Cereal Killer writes: "Anyway, an actual woman is more important than a potential child AKA fetus." Hmm. A fetus isn't "actual"? According to my Merriam Webster pocket dictionary, "actual" is defined as 'really existing: REAL'. Let's see. We can use ultrasound/sonogram technology to take photos and make videotapes of the fetus, we can use a stethoscope to listen to the heartbeat of the fetus, and we can go as far as to operate on the fetus while the fetus is in utero, so how is the fetus not REAL? Perhaps Cereal Killer thinks that whatever we cannot see with our naked eye isn't real? In that case, if we take a woman and lock her in a closet, she is no more real than the fetus? The labeling of the fetus as "potential" is nothing more than pro-choice brain-washing - something "Cereal" seems to find offensive. I wonder if "Cereal" realizes that he/she has been brain-washed by the masters? Again, my dictionary defines "potential" as 'existing in possibility : capable of becoming actual'. Because we can see the fetus, hear the fetus and operate on the fetus, we know that the fetus is REAL, and therefore is not a 'potential' but an 'actual'. A fetus then, is just as actual as the woman. Politics remains all that decides which is more important, the actual woman or the actual fetus/child.

Cereal Killer writes: "A child walks and talks, a fetus sits there and contracts in a stomach." Now I'm not surprised at this. "Cereal" attested to the intelligence of someone who posted here earlier that men eat excrement when we know that in fact men eat similar foods to women (note: not excrement); it doesn't surprise me that "Cereal" would need to re-visit some educational institution and learn that in fact, a fetus does not reside in the stomach, but in the uterus which is entirely different than the stomach. Were the fetus residing in the stomach, birth would be an entirely different experience, and something men might be capable of being that they too, have stomachs and bowels to facilitate the exit. At any rate, if a child walks and talks, then it is not only the fetus that should be eligible for extermination, but also all infants and toddlers who either are not able to walk or talk yet... if walking and talking is the criteria that makes one a child or not. And what of the adults who are unable to walk and talk? Are they too, eligible for extermination? If what one does or doesn't do is what places them on the list for extermination, "Cereal" might one day find reason to be scared for his/her own life. I personally, wouldn't want to see that day.

How do you know CK is a man? Unless he is Shea? Also, it is worthy to note he, if a he isnt concerned with "women having no rights"-this is just cover to appear politically correct and enjoy the advantages of pregnancyless sex-if all the "independent women" he dates abort, he doesnt OWE anything!

I must admit I have never seen anyone use a wordplay attack on someone more creatively than this. Creativity, however, doesnt equal brains...

"I put those porn sites up for you, knowing you're such a sick Paula Jones look-alike."

I do not notice any physical resemblance to the site owner of Paula Jones, other than gender-this is now a simple minded leftist slur to be used on "conservative" females, as is the notion that Jone's is "trailer trash", which I guess proves these folks ARE classists, and as such, are bigot...

You bunch of anti-women people,

Why do you simplistically repeat the same tired empty slogans? Prove that anyone of any gender opposing abortion has anything to do with being "anti-woman"-you cannot, because no connection exists. How come if WOMEN (like the site owner) oppose abortion, even THEY are antiwoman, woman hating, etc., do they hate their own sex? What profit is there to that? Fascinating!

"For goodness sakes, women in the Soviet Union - now Russia had and have more freedom than women here - that's pretty bad."

You equate abortion rights with women's rights, a fallacy, you equate abortion access with freedom for women, when there's no connection...

PRO-WOMAN, Abortion doesnt help women, or men, for that matter. And the woman isnt the only person involved in a specific given pregnancy.

PRO-FAMILY,

How is killing untimely children "profamily". Does it foster better relations between genders?

PRO-CHILD,

Killing a child without consent from that child is prochild??? In whose eyes? Should we ask abortion survivors like saline victim that lived-Gianna Jessen?

PRO CHOICE IS PRO LIFE!!!

You want an elective right to kill, and that is "prolife"?

KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF WOMENS' OVARIES!!!

