The coming civil war over abortion
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If Donald Trump's election could evoke Madonna's expressed desire to blow up the White House … and the hearings for Brett Kavanaugh induce women to scream and pound at the Senate's doors – what will the overturning of Roe v. Wade bring about?
A civil war is coming to America, only this time, it will be abortion, rather than slavery, that divides the nation. And while I hope will all my heart that it will not be a physically violent war, the ideological conflict will certainly be violent and intense.
We witnessed some of this during the hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, when the opposition to his confirmation was fierce to the point of screaming and pounding at the Senate's doors.
This brought to my mind the famous line, "Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned," based on which I wrote an article titled, " Prepare for the Wrath of the Pro-Abortion Militants ." The article ended by saying "that hell hath no fury like that of the militant pro-abortionists."
The very same day my article was posted on the Stream, Jennifer Hartline posted an article on that same website, titled, " It's Not Kavanaugh. It's Roe ." Her article ended by saying, "They hate Kavanaugh because they love abortion and he does not. Hell hath no fury like 'women's rights' scorned."
We were hearing the same message!
This is part of what I refer to as Jezebel's War with America (the title of my forthcoming book), where the forces of radical feminism come together with the extreme pro-abortion movement (among other spiritual and cultural forces) in an attempt destroy America.
The only way to describe this is war.
Confirmation for this comes from the response to Alabama's pro-life bill, just passed by the Senate.
As expected, the reaction from the left has been fierce and intense.
Note the highlighted words in these tweets and comments:
"Alabama just passed a near-total ban on abortion. No exceptions for rape or incest. Doctors could face 99 years in prison for providing abortions. This is a war on women , and it is time to fight like hell ." (Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand)
"This ban is dangerous and exceptionally cruel – and the bill's authors want to use it to overturn Roe v. Wade. I've lived in that America and let me tell you: We are not going back – not now, not ever. We will fight this. And we will win." (Sen. Elizabeth Warren)
"Women's rights are under attack. This relentless and cruel Republican assault on women's health is designed to force a court battle to destroy Roe v. Wade . Democrats will be ready to defend health care and women's reproductive freedom." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi)
The reaction from Hollywood echoed the sentiments of Washington:
According to John Legend, "These statehouses are waging all-out war on women and their right to control their reproductive decisions. This is awful."
Alyssa Milano tweeted, "There have been nearly 30 bans on abortion introduced, passed, or signed into law in statehouses around the country this year alone. This is Trump's anti-choice agenda and part of the GOP's war on women ."
On Instagram, Tracie Lee Ross, with 6.5 million followers, wrote, " WE MUST FIGHT ~ this is terrifying."
And John Cusack tweeted, "This only ends with impeachment – and people in the streets ."
As summed up by author Amber Tamblyn, "Good morning, women. Make no mistake. This is war ."
Do we need this spelled out any more clearly? We are being told that those who stand for Roe v. Wade will fight like hell, that there will be people in the streets, that this is a battle, a war. We dare not miss the meaning.
Again, I fervently hope that this is not a physically violent war. I sincerely hope there will not be violent attacks by pro-abortion extremists leading to retaliation by those being attacked. (By definition, if you are pro-life, you will not seek to take the life of an innocent person.)
But if Trump's election could stir massive women marches with Madonna expressing her desire to blow up the White House, what will the overturning of Roe v. Wade bring about? (This is part of the reason I refer to all this as "Jezebel's war with America.")
We must also be reminded by how heartless the pro-abortion movement can be, as represented by this tweet from "comedian" Michelle Wolf: "Do what the Alabama government refuses to do: help women by donating to the https://yellowhammerfund.org. Donating is as easy as flicking an embryo out of a uterus should be " (my emphasis).
Yes, a tiny baby is just something to be "flicked"!
If this is how the left views a helpless baby in the womb, how will it view those who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Recently, there has been an uptick of physical attacks on peaceful pro-lifers. (See here and here and here for examples.) And it is likely that such attacks will only increase in the days ahead.
All the more reason, then, that we keep working to change hearts and minds, that we pray for divine intervention, and that we reply with calmness and measured speech rather than angry rhetoric of our own. A civil war is certain. The only thing to be determined is how bloody it will be. Much of that depends on us. Let us pursue the cause of life.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
76 visitors
“But if Trump's election could stir massive women marches with Madonna expressing her desire to blow up the White House, what will the overturning of Roe v. Wade bring about? (This is part of the reason I refer to all this as "Jezebel's war with America.")
