Women to march against Trump.

[Hal 9000]

If PP's abortions are only 3% and they're getting some $500m of funding, and they really care about women's health, then it shouldn't be a tough decision to choose the gov't money and help women with all the other 97% of services.

[?Impact]

30 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

If PP's abortions are only 3% and they're getting some $500m of funding, and they really care about women's health, then it shouldn't be a tough decision to choose the gov't money and help women with all the other 97% of services.

Is that 3% of services, or 3% of budget? I assume not all services cost the same to deliver.

[Rue]

On 1/26/2017 at 9:49 PM, cybercoma said:

I mean, it should be self-evident. The purpose of birth control is to stop a pregnancy. That's exactly what an abortion does.

Nonsense. Birth control can be many things. Preventing pregnancy from happening is birth control.  Once pregnancy happens, ending it by human intervention prior to birth is abortion. You can't see the difference between the two because of your political beliefs. Preventing a pregnancy from ever arising and stopping it once it arises are not the same thing. You claim they are.

Its an antiquated and ignorant position in my opinion you take. In fact proper birth control prevents abortions. Zip over your head.

 

[Rue]

Some of you with due respect need to go on line and find out the difference between a cell and an embryo.

In the debate on abortion pictures are shown of babies in final stages prior to birth. Its false. Most abortions happen in the first trimester. We are talking about something no larger than the size of a pin hole. Even embryos that begin to develop when aborted may have no brains, hearts, spinal cords and so technically are not life forms yet.Anti-abortionists project human life onto embryos as if they are human and life so then assume they are murdered. That is fantasy. The most premature of babies that have survived are still far larger than what is in fact aborted.

Emotion causes anti abortionists  to project what is called personification on cells. We do that exercise of personification to give human qualities to inanimate things not just with embryos but animals.

I have also tried to  to explain to Cybercoma the difference between contraception and abortion because his words muddle them as one and the same in purpose and therefore implication.

It is irresponsible to tell people safe sex or planning when to have a child is abortion and evil as Trump and Pence are doing.

Unwanted pregnancies lead to abortions. If those of you who are against abortion want to prevent them then understand we have to educate people as to sexual behaviour and counsel people as to the alternatives to preventing pregnancy so they don't go on to abort babies.

Get real. Unwanted children trigger abortions. For anti abortionists to deny that is irrational.

It  is also socially irresponsible to think unwanted births don't  trigger huge social consequences for those children, others and society and we need go engage in pro-active policies to prevent negative social issues from transpiring.

Using common sense and exercising free choice are gifts we should use responsibly-following irrational blind rigid dogma is nonsensical.

You have a penis, use a contraceptive. You have a uterus don't think the pill or is foolproof. Trump, Pence Cybercoma do not control your penus or uterus, your own individual free choice does.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2017 by Rue

[betsy]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Some of you with due respect need to go on line and find out the difference between a cell and an embryo.

In the debate on abortion pictures are shown of babies in final stages prior to birth. Its false. Most abortions happen in the first trimester. We are talking about something no larger than the size of a pin hole. Even embryos that begin to develop when aborted may have no brains, hearts, spinal cords and so technically are not life forms yet.Anti-abortionists project human life onto embryos as if they are human and life so then assume they are murdered. That is fantasy. The most premature of babies that have survived are still far larger than what is in fact aborted.

Emotion causes anti abortionists  to project what is called personification on cells. We do that exercise of personification to give human qualities to inanimate things not just with embryos but animals.

 

 

I beg to disagree.

 

Human life starts at conception.  The fetus....or embryo....or zygote.....or whatever stage the human is at at the time, nevertheless he is still a human being.  He is a human being who's going through the natural process of development.  Yes, he is a person - whether his brain and spine is fully developed or not! 

 

Are we going to say a mentally-challenged person, or someone who's suffering from any debilitating disease (that affects any of his development), isn't human?

 

You can't de-humanize a human  for simply going through the natural process of development.  Like all things, we gotta start somewhere.

 

Besides, when you start letting governments or society to be able to dehumanize someone and strip him of his rights - we're going back to the time of Hitler.  Remember how he dehumanized the Jews, to make it easier for them to be exterminated??