Abortion opposition has no connection to religion, Christian or otherwise. This attempt to make lifers look like religious extremists is disengenious.

AGAINST ABORTION--DON'T HAVE ONE!!!

What if the father is against it, and the woman wants to have one anyway? Can he choose anything? Where is his choice? I'd gladly take your advice here, but the legal system you support takes away ALL of my rights to NOT have a child of mine aborted! Further, the child may be against themselves being aborted, the saline abortion survivor I mentioned certainly is/was, and it didnt help *HER* did it?

I'M PRO CHOICE AND I VOTE!!

I'M PRO LIFE AND I VOTE!! MORE!!

AGAINST ABORTION - WEAR A CONDOM!!

SUPPORT ABORTION - BE ABSTINENT!!

AGAINST ABORTION - PROMOTE FAMILY PLANNNING!!

Who doesnt? If its legit family planning, which means noabortive contraceptive methods...

THE WORLD WOULD BE A LOT BETTER IF EVERY CHILD WAS A WANTED ONE!! KEEP EVERY CHILD A WANTED ONE!!

Fact is, "planning" children doesnt reduce child abuse rates. Child abuse has gone way up SINCE Roe, and the devaluing of life and the overstressing of the needs and wants of parents in everything from fertility treatments to abortion. It's all about the parents rights and needs now, never the child's. Children should come first...

WOMEN AREN'T BREEDING PIGS OWNED BY THE STATE!!

Ok, do you support this:

C4M

10. HATE CRIMES LAWS IMPACT BLACKS

Liberals and blacks who have pushed for passage of hate crimes laws to protect minorities from racial discrimination are discovering that black hate crimes are also being prosecuted. In fact, the FBI's "Hate Crime Statistics" for 1999 shows that 2,030 whites were arrested for hate crimes against blacks, compared to 524 blacks who were arrested for hate crimes against whites. Blacks make up 12.8% of the population. Given the arrest rate differences, it appears that blacks are one and one half times as likely to be arrested for a hate crime than whites. Steve Labash, national director of the Libertarian Party asks a legitimate question: "In light of this study, it's fair to ask who poses a greater threat to the black community-racist, violent whites or oblivious black politicians" who have promoted hate crime laws. "Hate crimes aren't just for KKK members anymore," says Labash. "They are now being applied even to same-race crimes-apparently giving racist police, prosecutors or judges another weapon to use against African-Americans."

As usual, you miss the point. The governmental system is set up to either, A, procure fatherless homes, via a socialized welfare state that often punishes having one in the home in terms of benefits, or B, sets up a child support first, father involved society, which is BAD for CHILDREN. "Paternity Opportunity Programs" at hospitals encourage and deceive fathers to waive any due process they might have, and authorizes responsibility without rights to recoup CS. Despite many poor women existing, and despite attempts of "father's rights" groups advocating the OPTION of a simple change in custody instead of red tape and tranfer of income, their attempts are ignored by a system that simply wishes to preserve status quo and or sole mother custody. The reason so much feminized poverty exists IS BECAUSE there are increasingly fewer fathers INVOLVED and *IN* the home. Worse, even women who shouldnt have sole custody get it over better qualified fathers when and where they exist due to a sexist legal and court system that fails to equally treat parents and CLAIMS to decide issues on "best interests" which is a phony scam as used to replace parental authority with outside control and to perpetuate inequity between parents against the REAL best interests of children. Social aid programs suck the will and identity out of men as fathers to provide for THEIR children. Interesting how as recently as WW2, we had a modest rate of fatherless kids, and it was a national epidemic. Now, the rate is 40% and growing, thanks to the feminists and other social engineers and abortion desnsitizing and irresponsibility breeding in men. And these attitudes are destroying children's lives.