We must also be reminded by how heartless the pro-abortion movement can be, as represented by this tweet from "comedian" Michelle Wolf: "Do what the Alabama government refuses to do: help women by donating to the . Donating is as easy as flicking an embryo out of a uterus should be" (my emphasis).
Yes, a tiny baby is just something to be "flicked"!
If this is how the left views a helpless baby in the womb, how will it view those who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Recently, there has been an uptick of physical attacks on peaceful pro-lifers. (See here and here and herefor examples.) And it is likely that such attacks will only increase in the days ahead.
All the more reason, then, that we keep working to change hearts and minds, that we pray for divine intervention, and that we reply with calmness and measured speech rather than angry rhetoric of our own.”
Except it's not a baby. And it doesn't need to be "flicked." a simple medication can do it and it'll seem like a heavy menstrual cycle.
As you remind us of your usual sweeping generalizations and disingenuousness.
As opposed to the violence, harm, and harassment pro-lifers have committed?
Be prepared for disappointment then. Besides, if "divine intervention" changes anyone's minds, that that negates the idea of free will. But I digress.
Or you can do what rational people do: mind your own business. Someone's choice regarding abortion is no on else's business nor your concern!
Are you talking to me or to Dr Brown who actually wrote those words?
Both!
25% of pregnancies go unnoticed, the process simply fails in the first few weeks and the "host" is never even the wiser.
She simply has a slightly heavier period and maybe some strange mood swings.
A further 25% after missing their periods for at least one month, possibly two, also experience spontaneous miscarriages.
Normally one could study other animals and explain it all away as nature, evolution and weather/climate change or pollution.
That doesn't work so well in the land of uranium, asbestos, excess Co2, ozone and various forms of water and air contamination combined with poverty, drugs and
the fiction that religious remedies will save our souls "for eternally".
BS
I am well acquainted with good God fearing people of the major religions who worshiped their $$, opioids or alcohol more , and shunned their pregnant or gay relatives,
diminishing their own families and communities.
So far there are reportedly more than 6500 deities and religions throughout recorded history .
Currently there are still 4200 active religions.
Please consider those odds.
Miscarriages are a fact of life, evolution and existence in the industrial self poisoning age. Nothing to do with the religion of the potential father or mother.
The relatively few (planet wide ) abortions performed safely in this country should be lauded
as heroic and a testament to self preservation,
not the knee jerk reactions of a species that cannot believe in their own destiny without the approval
of one of 4200 supposed superior supernatural beings who will guide their judgemental lives to eternal nirvana.
The irony is not lost.
It is their MO
Should I forward your concerns to him?
I expressed no concerns. Only facts, or pointed out some factual errors.
Sure you didn’t...
That's right, I didn't! Or are you calling me a liar?
Probably nothing since it's unlikely to happen. The SCOTUS over turning one of their own decisions is EXTREMELY rare. Add to that that Gorsuch[sp] and Kavanaugh both said that from a legal standpoint, Roe V. Wade wouldn't likely be reversed, (paraphrasing).
Pro-woman slavery. I can play the hyperbole game too.
Pretty sure that's child abuse, have you called the police? It's your civic duty.
You mean pro-slavery.
So, I asked you last time you ran an article like this... How many babies are you willing to adopt? Are you going to be a proponent for welfare, housing, healthcare, etc for these poor women that cannot afford a child but now MUST have the child? No? So you want the kid to be born, then say..."fuck it, let it die". Doesn't really come off as compassionate, or very, "Christ like".
They did overturn plessey vs. Ferguson and Dred Scott and those decisions and roe vs Wade were equally immoral and badly decided.
What's more moral? Telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, or, following what our country stands for? You know, "freedom and justice for all"? And by "all", I promise you they didn't mean a fetus.
Seriously....what happens when the government can tell women what they can do with their own bodies, what's next? What healthcare choice would YOU be willing to give up? Hey how about this one? After you knock up ONE woman, accidental or not, you MUST have a vasectomy? See what I mean? If you give the government control over ones body, you open the door for all kinds of "government making health decisions for you" nightmares.
And what about all that... "We want more personal freedoms and a the government to stay out of our lives!!!", BS? The cons keep screaming that over and over and over....then turn around and beg the government to make healthcare decisions for women? What the fuck is that all about? Why doesn't the pro-slvery crowd just say, "hey, we are fascist's and we want the government to completely control all aspects of our lives!!!", because that's what they are condoning. You give the government an inch, they will take a mile and it's a freedom that will take decades to get back, if ever. The next decision about healthcare may take away your ability to fight a disease, think about it.
