relies on the superiority of your people. Communism was inherently international and diverse (the first national anthem was actually called The International). Fascism is a far right ideology interested in race, communism is far left interested in class. They are not the same.

    Perhaps the confusion is that both were terribly dictatorial, so you assume similarity. But autocracy can arise in fascism, communism, theocracy, or with a military junta. Heck, even our own country has a history in which elected leaders called for the extermination of entire peoples.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    "No wonder the Nazis and Russian were such strong allies during WW2. "

    Hitler attacked the Soviets...

    DW-NOMINATE scores measure how conservative (+1 is fully conservative) or liberal (-1 is fully liberal) a member of Congress is. The current Republican caucus has a score closer to the extreme than the current Democratic caucus so... you're completely wrong. It's the conservatives that are extremists.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Aug. 22, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" if you want to consider policy, read the following:

    "The most left-wing President ever: Obama policies undermine democracy, security, and the rule of law" in the Examiner.

    "Obama Surrounds Himself With The Most Extreme Appointees In American History" Center for Western Journalism

    "Obama Offers Liberal Vision: ‘We Must Act’" NY Times. Why would a center right person offer a liberal agenda?

    "Barack Obama's Election And The Looming Crisis Of Liberalism" - Forbes

    "Are you more (or less) liberal than President Obama? Take our quiz!" CS monitor. You should take this and see where you sit in relation to Obama.

    "Who are the most liberal presidents in history?" Wiki Answers, list Obama as one of the most liberal Presidents.

    "Obama's inagural speech a call to a new liberal era." McClatchy.

    All of the liberal sources call Obama a liberal, why don't you?

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Aug. 22, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    To "Tyler D" you seem to be in the group that is moving further left.

    Obama is an example of the liberals moving further left.

    Prior to being elected President, Obama was named as the left most leaning Senator, with Joe Biden coming in second. If the Democrats were not moving further left, why would they nominate the left most leaning senator for President?

    Since you don't want to believe me, would you trust Hitler himself? On May 1, 1923 Hitler said "Our will is to be National Socialists - not national in the current sense of the word - not national by halves. We are National Socialist fanatics, not dancers on the tight-rope of moderation!" He embraced his socialism, why do you reject it? Read "Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History" in Forbes. He explains how Hitler was a socialist, highly left wing.

    He also said "the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State" that is another socialist/collectivist principal. How can you say he was anything but socialist?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Aug. 22, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    Redshirt - You do realize that people participating on this comment board inherently have access to the internet, correct? Therefore, we all have the ability to perform the most tertiary of searches online to quickly confirm that your grasp of the subject matter is wanting. As your foundation is unfit, there is no reasonable discussion to be had.

    Further, if you believe we liberals are the ones moving further to the left, I guess that explains why the current President, who's policies have almost with out exception been center-right, is viewed as a socialist. Under this Administration, corporations have reaped all-time high profits, DJIA has hit an all-time high, wealth gap continues to widen thanks to continued Reaganomics, unions continue to dissolve, taxes are at their lowest level in two generations, non-renewable energy production has skyrocketed, deportations are up, wanton military power abuse is up, conservative health care mandate is in place, the largest tax cut in American history was passed, among so many other conservative things.

    Conservatives ought to start looking at policy, not politician because you guys are so blinded by anger for Obama that you no longer recognize your own positions.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 22, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    @RedShirt – “Since todays liberals are going further left…”

    Sounds like you’re experiencing what physicists call the relative motion illusion.

    The fact is it is the Republican Party who has moved to the far right and so more moderate politicians like look socialists by comparison (e.g., compared to Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry, Bob Dole looks like Che Guavara).

    And for everyone is still thinks the Nazi Party was left wing, if reading a history book is too time consuming at least consult Wikipedia (see Fascism) to get some facts.

    And for you straw man creators who keep saying that anyone who does not believe all abortions should be outlawed (from conception on) must want abortion on demand until birth, I have not seen anyone on this thread advocating this past viability or ~26 weeks (unless absolutely medically necessary).

    Reached comment limit...

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" you are correct that fascism does not equal socialism, but they both come from the same parent. The only difference is one pretends to still have capitalism, while the other is honest about collectivism.