"Banning abortion does not stop it," You didnt answer my question did you? It was *if* their needs were met, would you refuse to support elective abortion? You evaded the query as usual. You prove that you merely support it on demand. If the man involved makes live a paradise on earth financially or otherwise, for her, you still support him having to watch his child get her throat cut while the police restrain him, and call yourself "compassionate". And banning abortion ****WILL****

stop MOST abortions, because its about profit-abortionists exist to make money, not help women. Hence, stiff penalties, like life in prison for abortionists, plummets the rate to low levels, as it was preRoe. You cannot compare today's 1.6 million a year to prior to the network of legal abortion clinics. Women who are pc would not CARE (if it didnt matter and they could home abort easily) about it staying legal IF what you say is true. Finally, rape is also NOT going to stop by banning it, and its illegal. Should we legalize that? The issue is whether something is ethical or should be legal, NOT whether all instances of it would cease to exist IF it were banned.

"just drives it underground." Gee, wasnt I at a prolife rally here in Austin a while back and a group of pchoice women yelled and screamed at me at how crucia it was for women to have this as a LEGAL right and how women would live in the dark ages without it, or am I just imagining these protesters to OUR rally? They acted like their LIVES would end if abortion was banned, why dont they just use herbs at home?

"I'm not going to take a position on every abortion, but I don't necessarily support all of them. You're making assumptions about my position."

What you are saying is women can threaten others (abortion) IF the state doesnt take overresponsibility and pick up the woman's self imposed bills for children they create. Women MUST have abortion to prevent all the unwanted babies that conservatives wont support post birth in social aid programs, an act of mercy on mother and child. This is your underlying premise, whether you realize it or not.

Now compare the following parallel argument:

MEN say: "If the government WONT help me pay MY child support bills, I can consider an unwanted pregnancy or bay I am involved with to be solvee for me by RUNNING as an option and defaulting on my child support. If these folks want men to NOT run and dump the mother pregnant, THEY should start dismantling the Office of Child Support Enforcement and replace it with government aid programs for single fathers".

Key words here Monica ARE "if they want to have them". Meaning women. "Families" to you are WOMEN, alone, defined as such. Child support for men. If women had a huge system of endless fatherless homes which are not the solution to this problem, aided by government, YOU wouldnt say abortion must go be banned/illegal-that is, if not a single WOMAN was not helped from cradle to grave from impregnation to age 18, would you change. What we NEED isnt more government help to replace fathers in home after home-we need fathers IN those homes, and we need those fathers to have the right to KEEP their babies without women being able to unilaterally deny them any say in their own lives WHILE retaining child support on demand as well.

Your problem isnt women needing help to have the courage and the MEANS to support terming their pregnancies, they can NEVER get enough help to convince you to agree abortion needs banning. Your problem is a failure, like most prochoice women, to understand personal responsibility especially as it applies to WOMEN. If NO HELP existed for MEN to pay their bills over babies they feel they may or may not have planned or wanted, oh well, he shouldnt have sex! As you have said many times now, you support abortion being forced on unwilling fathers who DONT run, offer TOTAL ABSOLUTE FINANCING of the child so the woman HAS NO GOOD ARGUMENT LEFT, this proves ONE THING:

You have failed to present a SINGLE coherent argument since you arrived here Cereal, ad hominem attacks and refusal to state EXACTLY *WHY* prolifers' arguments are false if they are, WOULD be a start, though I am not holding my breath...

"I am not liberal or pro-choice; I am anti-fetus and anti-religious freak like you all!!"

Dehumanizing preborn children by referring to them coldly and clinically doesnt help your case either...

"I am so anti-government it's not even funny!! I think selfish people like you should stop making your rules everyone's laws!!"

It is PROCHOICE persons who are antichoice-they flatly directly support ONE involved party abusing TWO others in a pregnancy-while prolifers argue STATUS QUO and NO ACTION other than natural, on any given pregnancy. The only side trying to "force laws on people" are choicists, the states HAD individual abortion laws, and not once in 200 years was it EVER suggested abortion was a "Constitutional right" until Roe. Were all those Supreme Courts and most states wrong for 200 years? Who interfereed here-the SC OR the states who merely wanted to have their OWN people to make abortion laws? Isnt that more "prochoice" than SC fiat forcing its will on the rest of us?