 

 

Quote

I have also tried to  to explain to Cybercoma the difference between contraception and abortion because his words muddle them as one and the same in purpose and therefore implication.

 

Oh, Cybercoma has been yelling "he doesn't have a mandate!  he doesn't have a mandate!"  He's using the term "mandate" without understanding what it means.  I had to pull out the definition from a dictionary to explain to him that The Donald indeed, has a mandate!

 

 

 

Quote

It is irresponsible to tell people safe sex or planning when to have a child is abortion and evil as Trump and Pence are doing.

 

EH?  Am I understanding you right?  Trump and Pence are saying safe sex or planning when to have child is abortion????   Not true!

 Provide the link where you'd read that. 

 

 

Quote

Unwanted pregnancies lead to abortions. If those of you who are against abortion want to prevent them then understand we have to educate people as to sexual behaviour and counsel people as to the alternatives to preventing pregnancy so they don't go on to abort babies.

We can only try.  As the saying goes.....you cannot force the horse to drink the water.

We've been educating and we've been spreading educ materials  in the USA against HIV and AIDS. It's even advertised sometimes.   Safe sex, is part of that. 

The model for wasted education is Charlie Sheen!  He even had sex with numerous women knowing he has HIV.

  See....we can educate them all we want, but in the end,  it's up to them if they'll practice what they've learned. 

 

We ended up criminalizing people with AIDS/HIV who knowingly have sex with others - that's a criminal offense now.   Look at Driving under the influence, as another example.  You can go to jail for DUI.

You've got to have laws when uncaring, negligent, irresponsible people start harming others.

 

Unless a woman is a complete moron....they know the possible consequence of unprotected sex.  STD, and/or unwanted pregnancy.  The responsibility lies on their pretty shoulders in preventing any unwanted pregnancy.  Abstinence, or safe sex.

 

 

Quote

Get real. Unwanted children trigger abortions. For anti abortionists to deny that is irrational.

It doesn't have to be abortion.  That's the point.

 

 

Quote

It  is also socially irresponsible to think unwanted births don't  trigger huge social consequences for those children, others and society and we need go engage in pro-active policies to prevent negative social issues from transpiring.

So, are we going to prophecy for people now how their life is going be if they're borne under certain conditions?  We're going to play God with people's lives?  We'll automatically assume that every child from an unwanted pregnancy is going to be a failure?

 

  So many children grew up in orphanages and foster homes, and they turned out to be productive citizens.

 

 

 

Quote

Using common sense and exercising free choice are gifts we should use responsibly-following irrational blind rigid dogma is nonsensical.

Because you mentioned dogma - I don't know to whom you're directing this?  To pro-choicers, or to pro-lifers?

Our choice(s) will have to respect another human's right.  That right ends when it steps on someone else's right.

 

 

 

Quote

You have a penis, use a contraceptive. You have a uterus don't think the pill or is foolproof. Trump, Pence Cybercoma do not control your penus or uterus, your own individual free choice does.

So true.  And if you're a woman....you know who's going to end up getting pregnant, so don't even rely on the man to do all the precautioning for you.   Bring a condom, and get him to wear it!

Use that free choice before you create another human.........

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2017 by betsy

[?Impact]

25 minutes ago, betsy said:

Human life starts at conception.  The fetus....or embryo....or zygote.....or whatever stage the human is at at the time, nevertheless he is still a human being.  He is a human being who's going through the natural process of development.  Yes, he is a person - whether his brain and spine is fully developed or not! 

According to Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Life begins at birth, when the earthen vessel becomes a living soul. You can also refer to Psalms 33:6, Ezekiel 37 9-10, 13-14, Job 34: 14-15, and many others. The embryo or earthen vessel is not life.

25 minutes ago, betsy said:

So many children grew up in orphanages and foster homes, and they turned out to be productive citizens.

Absolutely, there is nothing to say the family has to be a mother, father, and a few siblings. What is important are the people, and the attention and care they give. Unfortunately there are also many bad examples in larger institutions and foster care environments which tend to overshadow the many good ones. 