    As for liberalism not equaling socialism, you are wrong. If you take the most hard left liberal positions, they are identical to socialism. Since todays liberals are going further left, it is easy to say that they are becoming socialists. Maybe that statement is a couple of years too early, but that is the direction that liberalism is headed.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 10:17 p.m.

    I think if a couple has unprotected sex, resulting in a pregnancy, they have invited a human being into the world as a general principle. But I don't like the idea of stepping in between a woman and her physician; as an outsider I can't know all of the medical circumstances, and they are more varied than you think.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 21, 2013 9:27 p.m.

    Ranch Hand,

    Then either you change your behavior or take appropriate precautions. But don't complain about the results of your actions when the results are easily foreseeable.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 8:10 p.m.

    @Twin Lights;

    What about those who don't want to let them in?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 8:08 p.m.

    @Tyler D

    You show you have no understanding of who the Nazi's were, and who the left really is.

    Communism and Nazism, national socialists party of the german worker (it even sounds leftist!) were and are siblings.

    Two leftest brothers, leftist political parties fighting over power and control.

    It's really that simple.

    Even Himmler or goering, I do not remember who, but one who was very high up in the Nazi part, stated that communism and nazi were siblings (I think they knew more than you who they were).

    @LDS Liberal

    If you abort all the babies, the future workers, who will pay for your socialist benefits and socialist programs?

    With more dependence, you will need more workers paying in to your socialist pot.

  • Love skiing Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 6:54 p.m.

    The solution is so simply, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. If someone else wants to have one, it's none of you business. Mind you business and stay out of others. It's not your life to live.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Aug. 21, 2013 6:51 p.m.

    Well of course nobody like abortion. The disagreement is what to do about it.

    I say do what's proven to reduce unplanned pregnancy and educate the young and old alike. Telling them to not do anything just isn't working.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    Oh, I get it! No wonder the Nazis and Russian were such strong allies during WW2. I mean the russians were communists, which is just a beefed up version of socialism. I mean, if the USA hadn't got there the Russians and Germans would have taken over all of Europe. Or, Hitler was a lunatic dictator, who had a ideology that doesn't really match up with modern US conservatives or liberals. If you bother to look at history you can find pro and anti communists, socialists and capitalists were all part of the Nazi party. Turns out if there is a one party system there are still differences of opinion that occur. They just all get lumped under Nazi.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 21, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    Nearly all states have laws that prohibit abortion after the stage of "viability." Some states are more specific. Viability can change over time. I don't think 20 weeks is unreasonable HOWEVER, there still need to be allowances for exceptions--at a minimum health/life issues for the mother, fetal demise or fetal abnormalities incompatible with life.

    If the LDS Church permits abortion in cases of rape, incest, health issues apparently rape isn't the same as murder.

    If we seriously care about the unborn--can we also agree on reducing unplanned pregnancies through education and increasing the availability of contraceptives? Why are Republicans against these efforts?

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    "pro-life people are also the same people that say that you should be married before having children"

    Redshirt sitting around thinking about the most private parts of others' personal lives, at work from the time stamp, is creepy. You need to look to your own private life and keep your nose out of others'.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 21, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    @RedShirt – “If abortion on demand is ok at 24 weeks, why not at 30? What changes?”

    Finally, a question for science and not religion!

    Pragmatistferlife gave a good answer but other changes occur prior to 24 weeks that may change the conclusion. So what counts as “human?” - body parts, functioning organs (including heart beat), ability to feel pain?

    Prior to late 1st trimester, none of these conditions have been met. After 24 weeks, definitely a human being that should be protected. In between is the gray area we should be discussing rationally.

    But the idea that a blastocyst – a collection of 100 or so cells so small you could not see them in your hand - is an “unborn child” is a sentiment, not a factual conclusion.

    RE: Nazis. They were Fascists and fascists can be right-wing or left-wing depending on their policies (and the Nazis were a mix).

    And despite their dishonest co-opting of the name Socialist (for purely cynical political reasons), their top three targets for extermination were Jews, Communists and Socialists.

