Free Republic

It's not about the money? Oh, okay, then give it back to her and keep endorsing her. Oh no? Why not? Maybe because it is about the money?

Wonderful news!

I didn't know the name wouldn't be on it.

I still think it's counterproductive. It's also placing the cart before the horse.

If instead of focusing on pretending these people are recognized persons by law, why not use the effort and money to push legislation that would actually make these people recognized persons by law?

I want these babies to be recognized as people, don't get me wrong. But I think that this sort of thing is going to set the prolife movement back instead of forward. It won't pass, and when it doesn't pass, people are going to point to it as one more example of a fetus not being a person who should have rights. It's already disgusting fencers on other messageboards. The aim isn't to push people away. We WILL win. But we'll win faster and save more lives if we change public opinion using scientific data and hard evidence, instead of doomed emotional tactics that are already pushing people away.

XD EXACTLY!

In my opinion, if a guy doesn't have the guts to stand up for the rights of his own child, he's a wimp.

Here's what I don't get. It shouldn't matter if you're having sex with someone who's pro-life unless you're a male who wants to kill all of his children rather than take responsibility for sex.

If you're a woman, it's not like he can stop you from killing his child.

So if you're a woman and pro-choice, why not date a pro-lifer?

I would say a better warning would be, "Just say no to sex with a pro-choicer," since in one case, a woman can kill a man's child. In the other case, a woman can force a man to take responsibility.

Big surprise which one the liberals view as more horrifying.

But...but then women wouldn't be given money to kill their babies! They wouldn't even be allowed to kill their babies! They would have to...*gulp* Give birth! And girls wouldn't be protected from the rampant sex that we would encourage them to have! Of course, we'd stop encouraging to have it...but still!

You know, now you've got me wanting to run a dictatorship.

In other places, it will probably go over better. In some places, cervical cancer kills many more people than it does here because people have access to routine paps here. In some places, cervical cancer is still the number one killer of women.

But here? It's steadily declining. Without a vaccine, and with the population rising. Since the numbers are dropping while the population is rising, and the numbers aren't dropping due to a mandatory vaccine...why the heck are we pushing an undertested vaccine on our people?

When the American Pediatric Center says, "This shouldn't be mandatory," you'd think the government would get the point.

Seize that major opportunity, feminists. Afterall, it's hard to find parents willing to let their girls be labrats. Much easier to force girls to do it in order to keep them in school.

You'd think that feminazis (last I heard, they label themselves as pro-CHOICE, but I guess it's okay for the government to forcibly invade women's bodies. I mean, sure, it's not alright for the government to prohibit women from having their babies killed since that'd be invading women's bodies...but this is different because doing this means MORE SEX! YAY!) would be against this, considering even when girls themselves don't want the vaccine they'll have to take it. But I guess sex is worth risking the lives and health of hundreds of thousands (dare I say, even millions? I don't know the stats on how many girls this would affect) of young women across the country. I wouldn't know...I don't have HPV and I don't need an abortion because I haven't had sex. It isn't that difficult. It's two steps. Take your legs. Close them. If you're not in a position where you can deal with a baby, don't have sex. If you want to be protected from HPV and want to have sex, get yourself the vaccine and leave other people alone. It's all about these women wanting promiscuous sex to be socially acceptable.

Or maybe...the sinister and cynical side of me is wondering if some of these people support it because they want to see how it affects these girls before they get it themselves, but that's pretty far-fetched.

I don't really care how liberal it is. The more liberal the better, in fact, because I can use it without people going, "But it's biiiiiiased!"

I've heard one woman tell her son that she wished she had aborted him, but she was just trying to hurt him. Did a pretty good job of it, too.

It's not promoting the wanted child fallacy. If it was saying that it was better to kill people than to have them be raised by normal families (since they're saying adoptive parents tend to be better) then I'd agree, but it's not saying anything other than adoptive families tend to be more comitted to their children in certain areas, according to the study.

I showed that to my fiance last night, because I saw it and said, "He's so cute!" My fiance came to look, saw how early it was taken, and now he's rethinking his stance. That's how adorable your son was in your womb =D

That's very, very true.