[betsy]

19 hours ago, ?Impact said:

According to Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;

 

So you're saying, you're not  human unless you've reached the age of Adam when God made him?  How old are you?  Am I talking to a human?

 

?Impact, God didn't make the first baby.  He made the first man. 

 

So were animals, and trees.  Trees were already fruit-bearing when God created them.

Edited January 29, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

19 hours ago, ?Impact said:

 

What is important are the people, and the attention and care they give. Unfortunately there are also many bad examples in larger institutions and foster care environments which tend to overshadow the many good ones. 

 

Many children had suffered abuse....and many end up surviving, and living productive lives.   Don't write off a child simply because he's had a terrible childhood.  That isn't fair.

 

I don't know if it could also be genetic - but some people you can't break so easily.  Let's not judge a book by its cover.

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by betsy

[Rue]

19 hours ago, betsy said:

Besty you stated: "Human life starts at conception"

That is a faith based belief not a fact of science. I respect your right and the right of anyone to believe that. I only ask you not use government to impose your faith belief on others who for many reasons disagree with you. I believe they have the same right to their beliefs as you do yours..  

 You stated:

"Are we going to say a mentally-challenged person, or someone who's suffering from any debilitating disease (that affects any of his development), isn't human? "

No. What I did state is a child born with no brain or no heart is not human. What I have stated is it is the decision of the woman and her body not you to decide based on medical information given to her whether she wishes to go full term or not. You clearly believe all life is sacred from the moment of conception. Others do not.

You stated:

"You can't de-humanize a human  for simply going through the natural process of development.  Like all things, we gotta start somewhere."

No what I have actually said is your exercise of taking a cell that is not yet developed into a life form and giving it human like qualities is the act of personification. That's your choice to make. The fact I call a cell the size of a pin=head a cell and not a human does not dehumanize fetal development

You stated:

"Besides, when you start letting governments or society to be able to dehumanize someone and strip him of his rights - we're going back to the time of Hitler.  Remember how he dehumanized the Jews, to make it easier for them to be exterminated??"

Your use of the holocaust to describe people who are pro choice as the equivalent of Nazis is uncalled for. I think its an emotional and inappropriate exploitation of the holocaust and in fact dehumanizes women who want to be in control of their bodies. I think however you used the analogy in good faith and did not mean to trivialize the holocaust intentionally. You are a good person and would not do that. I do think you meant Nazis forced sterilization and most certainly killed people once born who were mentally ill and born with Down's syndrome.

Betsy so you know, I don't condone that and many pro choice people like me would never support forced sterilization, forced abortion, or the deliberate kiliing of disabled people once born. That is not the issue with due respect. The issue is this-if a woman goes to the hospital, and with today's technology is told her child will be born with Down's syndrome, very serious physical disabilities, etc., she will be asked to make the decision whether she wishes to go to full term or not. She might also have a decision to make if the pregnancy threatens her own life or is as a result of rape or incestuous rape. Those kinds of decisions are difficult. You of course and many like you believe all life is precious and no human should choose to do anything to interrupt a pregnancy once it begins at conception. I get that. I respect that. I do not belittle it. However for those same reasons I also respect that "God" the same power you and I both hold sacred in our own ways gave people the gift to make decisions based on information we develop based not just on faith beliefs but science. I believe if God did not want us to exercise free choice and give us the ability to educate ourselves and create science, he would not have given us a human brain if I use it on God faith terms.

I believe as do many that the gift of life we are given includes the responsibility to think, make decisions and be responsible on an individual level to make choices.

Like you believe the government should not force sterilization or abortion on people, I also agree it should not force people to carry any one full term. You select those values you agree with and say, they should be forced by government on all. I take the classic conservative approach that the individual not government should make that decision. I am neutral in fact to whether people should or shout not do things with their bodies. I believe each individual must decide.

I know you believe a sperm cell once merged with an egg, is a life form independent of the woman's womb and body in terms of rights. I do not.

I do not condone sterilization. I do not condone any action forced on anyone.

I will say this though because I believe the issue can't be forced by government either way-I was part of a legal proceeding where two people with below average iq's who would be called severely retarded saw one impregnate the other.