    Seems strange that left-wingers would want to wipe out other left-wingers…

  • jpc53 Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    I believe that people would be more accepting of the 20 weeks if the states implementing this limitation weren't also coming up with laws to make it impossible to run an abortion clinic.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    One clarification needs to be made here. there is a consensus to limit abortions after the "20th" week. I have not seen independent polling that says there is a consensus to limit it after the 12th week. please correct me if I am wrong.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Aug. 21, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    2 bits - "Doing what wrong?" - Being LDS.

    Redshirt - Fascism does not equal socialism; socialism does not equal liberalism. If you cannot currently understand the glaring distinctions between those political concepts, please consider refraining from pretending to know what you're talking about.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" thanks to medical science a fetus can be viable at 24 weeks. How do you know that consciousness enters into the child at 26 weeks? Is there a difference at 25 weeks, 6 days from 26 weeks?

    How do you know when consciousness enters the child? How do you know that it is not aware of its surroundings at 2 weeks?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 21, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    Redshirt, "The questions for you and your ilk are these: If abortion on demand is ok at 24 weeks, why not at 30? What changes?" Consciousness and viability. Contrary to your belief Democrats and most pro choice advocates are not in favor of on demand abortion of any unborn fetus. At 26 weeks the fetus undergoes a synergistic coming together of all previous developing systems into a conscious unborn child. Prior to that no it's just unconnected organs and systems, so there's why 26 weeks and not 30. Any questions?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you realize that the Nazi party was a leftist organization that Progressives and Liberals were wanting to emulate here in the US during the 1930's.

    Nazi-ism was and is a liberal utopia. You not only control those capitalists under the force of government, but you get to put any dissidents in camps where they may never return. The people love you because you take from those that have, and redistribute to those that don't. The people never find fault with their leaders, and are in utter shock to find out that something bad was going within the government.

    I hate to break it to you yet again, but the Nazi party was socialist and hated capitalists. That is why in their platform they wanted to redistribute the profits from businesses to the workers, and provide for all the necessities of life for their followers.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    Aug. 21, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    If the conservative religious people commenting keep telling us not to judge, why are they judging others each and every day on these DN forums. This gets real confusing sometimes.

  • Mickey Kovars Tampa, FL
    Aug. 21, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    If some dictator rode into Washington and took over, and decreed that abortions were OK before 20 weeks but not after except for certain exceptional circumstances, the public would generally be satisfied and the issue would mostly go away. It would be nice if someone would begin to advocate this solution, with supporters on both sides of the question. The media have done a terrible, and in some cases blatantly biased, job of presenting this issue. Nor have Obama, on the one hand, and Santorum et al, on the other hand, been much help.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    Stalwart Sentinel,
    RE: If you're LDS and "believe" abortion is murder, you're doing it wrong.

    Doing what wrong?

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    No republican woman has ever had an abortion.

    No republican MD has ever counseled a woman to have an abortion.

    No republican cleric has ever counseled a woman to have an abortion under any circumstances.

    Why tie politics to a medical procedure?

    The republican party does it everyday.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 21, 2013 1:29 p.m.


    They do if you let them in knowing that could be the risk.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Aug. 21, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    If you're LDS and "believe" abortion is murder, you're doing it wrong.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    To "Blue" you are wrong. The pro-life people are also the same people that say that you should be married before having children. Your are probably trying to figure out what those two things have to do with eachother. The problem is that when a child is born outside of wedlock, there are many risk factors that start to come into play for poverty and future risky behaviors.

    Conservatives want the child to grow up in the best possible circumstances possible, with its biological mother and father. When that is not possible, the next best option is for that baby to be adopted by a mother and father.

    The questions for you and your ilk are these: If abortion on demand is ok at 24 weeks, why not at 30? What changes?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 21, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    @Lightbearer – “How many innocent children were killed? Where's the outrage?”

    There is none (among believers) because whatever God commands is moral – by definition.

    The most pernicious moral relativism the world has ever known – as one of many examples, Slavery – bad when the Egyptians were doing it to the Israelites, not so bad when the Israelites were doing it to all their neighbors, and even their own daughters).

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    Re: "The crime against humanity of the slaughter of completely innocent children in our country ..."