"Don't say I'm selfish-because I'm not."

You become selfish when you consider only ONE party of THREE involved, and act like she is the only thing that exists...

"You are because you insist that children must be born in bad situations."

*WHO* *created* those? Who is to blame? MUST a child STAY in a bad situation or can they be adopted? Blaming children and sentencing them to DEATH because their mother (sexist because we dont care if the father isnt prepared to parent or pay cs) doesnt want to change her lifestyle is like a man saying if women dont want to be beaten, DONT get in a relationship with HIM because he is a batterer. The BATTERER, or in this case proabortion WOMAN must change, NOT the victim!

"Then you refuse to aid them afterwards."

Simply false. Post proof or retract.

"Then they grow up in poverty and become crime-doers." They do crime because they grow up in a society that ALLOWS fatherless babies as a social NORM, almost, rather than seeing to it that healthy relationships CAN exist between sexes, which is impossible when ONE of them has total say over reproducing a two person baby!

"Then you capture them and without thinking you execute them with the death penalty because you caused them to be the way they are."

Many prolifers, myself included, OPPOSE the DP. Again a generalization!

"To you, life must start at conception and end at birth or something." Another fantasy. NOT ONE PERSON HERE (that I know of) who is PL thinks life begins at conception AND ENDS at birth! All oppose infanticide and even use that possibility of cheapened life social disfunction to argue against abortion AND post birth abuse of children!

"They're so important before they even exist, but afterwards, they're nothingness. TO HELL WITH THEM. WHAT A VICIOUS CYCLE!" Really? This is, as above, false, but it IS true that many CHOICISTS view children as worthless for 9 months but "human" a split second after birth, isnt it? Do lifers advocate babies be allowed to be killed for the 9 months AND beyond? No. Do choicists argue for late term abortions because not having those would set a precedent meaning states *might* limit a womans "choice", a risk worse than death and taxes, YES! Which one cares most about kids?

"And why is it that you say that *GOD* is the only judge and should be the only one to decide if a *CHILD* can *DIE* and be aborted." Because NATURE (God, whatever) is an unbaised arbiter that typically only terminates pregnancies that wouldnt term anyway. Its quite different to have conscious control over termination when ONE party can abuse two others.

"According to you, we can't decide such things. Then you turn around and use the Death Penalty - claiming that we CAN judge humans and *GOD* isn't even mentioned.Why is it that *GOD* is the only one to decide life in abortion, but we humans can judge people in the death penalty? YOU EAT YOUR OWN WORDS."

No relationship specifically exists WHATSOEVER between prolife argument stances AND religion, much less Christianity.

Strike one!

"Anyway, an actual woman is more important than a potential child AKA fetus.

Here you reveal your REAL agenda. The only person to your convoluted logic that exists here is the WOMAN. If the man involved claims interests, you AGAIN will revert to your preconceived notion, showing no thought or analysis, but preordained prejudice/bias. The woman wont die if she aborts OR births. The child DIES unless termed. Which one has the "greater" interests. Logic doesnt support the womans case, especially when she didnt get pg by herself NOR is solely obligated to support the child. With both the interests of father and child, the woman's to ABORT pale, but SINCE you refuse to ANALYZE, and feel IN ADVANCE that only the woman matters, you cannot be budged because to you, "my mind is made up, and dont confuse me with the facts".

"A child walks and talks, a fetus sits there and contracts in a stomach."

Again a leaping assumption you ASSUME its a GIVEN that a preborn *ISNT* a child already, which you have no evidence of, and in fact the weight of evidence suggests the reverse.

"THE WORLD WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT BETTER WITHOUT SO MANY UNWANTED KIDS, WOULDN'T IT?"