That is a hell of a legal issue to deal with. I know where you stand. You would say go full term and give the child up for adoption? Certain parties intervened to argue that. Others intervened saying the two individuals should be able to bring up the child with assistance. Ultimately the parents of both individuals ordered the pregnancy terminated based on a recommendation by physicians the two individuals did not have the capacity to understand what they did.

I am saying its not black and white and one size fits all. I also do not think for the same reason you think its dehumanizing by government to force sterilization or killing of disabled people once born, its equally as dehumanizing to tell a woman, she can't make decisions about her womb and what is in it

In regards to Cybercoma, with due respect to him he advanced a classic anti-abortion argument that infers contraception and planned parenthood all are birth control blurring it as being in the same category as why people abort.

What I argued is many people practice contraception to avoid pregnancy precisely because they don't want to abort and want to avoid such situations.

Planned parenting is more than just birth control-its assuring people are ready and in the position position to have children and to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. Betsy I respect your religious beliefs. From a practical perspective though, I have had to sit with young men ranging from believe it or not 10 to 70 and explain to them why and how to use a contraceptive. Telling them to just say no is nonsensical.

For me sex is not just a matter of reproducing which the anti planned parenthood argument turns planned parenting into. For many sex is a healthy, enjoyable act and when done responsibly does not impregnate, spread diseases and its done on consent with two consenting adults of equal knowledge and power.

In fact Betsy I do believe Trump and Pence and anti-abortionists have the right to express their political beliefs and do whatever they are doing right now just as much as I believe pro choicers do. Its democracy. Trump and Pence were very up front they were pro life.  If they want to use their office to promote their views they will.

However it also means and this is the point Besty, in a democracy, women and for that matter men have the choice to agree or disagree with them.

For me I believe going full term or not ultimately is to be decided by the woman not government. I believe that can be best done between her, her doctors, her loved ones and her clergy and hopefully where possible the man who impregnated her. For me its a matter of making a choice in safe quite, confidential place without intervention from you, me or anyone in the government. I also do not believe a rapist or incestuous father has any say in pregnancy.

So for me its a matter of who makes the choice.

I have said Besty in an ideal world people who get proper counselling are given all options not just one narrow rule to follow.

Hope that clarifies it because I certainly agree with you a government that enforced sterilization and murder of disabled like Nazi Germany did is dangerous for the very reasons you said. On the other hand, I think you equating the decision of a woman before a child is born to not follow through on a pregnancy is not the same as terminating a child after birth. Sorry we disagree on that. I don't believe a sperm cell that attaches to an egg is life quite just yet but I sure as hell understand why you believe it is and respect that.

What I said was cutting off funding to anyone who teaches planned parenting claiming its necessarily pro abortion which Pense and Trump are doing equates sex education with abortion and that is irrational.

You stated:

 "So many children grew up in orphanages and foster homes, and they turned out to be productive citizens."

Of course.  Its an important thing some may wish to consider. However it won't re relevant if the child is going to be born without a brain.

It may not be relevant if the pregnancy is endangering the woman's life.

You asked: "Because you mentioned dogma - I don't know to whom you're directing this?  To pro-choicers, or to pro-lifers?"

Both. In proper counselling all options are considered.

You said:

"Our choice(s) will have to respect another human's right.  That right ends when it steps on someone else's right."

In fact I agree with the above comment which is why I do not think you should force a woman to full term based on your religious beliefs. I believe that choice must be made by the woman because its here body, and controlling her body is a basic human right and when you create precedents where government can force that woman what to do with her body, it doesn't respect her basic human right.

In the counselling I engage in and support, women are given non judgemental counselling and abortion is not promoted as the only option.

Uh Besty you are a common sense gal. This is why you said:

"So true.  And if you're a woman....you know who's going to end up getting pregnant, so don't even rely on the man to do all the precautioning for you.   Bring a condom, and get him to wear it! Use that free choice before you create another human........."

We totally agree. I don't want any woman to feel once she's pregnant she regrets it. I would hate my daughters regretting getting pregnant and getting an abortion.

I really would. You are talking about someone who rescues and rehabs animals. The idea of killing something needlessly please I would not intentionally advocate that.