    Genesis 7: "The flood engulfed the earth for forty days....And all living things that moved on the earth died, including ... all humankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died."

    How many innocent children were killed?

    Genesis 19: "Then the Lord rained down sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah....So he overthrew those cities and all that region, including all the inhabitants of the cities and the vegetation that grew from the ground."

    How many innocent children were killed?

    Exodus 12: "...the Lord attacked all the firstborn in the land of Egypt ... and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was no house in which there was not someone dead."

    How many innocent children were killed?

    Joshua 6: "The wall [of Jericho] collapsed and the warriors charged straight ahead into the city and captured it. They annihilated with the sword everything that breathed in the city, including men and women, young and old, as well as cattle, sheep, and donkeys."

    How many innocent children were killed?

    Where's the outrage?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 21, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    patriot, "This is not a matter of opinion and it matters not whether you accept the teachings of Jesus Christ or not...there are absolute truths which opinions don't alter such as the fact that the earth is a sphere and orbits around the sun.". To some degree you are right, I can take scientific tools and methods and prove that the earth orbits the sun...however, that same scientific process proves that fetuses prior to 26 weeks aren't conscious or viable, and therefore not children.

    Mr. Richards, the soul of the aborted child doesn't have legal representation. Care to show your scientific evidence for the soul.... if not it's your religious opinion and doesn't belong anyway in my secular laws. Go on all you want about the evil state of those who don't believe but your just defending your belief and you don't get to legislate your religion into my life.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    Salt Lake City, UT

    Heinrich Himmler and the rest of the Nazi also outlawed abortion.

    As for the holocaust - Those laws were started for cutting national medicals costs (euthanizing), and later extended to other "undesirables" to Nazi society -- Liberals, Communists, Homosexuals, Non-Christians, Immigrants, Addicts, etc.

    A regular far-right-wing Utopia.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    @Mike Richards;

    Does anyone have a unilateral right to demand the use of anther person's body for 9 months?

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Aug. 21, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    Control, Control!
    Synonym for Republican Party.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    2 bits says:

    - Without babies... who are they going to sell their next generation of products too?
    - Without babies... who is going to work in their factories, stores, or work for their suppliers, etc?

    ---I didn't realize that babies were nothing more than commodoties.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    It's disgusting to see the bizarre attempts at justifying the killing of unborn children by claims that pro-life people aren't willing to adopt the children who lived. Or, that pro-life people are deficient in any other way in caring for children the abortionists would otherwise kill.

    Even if we accepted as rational the argument that children who aren't killed by abortion are not cherished as much as we would like, how in the world does that offer ANY justification that they should be killed!?

    If Heinrich Himmler had been tried at Nuremberg for the systematic killing of over 6 million people, mostly Jews, and offered as his defense "...they were actually better off because there were so few countries who were offering to let them relocate.", the response of shock and derision would have been deafening.

    The crime against humanity of the slaughter of completely innocent children in our country since Roe v. Wade, in numbers that dwarf what the Nazis could ever have dreamed of in their ultra-efficient killing facilities, marks us as a nation as surely and even more than when slavery was tolerated. And, for the same dehumanizing reasons.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    In the end...and after you have passed through the veil of death as we ALL will do ...then you will stand before your Savior and be judged accorrding to your works. This is not a matter of opinion and it matters not whether you accept the teachings of Jesus Christ or not...there are absolute truths which opinions don't alter such as the fact that the earth is a sphere and orbits around the sun. Another fact is Jesus will be the judge of all and those who have participated in abortion in any way have to face the Savior with their hands stained red with the blood of the innocent children whose lives they 'chose' to terminate then it will be the law given by the Savior (thou shalt not kill) as well as his statement to the effect of those who would harm one of these little ones it would be better that they would be drown in the depts of the sea or that they had never been born. There will be no ACLU or Supreme court or Planned Parenthood ...just you and the Savior and your guilt.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    If we are going to talk about abortions in Germany and France, let's be honest and do a real comparison.

    Teens in Germany and France are educated about safer sex and have easy and cheap (sometimes free) access to birth control. Access to legal abortion is easy and cheap so there are no financial roadblocks to a timely abortion - in France, the cost of abortion is reimbursable, making them, in effect, free.