No, because you DONT believe this. Here's why:

Suppose the FATHER wanted an abortion. The mother didnt. He insisted he would HATE that child if born. Wouldnt support the baby and would run to Alaska and the woman lacks the ability to keep and raise but doesnt want adopt and wont consent to an adoption. Now, WHOM do you support. Dont tell me, let me guess:

The WOMAN! But, I thought it was about unwanted babies and being stuck having them? And birth control fails so that is not consent for a child? His not gestating DOESNT change a WHIT the basic question, as nary a woman whose ever abortewd cites "her body" as a REASON *SHE* aborted-finances, finishing college, etc. tops lists. Point is, because you view it as HER decision, if the facts were as I gave, you would 180*! All of a sudden all that talk about children being unwanted and abused would disappear. In your argument, only ONE doenst want it, you never asked how the MAN felt, did you? This proves you will lie simply to support the woman doing whatever she wants, and your "concern" for unwanted babies suffering doesnt exist, its window dressing to make an unpalatable (to fence sitters) position look more reasonable and compassionate-but its anything BUT that to the unconsenting victims, or even to the woman in the end...

"KEEP ABORTION SAFE"

Its NOT safe, another tired one line slogan that is long on catchiness, and short on facts.

"AND LEGAL," This is debatable, too, but its too long to discuss in THIS post...

"AND KEEP EVERY CHILD A WANTED ONE!!"

Such as? The test of a position when critically analyzed ALWAYS comes down to self serving inconsistencies of logic and fallacies, as learned in writing basic term papers. Even the most cursory examination of the "prochoice" position reveals it relies HEAVILY on condridictions, double standards, etc. Therefore it cannot be correct. For example, common bort argument holds that IF abortion were illegal and weakly available, women WOULD en masse abort at home AND that resulting children would be abandoned, unloved. On both counts, NO EVIDENCE supports this, it is a false association of unproved cause and effect and false consequences-because one cannot predict HOW the woman will feel IF she terms the child, nor can one assert HOW many if any much WOULD abort crudely, nor is this even a logical reason for legalization or keeping it legal, since we do not argue that rape needs legality because even if legal, SOME men will do it anyway. This is but one example.

"They are so brain-washed they believe God created Man when Man created God!!"

humptiness - i read your 'informative' page.

"Addiction (compulsive/obsessive disorder) is created not by a substance but by artificial scarcity (prohibition). This is exactly why dieters become obese." - HEY! It's the 'artificial scarcity' of food causes obesity!! It's amazing that so many poeple who are trained in the causes of obesity would miss something so obvious: there is a scarcity of high fat, high carb, high cholestoral foods, and THAT causes obesity.

And this odious piece of logic, your 'solution' to the whole drug situation - wow, what a piece of work.

Of course, your 'solution' forgets one thing: liqour is controlled in exactly the same way as you describe, yet people still get addicted to the stuff.

"So much fuss over an herb!?' - Marijuana isn't an herb - it's a weed (hence the nickname, ObservantBoy). It requires no special treatment, no special conditions to grow. You can grab some seeds and drop them anywhere, and the stuff will sprout.

And because it's a weed, you will never, ever see it legalized. Why? Because no matter what you try to do, no matter what specious controls you attempt to place on it, you can never control pot production. It is an uncontrollable substance. Grab some seed s, some dirt beside a highway, and you have a pot garden.

One more piece of humptiness: "We have fallen prey to a witchhunt mentality more incidious than McCarthyism, more subtle than Orwell, and on the verge of becoming more tragic than Stalin, Mao, and Hitler combined."

Normally, I would forgive someone their ignorance, but with that line you've moved far beyond simple pinheadedness and into absolute stupidity.

In your defense, I'll ask others to assume one of two things: you're the victim of a pre-frontal lobotomy, or you're under sixteen years of age and your brain hasn't fully developed.

If I am a liberal prochoice activist, and I punch you guys in the mouth, breaking your jaws, and the police charge me with assualt and I get 3 years, but then admit under questioning that I do not like conservatives or "antiabortion" people, and THAT w as what motivated me to single y'all out and hit you, should I get an additional 9 months on my sentence as a penalty when if I had done the SAME thing but was not shown to be motivated by "hate" but committed random violence instead?