However if my daughter was raped, or was medically endangered, I think I would have to support her decision to abort if that is what she wanted to do.

Wow on the issue of us having sufficient knowledge now to see say deformed embryos, and whether people should go full term or not with all that info now, well Besty you may have an argument for sure. Maybe deciding to abort say a child you know has a deformed head condemning it to an institutionalized life is similar to what Nazis did.

I certainly say its a difficult moral issue. I just think that is between the woman and her doctors, loved ones and her clergy if she has one to wrestle with.

Its sad whatever the decision is and yes Besty I am not sure where we draw the line in this day and age with advanced medicine as to what is dehumanization and humanization. Say euthanasia. Some believe under no circumstances assist someone in a terminal condition die because life is sacred and that is only a decision for God.

Others ague keeping people alive with nothing but pain dehumanizes their quality of life.

When life begins and ends, wow its not easy. We will debate this until doomsday. I personally think we need to use both our faith and science and find a middle ground.

 

 

 

 

[betsy]

12 minutes ago, Rue said:

Besty you stated: "Human life starts at conception"

That is a faith based belief not a fact of science.

 

Both.  Faith-based.....and science-based.

 

Quote

Life Begins at Fertilization
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 

 

Quote

Science Deniers Notwithstanding, Human Life Begins at Conception

 

In the scientific debates of our day, it's important to distinguish debates about scientific facts from debates about the ethical or metaphysical consequences of scientific facts.

That human life begins at conception is a scientific fact, and has been recognized as such since the early 19th century when fertilization of the ovum by the sperm was first observed in the laboratory. That life begins at conception is as much a scientific fact as heliocentrism, and the fact that the earth is round, and that water is H₂O.

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/science_deniers098481.html

 

 

Even logic says human life begins at conception.  Isn't that embryo a living "thing?"  If it's living, it has life.  Now, what would be the offspring of a human, isn't it  another human?

 

Have we heard of a human concieving an ape?  Or a fish? 

Edited January 29, 2017 by betsy

[Rue]

19 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Many children had suffered abuse....and many end up surviving, and living productive lives.   Don't write off a child simply because he's had a terrible childhood.  That isn't fair.

 

I don't know if it could also be genetic - but some people you can't break so easily.  Let's not judge a book by its cover.

 

 

 

 I agree with the above. For the very same reasons, I don't judge a woman and her womb.

Now to be honest having daughters I sure as hell judge my fellow men and their penises If I thought they were rearing their ugly head so to speak upsetting my daughters, out come my hedge clippers. 

I am being honest. Once you are a father with daughters, your perspective becomes very basic. Nothing complex.

Garden sheers.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Both.  Faith-based.....and science-based.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/science_deniers098481.html

I think life probably begins when it can live outside the womb and maybe even fend for itself too.

Still, not relevant to the issue of abortion, for me.

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

 I agree with the above. For the very same reasons, I don't judge a woman and her womb.

 

 

I don't judge a woman and her womb. 

 

But it is my business to try to  protect another human being, who's being deliberately mutilated and killed in that womb.

Edited January 29, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think life probably begins when it can live outside the womb and maybe even fend for itself too.

Still, not relevant to the issue of abortion, for me.

"I think," is an opinion.  It's not a refutation.

When debating serious issues such as this, I don't care for personal opinions.

Edited January 29, 2017 by betsy

[Rue]

11 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Both.  Faith-based.....and science-based.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 

https://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/inconsistancy-in-the-life-begins-at-conception-argument/

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

"I think," is an opinion.  It's not a refutation.

When debating serious issues such as this, I don't care for personal opinions.

And yet you replied.

I think my opinion of when life begins is as valid as anyone else's.

But like I said, it's not really relevant to the issue of abortion choices.

Edited January 29, 2017 by bcsapper

[Rue]

7 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

I don't judge a woman and her womb. 

 

But it is my business to try to  protect another human being, who's being deliberately mutilated and killed in that womb.

Your second sentence necessarily concludes a judgement that a female  who does not want to go full term is a deliberate mutilator and murderer justifying you trying to control what they are allowed to do with their womb.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Rue

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

https://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/inconsistancy-in-the-life-begins-at-conception-argument/

 What do you expect?