And as for, adoptive parents will never really love their kids so your baby will be brought up in a bad home,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17119478/

I'm talking about children too, rather, people who saw this as children and it made them hostile. My friend can't stop talking about those...well, I'll edit her words down a bit, but point is, she rejected them as she got older because in her mind, they were the people who gave her nightmares as a kid by showing her something horrifying, and, "If you guys need to resort to scaring little kids to get converts, then no wonder it's legal." Same with fencers. It's not the images themselves they oppose (the people I'm talking about...some people really do oppose using the images because it's a hard reality they need to deal with), it's how they're presented. When you've got an adult shoving bloody images at young children, which some people do, it makes other adults angry. The truth truck isn't like that, but if I'm pro-life and wary about children seeing it, what is someone who is pro-choice or on the fence going to think?

The thing is, it's not about politics or getting people to agree that abortion is a bad thing. It's about saving lives, which is why I'm not entirely opposed to it. I'm afraid that in the short run it's saving lives, but in the long run it's endangering even more lives. My fear might not be justified. It may end up being a wonderful thing that converts more people than it pushes away.

I don't understand the point of it. If abortions already need to be reported somewhere...what would it do besides finger women who had abortions, prompting them to seek abortions elsewhere or bribing doctors not to file a certificate? More money for abortionists, abortions still under-reported, a lot of money spent.

If he wants to keep track of how many are done in TN, why not just require doctors to report how many patients they have? They're not going to skew the numbers lower, because that would indicate there's less of a market for abortion than there really is and would make lawmakers more likely to consider abortion restrictions. If they skew the numbers higher, it works for the pro-life side.

All it would do is give pro-choice activists another reason to say we just want to punish women for having abortions, and we don't really care about the baby.

And some people say just the opposite. It has the potential to go both ways. I've known fencers to be swayed to the pro-choice side from the way those photos are shown to people.

If you're like Madonna you can probably just point out a kid on the street to social services and say, "I want that one!" and have that kid taken from a home based on having a messing room or a skinned knee. Because no kid in a healthy family has a messy room or skinned knees!

Did they get held up by ridiculous restrictions? There are some places where you have to be the same skin color as the child you're adopting, or you can't own animals, etc. That also keeps kids in the system longer. Parents trying to hold onto custody of their children does too. Basically, the adoption system isn't clogged because no one's adopting. It's because there are so many hurdles in place for people trying to adopt, it takes years. A lot of people go to other countries to adopt (putting a hole in the healthy white baby theory).

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get rabid. I've gone for about 37 hours without sleep, so I tend to misread things.

Yes, people are tougher than they're made out to be. It doesn't help that children are constantly underestimated, but they'll get through it.

I still want to avoid showing those things to my children until they're older, but if they do see something, I won't drag them to therapy...people see horrifying things all the time, and there's no way I'm going to pretend that there's no evil in the world. I think that as much as parents have a right to decide whether their children can go to a graphic pg13 movie underage, they should have a right to decide when to show this stuff to their children. I don't think strangers should be the ones showing children, "Hey look, dead baby." I know it will happen, I just think it should be avoided if possible.

Exactly. Because having a baby will ruin a woman's life. Once you have a baby, you drop dead. It's dangerous and icky and creepy. But having an abortion is always the right choice! Any parent too stupid to see that...well kids, come to a clinic in a state without parental notification laws.

Kind of like their, If you're parents are too stupid to give you birth control, come to planned parenthood and we'll give you some for free! We promise, we won't tell your parents.

As one woman whose biological child was abused in a few foster homes put it, "At least with abortion there's closure." It's selfish, but people are being told that the adoption system is cluttered and that the babies will lead bad lives, but with abortion, they will never be abused.

That's a lie of course. With abortion, all they'll know for the last part of their lives is abuse. Abortion is a violent solution to a problem that has plenty of nonviolent alternatives...they just aren't as convenient.

I always wonder what it must feel like for someone who miscarries to go by an abortion clinic.

I doubt it. I wouldn't have been okay with the image of a torn up baby when I was six years old. I actually can't think of a lot of people I know who would've been okay with seeing that. I was six only 13 years ago, and I wasn't okay with seeing mutilated animals. Why is it not okay when PETA gives children comic books of women cutting up animals to cook them or parades around images of tortured animals, but it's okay to do it with abortion images, which picture a torn up little human instead of a torn up animal? Not only does it feature a human instead of an animal, it features a human that was torn up by a doctor (someone a child is supposed to be able to trust takes care of people) at the request of the mother (someone who a child is most assuredly supposed to be able to trust to take care of her children?

I want to end abortion. I plan on devoting my life to helping to end it in America. But I think it's counterproductive to scare little kids with gore and blood, because they don't need that to be convinced. All you need to do is explain how a baby grows in the womb and what abortion does to a baby in the womb. It doesn't require graphic images.