I dont want people to say or write "all jews should be murdered" BUT legally, they can-***SAY*** such a thing likely under free speech. Recall, many consider abortion murder, and could suggest people advocating it being legal are advocating killing peo ple, so does that mean prochoicers CANNOT try to advocate such choices, EVEN if the laws were reversed concurrently and abortion was illegal? "but for impressionable people with a criminal/unstable mind and could in affect lead to violence. And if not violence specifically, possibly the promotion of hatred and discrimination."

Who is responsible, the criminal or the messenger? If a rock music group has explicit gross or offensive (pick the manner) and a buyer who MIGHT be unstable buys it and offends, WHO is to blame?

"I don't know anything about your father (hee hee hee) but do you think he intended free speech to do that?"

The FOUNDING *FATHERS* meaning Madison, Jefferson, etc. And yes, they wanted to avoid oppresive governments AND tryanny of the masses...

"Wouldn't they want people to be protected by the constitution instead of harmed?" Define harmed. Prolifers could argue Scalia and the Constitution "harmed" their ability under free speech applications to sidewalk counsel on private properties-but the problem, if any, is abortion itself, not the privacy on private property issues which precluded their claims of free speech...

"I know you guys clutch that old piece of paper close to your hearts, so I intend no offense, I just don't understand why it can't be altered to reflect social change."

Classic!!! *THIS* is EXACTLY what went wrong!!! It is not, and was never intended to be, a "living document". It sets limits for government power and duties for each branch, it is a tool for defining the purpose AND LIMITS of the exercise and scope of the governmental bodies. If one "spends a bit here and there" on this or that social program WITHOUT asking if it even is Constitutional, one travels down the well trodded path to absolutism...

"but we have had hate laws for quite sometime. To my knowledge they are generally applied to promotion of hate, not murder. But we also haven't had the level of racial/violence problems the US has"

The US cannot copy others UNLESS it complies with Constitutional guides, in theory assuming politicians are faithful. Just because your country has lower violence and raciality DOESNT mean it does BECAUSE of "hate crimes" laws. You misunderstand cause and effect-where do you live "yeah me"?

"Do you find racial jokes funny? Do you think they can cause harm, even if the person saying it doesn't consider themself racist?"

No. Not at all. Yes, I think so, but that doesnt mean laws are needed or that they are legally sound...

"hate crimes are a VERY gray area,"

Not really, what is "grey" about affording ONE or specialized groups extra treatment in doling out sentences to violators of them for the same crimes committed in terms of *effect* on the victims disparately? Is a rape of a "white" female deserving of a lesser sentence for the perp than one of a "black" one whose perp admitted race played a role in his choice of victim? Arent all women, if raped the same way, raped equally regardless of skin color?

"I'll share a secret with you, I worked to have a website removed (and did! :) it detailed instructions on terrorist activities. It celebrated criminals based on their murdering achievements and suggested others do the same. It was about murdering abo rtion doctors."

To many a prolifer, choicers and their supporters ARE the terrorists, and murderers in effect, but protected by bad laws. They argue abortion doctors KILL MANY, daily, and thus should be exposed-the site you perhaps refer to was featured on tv here as giving addresses of abortionists. Now, the real question is, WHY would any LEGITIMATE doctor want to hide their address? Arent doctors in the business of saving lives, not taking them? What other kind of doctor other than an abortionist, do you know of th at FEARS their safety over their medical branch choice and works in such an unregulated profession compared to others?

"This information available to an insane person could cause lethal damage."

No, if they were intent on killing an abortionist, they would FIND one locally and do so; such "sites" wouldnt deter them if disturbed or bent upon this because the person WAS planning to kill one BEFOREHAND.

"Do you think I am nazi-ish because I did this?"

No, I think you oppose free speech for anything or anyone YOU personally disagree with, which is EXACTLY what the framers wanted to impeed BY making the Constitution address the right of free speech.