 

It's a site for human enhancement!

 

Anyway, that's  simply a blog!  Where are its scientific references that refutes the scientific references I gave??

[betsy]

6 minutes ago, Rue said:

Your second sentence necessarily concludes a judgement that a female  who does not want to go full term is a deliberate mutilator and murderer justifying you trying to control what they are allowed to do with their womb.

Well, it is murder when you deliberately kill another human being. 

"Does not want," isn't good reason enough to justify murder.  That would be like me saying, I don't want to be poor so I "euthanized" my confused and bed-ridden grandmother to get my inheritance early.

 

Huh.  Maybe "euthanizing" a confused and bed-ridden grandmother is acceptable now to some progressives.  Strange world we live in.

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by betsy

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, betsy said:

Well, it is murder when you deliberately kill another human being. 

"Does not want," isn't good reason enough to justify murder.  That would be like me saying, I don't want to be poor so I "euthanized" my confused and bed-ridden grandmother to get my inheritance early.

 

Huh.  Maybe "euthanizing" a confused and bed-ridden grandmother is acceptable now to some progressives.  Strange world we live in.

 

 

 

It depends on how confused she actually is.  Of course, having the inheritance as the reason would never be acceptable.

[betsy]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

  Of course, having the inheritance as the reason would never be acceptable.

We'll never be sure about that, won't we?   After all, what we've got is a very narcissistic and self-absorbed society.

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

We'll never be sure about that, won't we?   After all, what we've got is a very narcissistic and self-absorbed society.

 

 

You can be sure if there isn't one.  Other than that, it should be based on compassion, and, if confusion is not actually an issue, Grandma's wishes,

[Hal 9000]

I've had 2 children born premature (at least 6 weeks early) and weighed about 5 lbs, dropped into the 4's for a while and now they're both very normal people.  As long as babies are being aborted who are either 1) older than that or 2) weigh more than that, then I'll call that murder.  A 5lb baby can fit in the palm of a hand - I could never imagine aborting a human at that stage - yet it does happen.  

[Rue]

Hal the issue as to when an embryo is sufficiently formed to be called life is of course an open ended debate, Some believe the moment the egg and sperm unite, (zygite) life is created and any attempt to remove it from the womb is murder. Some would argue up to a certain trimester the zygote hs not matured sufficiently to contistute a life yet.

Size is not necessarily the only indication of sufficient development because as you have accurately pointed out, and a fully formed embryo with fully formed brain and heart can be very small. I also acknowledge with compassion your comments for the very reasons stated. Those are of course serious considerations we would hope are explained to a woman faced with the decision to abort. Part of the counselling we would hope discusses that consideration and say the one's Betty brought up such as the possibility of giving the child up for adoption or the possibility someone else may be willing to give time and love to a special needs child. Those are all considerations one would hope are explained to a woman facing such decisions. The counsellors I know explain such things and do not present abortion as the only issue. Its tough I will tell you because once you make such a decision you can't undo it. I don't think you and I or Betty or the others need to debate when life begins to know wherever we are on this, life is precious. I will leave it at that because while I am pro choice I take what you say very seriously and do not brush off her comments either.

As a father I do have problems with men telling women what to do with their bodies. To me men should govern and control our bodies and leave the decisions as to a woman's body to her, her mother, grandmother, aunt, or other women she trusts,  her physician(s) and trusted loved ones and hopefully the man who impregnated her if he's not her rapist.

My real concern with this issue is cutting off funding to sex education and planned parenthood not your comments or even Betsy's comment about when life begins. I hate getting into arguments that deal with how precious life is. I hate it because I know we all believe its precious. For those who don't, for those who live lives where they abuse their bodies and themselves and engage in multiple abortions as part of that lifestyle, i.e., they are crack cocaine hookers, please don't get the idea I condone their lifestyle or other freedom to make the choice people do either. We don't. I don't know any freedom of choice people that would not have been moved by what you said. I am sorry the discussion hits so close to home but I thank you for explaining it that way.

 

[Topaz]

This is the way I view this, no one has the right to tell  anyone what they can do with their body, and the only judge is God.