To you, based on your religious beliefs. It isn't to many other faiths and to secular people. Why should we live by your religious beliefs?
There are plenty of legal grounds to argue that roe vs Wade was sloppily and wrongly decided without ever bringing religion into the discussion. There have been enough scientific and technology changes since 1972 when this case was argued that even if the state cases don’t overturn roe vs Wade now they could re evaluate when life begins or when the state interest to preserve human life can kick in. An incremental step while not ideal could well happen. Like heart beat or pain threshold or only the 1st trimester....
Actually, it is because of this scientific technology we know when there is an actual baby there and when there is not. A heartbeat is not a person. If it was, then we would never have end of life directives. We know it takes a connection of the whole nervous system because, without that, there is no person.
I could go further and say without the first breath there is no soul. Do you not believe in the soul?
Link, please.
Such as? Abortion cases have been heard by the courts after Roe. Not only has Roe been affirmed and expanded on as a result, but there has never been a serious challenge to it since the Roe ruling. After 46 years, if there was a significant challenge to it, one would think it would have been brought before the courts sooner.
That was done in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, (1992). Actual medical science was used to determine that abortions were permissible up to the point of viability. After that point, "state interest" (whatever that is) kicks in. "Life" is an ambiguous concept with regards to and is not a factor in abortion.
Attempts have been tried, and failed, as they are unconstitutional!
Well, as has been pointed out, according to the bible, life begins at first breath and since a good portion of the legal arguments against Roe V. Wade have been based on religion, (remember that 1st Amendment thingy), it's not going to be over turned.
Yeah, but you know some people like to cherry pick the bible to suit their narrative or agenda.
That is generally true.
Why, I have even see non-believers quoting the Bible to prove some point or another.
Former Watergate prosecutor and Harvard law professor Archibald Cox once wrote, "Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice [Harry] Blackmun are part of the Constitution." The late Stanford law school dean John Hart Ely said the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who argued Al Gore's post-election case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, has said of Roe that "behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by President Bill Clinton, criticized Roe vs. Wade before joining the court. In 1985, she called it an act of "heavy-handed judicial intervention" that "ventured too far."
What's striking is how many supporters of legal abortion have trouble justifying the way the court addressed the issue. So when Roberts faults the court for its overbearing presumption and lame reasoning, he's not on the fringes of the debate--he's smack in the middle. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-08-04-0508040152-story,amp.html
No, they are pointing out inconsistencies in logic. You either believe in the bible or you don't.
I usually see them using the bible to refute any "point" a believer thinks they made. Kind of like "fighting fire with fire." Of course, it also exposes logical inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible.
Most people equate overturning Roe with banning all abortions. In fact, a reversal of the decision would simply allow states to decide for themselves whether to ban all abortions, some abortions, or no abortions.
At the same time they indicate support for Roe, Americans favor definite limits on this procedure--including some the Supreme Court has forbidden. "They don't want all abortions to be illegal," says public opinion analyst Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute, "but they're still willing to add considerable restrictions."
Most Americans, for example, favor waiting periods and parental consent for minors--which abortion-rights groups cannot tolerate. More important, most Americans think abortion should be banned after the first trimester.
In a 2003 Gallup Poll, 68 percent of Americans said abortion "should be generally illegal" in the second trimester, and 84 percent said it should be barred in the third trimester. Under Roe, however, the government has to permit almost all abortions, no matter when they occur. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-08-04-0508040152-story,amp.html
That applied only to Adam and Eve who were hand created by God himself and he placed that breath into them himself
Still waiting for you to prove that nonsense.
One can quote the Bible without cherry-picking. Cherry-picking typically selects a subset of relevant text - especially to portray a meaning outside of the clarifying context.
In other words, one can dishonestly quote the Bible (cherry-pick) or honestly quote it (provide a sufficiently full quote so as to not violate the immediate context).
The bible is full of ambiguity, that's the problem with it.
That isn't always true in my experience.
I always find it a little suspect when a nonbeliever quotes the Bible anyways.
I know lots of folks who don't have that problem.
Maybe its just yours?
That is true.
But I have seen plenty of times when both sides have cherrypicked a quote. The religious certainly have no monopoly on doing it.