Since the hate crime would be applied to a murderer, HOW can you punish MORE effectively than life or the DP? Since something on that order WOULD occur if a person was charged AND convicted of a murder, what deterrent exists? If one was a third party w atching, and intent on committing a murder, would the possibility of an extra penalty from a hate crime bill deter them from doing whatthey planned? If its applied to cases involving murders, the ACT of murdering IS the crime, REGARDLESS of the motivation of the killer is it not? If you prosecute for another offense regarding motivational mind reading aspects, even if you COULD correctly pin them to a perp, you are STILL making it "more" of a crime to attack one group, sex, class, race, than another in ef fect. If the crime of murder is a murder, a murder is murder is a murder, so to speak. Sending the message that its "murder+" is like saying one life is worth more than another if taken, instead of all enjoying equal protection of laws, which is what I me ant about hate crimes WRT the U.S. Constitution ammendment 14.

"But what about blatant hate propoganda? such as the Nueremburg files? Do you think something like that may fall under 'hate crime'? or the KKK

No party is exercising more "control" than a woman claiming abortion on demand is a "Constitutional right" of a pregnant female. A pregnant woman, by virtue of providing life support ongoing, is in a position to abuse the organism (here a human being) with efficiency. She can, regardless of laws, throw herself down stairs, insert coat hangers, all to kill her child.

Now, is this nature's natural order?

Do you see other forms of female life on Earth *killing* their own developing children while they sleep and eat in their mother's wombs? Show me instances of Lioness or tigress abortion, or elephants, or kangaroos.

Sure, women arent lower-level animals, but then that means they should be held to a HIGHER standard of ethics and behavior, right?

Correct, but she either doesnt care or refuses to see that her position requires HER to control MEN utterly because of their lack of ANY say in their own child's future. Ironically, she would say *I* base MY belief on controlling others, i.e.women, BE CAUSE I argue for no more than rights SHE considers sacrament for HERSELF and other women! Which is fairer, my system of rights for ALL THREE (woman, baby father) or at least while legal require consent of BOTH parents (no matter gender) to abort, or hers of "the woman is the only thing in the universe that exists in this matter" ideology?

The controlling person is Courtney, over TWO others in abortion at their expense, without consent. But she and other women just like her have the galling nerve to claim OTHERS, by denying abortion priviliges, not even taking AWAY terming ones (like the ir philosophy does to MEN, by the way!) is "controlling" *THEM* too much!

You miss the point.

***Everything,*** no matter the logic, in the mind of the choicist is subordinated to the WOMAN'S transitory, perceived "NEED" for an abortion. An illogical emotional need to avoid responsibility for a pregnancy she herself likely caused by consent by choosing to have intercourse with the father. The choicist seeks to AVOID taking account of her actual binding choice. She discusses a SECONDARY choice having nothing to do with her first choice that "trapped" her. It's about her irresponsibility.

If its a man, he's called a deadbeat dad, if its a woman, she's called "a woman's rights champion", etc. Despite the child dying, and terming a pregnancy wouldnt likely in a normal pregnancy KILL her, somehow the WOMAN'S "need" (real or imagined) trump all. Then, they go out and condridict themselves yet again by trying a deceptive "zero sum game" when the issue is framed as woman's choices vs the man's in a pregnancy, when if they were consistent, they'd NOW agree with the lifer if they argued zero su m WRT the involved man's interests.

Fact is, *3* parties are involved and hugely, one with life on the line, the others with course of life. No solution, prchoice or prolife is VALID if it FAILS to take account of ALL THREE interests to a reasonable degree. This is where prochoice fails. It ignores 2 others (baby, father) and crushes any and all rights they could or should have concurrently or in the future to meet ONE parties' perceived needs,(the woman.) No philosophy that leaves such "loose ends" could be correct.

Th prolife philosophy is the ONLY one that has potential, at least, to address ALL THREE involved parties interests, because by enforcing existing staus quo, the pregnancy being ongoing and prevented from any unnatural termination, ALL THREE get someth ing, instead of ONE (woman) getting *everything* they want.