    Later abortions are allowed to save the mother's life or in cases of severe fetal impairment.

    Both France and Germany ensure paid maternity leave at 100% for 14 or 16 weeks, including time before the due date. Both France and Germany have universal healthcare. Both France and Germany provide money to families to help care for the children and to help pay for childcare when the mother returns to work.

    In other words, they have systems that address the concerns of pro-choice individuals in the US because their systems address the leading causes of abortion including preventing unwanted pregnancies and making sure families can care for their children. Also, legal abortions are easy to get.

    Please, let's fully adopt one of their systems.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 21, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    Does anyone have the unilateral right to destroy another human being? Society's laws were written to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The Court MUST appoint council for those brought before it if that accused person cannot provide obtain his own council. But, in the case of abortion, which by definition is the termination of life within the womb of a woman, that soul whose life is being terminated has no legal representation. ONE PERSON and only one person needs to demand that the life be terminated.

    It's easy to see how that happened. Evil and corrupt men, who wanted sexual freedom without the responsibility to support their offspring, decided that destroying a life before it was born would absolve them of financial responsibility and public disgrace. Women whose motives were more important to them than the life of an unborn baby, signed on. The Court, in total violation to equal protection under the law, decreed that a woman could unilaterally decide to destroy the life within her.

    The result, in America alone, is that more than 55,000,000 children were NOT born, but were destroyed without having representation AFTER life had commenced.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    - Parents buy stuff for their babies every day.
    - Each baby will buy a lifetime of stuff. Why would businesses want them aborted instead?

    Businesses/employers don't control your vasectomy or your birth control, they just pay for your insurance. When was the last time your evil employer told you you couldn't have a vasectomy or an abortion? Maybe your INSURANCE company does, but your evil employer has never told you what procedures you can have (that's totally in the insurance provider's court).

    Evil businesses seem to have no problem giving employees maternity leave. Has your company ever complained about maternity leave to you? You really think they would rather their employees have abortions than take a few weeks of maternity leave??

    Please... tell us more about how businesses would rather their employees have abortions than be punished with a baby and all that maternity leave.

    The letter didn't mention medically necessary abortions. Most realize there are medically-required abortions (usually early-term). We're talking about consensus here... not extremes.

    The "backup-plan" for those who support life is called "Adoption".

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    The Solution: "The problem here is MURDER! Abortion is killing--is murder...you will be accountable before God for murdering one of his children."

    Really? Do you know how many pregnancies spontaneously abort? About a third - most of the time the woman is completely unaware. And if you really are religious, and you believe that Noah's flood was a real historical event, how many small children and pregnant women did your God kill in that flood? Fact is, the God you say you believe in is the biggest abortionist/murderer of all time.

    Is a blastocyst a human? Seriously - answer that.

    Will you acknowledge the critical role of comprehensive sex education in lowering the abortion rates in other nations?

    If you're so concerned about the wellbeing of babies, will you support the restoration of funding that Republicans are slashing for children's healthcare programs? How about child nutrition and early education?

    If your opposition to a woman's right to control her own body really is motivated by a desire to protect babies, then where is the evidence that you care about them after they're born?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    @The Solution
    Half of abortions are obtained by Catholics or evangelicals. Let's face it, abortions will happen, the methods just get more desperate if you reduce access to safe, legal abortions. The nation with the lowest abortion rate isn't even one where it's illegal, it's Belgium. Maybe if you actually cared about reducing abortions you'd support methods proven to work like expanded access to birth control through universal coverage. Instead you conservatives care about nothing more than shaming women who have abortions, and then shaming women who are single parents on welfare. Guess what, they chose life. They did what you wanted... and then you attack them. What hypocrites you are.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 21, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    @Roland Kayser – “Many conservative states seem to be saying that 20 weeks should be the cutoff for abortions. I think liberals should agree to this, and then we can all call a truce on this divisive issue.”

    That would be fine – I would even say the cutoff should be closer to 12 weeks – but much of this fight is simply Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion playing out in politics.