Excuse me? So it's not selfish to have an abortion (ending the life - killing another human) because you think it should be that way????? So it's people like Carolyn and others here (who think that no one should be able to take the life of a nother just because that's what suits their personal needs at the moment) who are selfish? Surely you cannot be serious? That's it... you can't be serious.

Carolyn, you know those "test shoppers" that get paid to visit stores to secretly observe employees, and report to their employers on their service and compliance with store procedures? I'm convinced that some of the people who visit your guestbooks are s et ups... people who post stuff to pro-life books and boards trying to "flip" us out so they can then run around saying "see, I told you those pro-lifers were all crazy radicals". I mean, some of the comments are just so illogical and ill-reasoned that th ey cannot be serious.

The old "I am personally opposed to abortion on demand but I cannot judge other's or decide for them", blah blah blah.

Of course, whether you realize it or not, you ARE by your stance on the father's standing in abortion under current court rulings. If a given case CAN and IS shown NOT to be life or health threatening, which you in this sentence ADMIT any given pregnan cy COULD be, IYHO, *WHAT* *good* reason prevents him from asserting a claim on the child to be termed? You cannot have this both ways, your argument about the baby being in her body does *ZIP* to reconcile this condridiction of yours.

"would not make such a decision without consulting several doctors, including a "pro-life" doctor, and carefully weighing the options to determine whether it isn't possible to save both lives. I hope everything goes well for the woman. Servere's case w as one case where it was good the baby and her were both saved but every case is different."

There you go again! You admitted Servere's case PROVES cases, even rare "crises" ones EXIST where BOTH patients are savable in the opinion of medical experts. You say you are GLAD this worked out well for HER, and imply (as I take it) agree methods whe re both are treated as patients, instead of one being dumped automatically for the other exist, this is the tone you inflect, and then:

Let us rephrase this "zero sum gain" emotional appeal trick to a less politically correct, but equall "logical" (using the reasoning you used) result:

WRONG! Hard cases make bad law. Its like saying ALL deaths caused by a person MUST be assumed self-defense, BECAUSE we should just "trust" the killer, WITHOUT verifying HIS/HER story! You cannot confuse legit medical treatment that MIGHT, as a SIDE EFF ECT, kill a child in the course of treatment, with direct intentional killing of a child in abortion, which at any rate is nearly ALWAYS 100% elective and NOT for valid "health" reasons. If one goes around with this idea, ALL women will simply claim *thei r* abortion WAS about "health", which ends up being mental health, or "I just knew going through a pregnancy would kill me!" when what she MAY be afraid of is her *mother* finding out she got pg out of marriage, etc. You cannot make hard cases into absolu te blind trust law, which is what you are cleverly attempting to do here.

fact that the pregnancy happens to the woman's body and that means it can potentially affect her life and health is a good argument why she shouldn't be forced to continue with it at a risk to her life or health or forced to abort for any reason. The p regnancy may carry a man's child, but his physical health would never be directly impacted by it as a woman's might be

Again, as above, a poor reason to deny a father his parental rights, child and so forth, for much the same reasons listed above. A normal pregnancy, which describes most, would be morphed by ALL women claiming her health MIGHT in some fantasy, be affe cted, so the mere possibility it might means father's rights are overriden ON COMMAND FOR ANY REASON PRIOR TO ANY HEALTH ISSUES BEING KNOWN TO EXIST IN *THIS* PREGNANCY, much less "LOTM". As for his physical health, *I* personally have DEALT with men whos e lives and health went into a toilet following an abortion, not being under the knife directly didnt save them. To suggest that IF men had say, that they would use this in LOTM cases as an excuse to argue for sole female choice is dishonest. He could NOT prevent valid medical treatment, and all valid forms of treatment would exist and move forward as before, but he COULD prevent FALSE claims of having to abort directly upon demand for "health" reasons, and be privy to medical decisions regarding his chil d without a blind faith society ASSUMUNG the woman is making a noble fair choice, which she often DOESNT LIVE UP TO. As such, it would be the best medicine possible! You cannot use hard extreme cases to fashion general law, that never works.

One curious point-you said:

"or forced to abort for any reason."