    There is a large segment of people who believe a human being exists at conception. There’s nothing scientific about this view… it’s a purely religious conviction. But they will continue to make this a political fight until they get a Constitutional Personhood Amendment (or all States to outlaw any abortion).

    The other side is simply reacting to this fact with a “cede no ground” strategy, while the rest of the world (the four counties Fiorina noted notwithstanding) deals with this issue in a pragmatic, common sense way and goes on with their business.

    Ironic that the country founded on compromise (and apparently taught it to the world) is now largely incapable of practicing this necessary feature of democratic self-government.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    I also like the french attitudes towards discussing sex and preventing pregnancy.

  • The Solution Las Cruces, NM
    Aug. 21, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    Okay, those who are trying to claim that the abortion issue is about protecting the mother in a life in danger scenario are trying to sheild the truth. First of all, that case is rare. Second, there is no reason why a law couldn't accommodate that exception.

    The problem here is MURDER! Abortion is killing--is murder. You do not have a right to play God and murder unborn children? If you are religious, then you must know that you will be accountable before God for murdering one of his children.

    If you are not religious and believe that you became alive randomly, then you need to stop and ponder the concept that had your organism been one of these aborted ones, you would not exist. Now take a few moments and try to contemplate never existing. After you have done so for an appropriate ammount of time, reconsider this artificial debate about so-called women's rights. Roe vs. Wade made an unconstitutional ruling, for the fetus of the unborn child has as much claim to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the mother. We do not have the right to choose consequences of our actions.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    Babies won't "buy" anything for 20+ years.
    Businesses look at 3 month quarter to quarter earnings, and not one day more.

    Deductibles for a live normal birth with NO complications - $2500.
    Deductible and coverage for a vasectomy is ZERO out of pocket.

    Businesses have to pay higher Healthcare costs for maternity coverage
    AND coverage for the entire family of their employees :-(

    No to mention the $Million coverage for pre-mature births.

    Businesses also must pay paid for 6 weeks of maternity leave,
    and ask any working woman how the boss or business reacts to her leaving early or missing work to take care of the needs of her kids.

    Shall I continue?...
    There's so much MUCH more?...

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    Ironic that so many liberals, who are likely to be pro choice, like to point to the health care systems of the European countries as examples of what America should be doing. Now this news, which by the way I had never heard before. Wonder why? I might add that the anti death penalty folks also use those same "civilized" countries as examples of why America should not have a death penalty. What a turn around.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    Nobody likes abortions. They are, however, sometimes a medical necessity. Who gets to decide what constitutes "necessary" is the issue. "Pro-choice" advocates say that this is a personal decision properly left to the woman and her doctor.

    "Pro-life" advocates don't want women to have that option, claiming that they are acting solely on behalf of unborn babies.

    That argument would have credibility if the same people claiming to be motivated by "life" had some kind of follow-up position indicating that they care as much about the health and well-being of children after they're born. But they don't - not remotely. Every position taken by today's hyper-conservatives involves cutting programs for the medical care, nutrition, and early education of children. Their actions reveal that they in fact couldn't care less about the well-being of children.

    If your goal is to dramatically lower the rate of abortions, then you have to acknowledge the critical role that frank, comprehensive public education about sexuality, STD's, and contraception play in this discussion.

    When the GOP supports improving sex-education as a way to reduce unwanted pregnancy, then I'll take them seriously.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    Re: "There is an abortion consensus"

    Okay, let's agree on a post 20-week ban.

    But, only as a starting point.

    Once that's in place, we'll use that well-worn liberal tactic -- incrementalism -- to go after whatever we can get next.

    And, after that? We'll keep pushing.

    Make no mistake, the abortion problem will not be "solved," and its stench cannot be purged from America, until Roe v. Wade and its phony "right" to an abortion have been properly consigned to the dustbin of history, and the human rights of the innocent unborn are once again honored and protected.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    There is no such thing as the right to life. You can’t buy it, you can’t sell it. You can’t even give it away. Life is just something that happens. It comes and goes of its own accord. We might think we create life when we bring the proper ingredients together, but life itself is something more than a mechanical process. We don’t make it happen.

    The issue of abortion is an issue of control. The powers seeking to control others have as their number one resource the number of people in their flock. Their number one source of new members is the birth of new members by current members. Hence the religious concern over birth control and abortion.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    Can you explain in some detail how bad bad businesses are the ones who want late term abortions, and "Babies are BAD for business and their bottom dollar"?

    I think you're going to have a hard time substantiating that claim.

    - Without babies... who are they going to sell their next generation of products too?
    - Without babies... who is going to work in their factories, stores, or work for their suppliers, etc?

    Fact is... when families start having babies... their spending increases significantly (and bad bad business LIKE when people's spending and consumption of their product increases). That's how they stay in business and grow their business.

    So why... would they be against babies?

    That's just absurd anti-business blather.

    I think we SHOULD have a limit on deciding to abort a baby as late as you want for any reason.

    That's why I didn't understand the furry in the left's response to Texas even talking about limiting late-term abortions. "trying to wipe out abortion rights" (as the leftists put it). Google it and read some of the rants in the Huffington Post and NY Times.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    And what about the mandatory ultrasounds? The mandatory visits? The shutting down of clinics by imposing arbitrary regulations? The requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges to hospitals (and then in Ohio's case banning hospitals from providing them admitting privileges)?

    Oh and... the compromise (this whole 20 week thing) involves supporting something that has been ruled unconstitutional by federal courts.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 21, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    I'm sorry but this is not one of those, well there are extremists on both sides issues. The Republican party as an entity would stand up and cheer if Roe v Wade was abolished. Can you find someone who identifies as a Democrat who wants unfettered abortions, yea, probably, but you're going to have to look long and hard.

    The Republicans have completely moved from a fact, science based position to an entirely religious belief based position. Heartbeats, brain activity etc. don't mean life and especially don't mean viability, all those things can be produced in a lab separate and apart from one another.

    This is entirely a partisan political strategy promoted by one side.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 21, 2013 6:33 a.m.

    I think the controversy gets generated on the pro-life side as well. Some are absolutists - no abortion at any time for any reason. This is, of course, in contrast to some on the pro-choice side for which abortion should be available for any reason and at nearly any stage of development. Conflict among the most strident on each side is virtually guaranteed.

    For our nation, it would seem best if we could get this (somehow) out of the political realm and back into the medical sphere. No matter which side of the debate you land on, abortion is a lousy method of birth control and should be a last ditch option when medical need determines it is appropriate. It would then likely be done more often than some prefer but much less often than now.

    But how do we get it out of the political sphere. That is the trick and I have no good answer. Quite honestly I think some would miss the issue going away. It is a useful tool to fan the political flames on both sides.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 5:50 a.m.

    Ironic again...

    The DN uses the French, Germans, and the rest of and other nations as an example of "good".
    Usually, it's the other way around.

    The sad fact is -- most businesses WANT America to be like communist China, including abortion and low birth rates. Babies are BAD for business and their bottom dollar.

    BTW - they all have Government controlled "Socialized" universal single-payer systems too.
    Why the double standard hypocrisy?

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Aug. 21, 2013 12:51 a.m.

    I agree wholeheartedly that the rhetoric surrounding this issue is unnecessarily overheated. However, the author quickly slips into blame, blame, blame. In the end, it's all the pro-choice advocates' fault for not ceding any ground. How about take a look in the mirror, you might just find a beam. Did the author somehow miss when anti-abortion crowd passed laws forcing rape victims to surrender to transvaginal ultrasounds? Or how about the laws being passed in many states that, while not directly outlawing abortion, are putting the kinds of restrictions on clinics that make it virtually impossible to operate in that state. The so-called heartbeat bills passed in other states that are in direct violation of the constitution. I'm sorry, but this is in no wise a one-sided issue.

    Roe v Wade attempted to balance the rights of the mother and the baby, and the dividing line became "viability"--that line is generally around 24 weeks. Some babies do survive from 20 weeks, the vast majority do not. Is it worth risking the life of the mother in some cases, on the less than 1% chance the baby could survive?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 12:14 a.m.

    Many conservative states seem to be saying that 20 weeks should be the cutoff for abortions. I think liberals should agree to this, and then we can all call a truce on this divisive issue.