I do. And theologically from a relative literalist point of view and that it’s writings were all inspired by God and thus is inerrant.
That is very true. Many liberals on here will mock Christians and the Bible pretty much all the time, but when they see an opening to demean that same Christian, they want to throw out verses that probably took them hours to find so they can demean someone.
[deleted]
I always find it a little telling when supposed believers don't know what's in the bible they claim to believe in.
And I think it likely that most non-believers quoting scripture were once believers who thoroughly studied their bibles, that's why they're no longer believers.
That makes you just as erroneous as the bible then, even if you want to believe otherwise.
I do not understand why.
I, for one, have quoted from the Bible on numerous occasions and you certainly must know that I do not hold the Bible divine. Typically I quote to support a point I have made — often illustrating something about the God character described in the book.
Likewise, I could quote from Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire as part of a character analysis.
Why would that be suspicious? Clearly you know that I do not believe any of these books are factual.
That is kind of the point there.
I would never quote something I didn't believe in.
If you were making the point that the character Daeny Targaryen is inherently a monster then quoting what the character has said and done from the book makes great sense.
That would be quoting from a book that you hold as fiction.
Why would you never do that?
Because I see no point in arguing about fictional characters or things?
Okay. That is how you roll. I accept that.
Do you recognize that others do see a point in discussing / debating characters they consider to be fictional? Especially in the case where one individual holds that a character in a book is real and wants to carry out the wishes of this fictional character and the other individual is illustrating why that is not the greatest of ideas.
Yes, I recognize that some wish to debate fictional things and characters. It isn't for me.
When I stated "I se no point..."it meant ME. Others who wish to engage are certainly welcome to.
Note that this is where we started. I understand and accept that you, personally, see no point for yourself, but you were talking about others. That is what I have focused on. Why it is not suspicious for others to quote the Bible when they do not believe it divine.
Just because I see no point in it for them or me in arguing fictional things has no bearing on whether others do so. It is merely my opinion that it is a waste of time.
Anything other than that, perhaps it is better if we simply agree to disagree.
The reason I engaged you just now is because you often state that it is strange or suspicious (or even contradictory) for non-believers to discuss a god they do not believe in and/or quote from a Bible they consider to be the mere work of ancient men.
I took the time to explain to you why this is done. As noted, I accept that you, personally, would not talk about fictional characters.
At this point, however, you should clearly understand why others would do so and why it makes sense for others to do so.
So when you see others discussing a god in whom they do not believe, you should not be confused as to how that makes sense for them to do so. It is akin to talking about any other character in a work of fiction.
agree to disagree.
This reads (to me) as though you think I have been arguing that we should dismiss all works of fiction as irrelevant.
Is that what you think?
For me my level of biblical scholarship was inversely related to my belief.
The more I learns about the bible the more inconsistencies were revealed.
Maybe you don't know what the word, "ambiguity" means?
Just for you, I will explain.
But I do.
I have never claimed otherwise. Why are you arguing points I have not ever made?
Sorry, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell I would ever thank you for that comment drenched in condescension, but if it makes you feel better to think so, have fun!
I have gotten used to comments drenched in condescension directed at me by the other side here. Well played.
We will just have to agree to disagree
Removed for context
Impasse
See 1.2.11 and 1.2.14
[deleted]
That comment leads me to believe you have a real future in movie-script writing.
How many pro-lifers, (aka pro-slavery), folks have murdered "abortion doctors"? Seems weird to me that someone that says, "abortion is murder", would turn around and murder a fully functioning adult human. Clearly, the definition of irony.
'Peaceful pro-lifers'? You mean like peaceful Ku Kluxers and Nazis too?
s/ added for---effect---affect--or--ask gawd.
Because all us pro life people are so like Ku kluxers and Nazis. What sheer idiocy is being expressed here.
Well, both think certain groups of people should be denied their respective rights.
Not nearly as idiotic as claims of Christians being persecuted or equating pro-choice individuals as "pro-abortion."
By asking the government to regulate healthcare decisions for women is DAMN close to fascism.
You know what, I'll take it one step farther and call it fascism regardless!
The definition of pro choice is being pro abortion. They are pro allowing abortion to occur and are thus by definition pro abortion despite the lie that goes, I’m personally against abortion myself but I’ll move heaven and earth to allow others to engage in one. That’s as ultimately pro abortion as the case others make to call pro life anti choice.
Because the definition of fascism on the left is now advocating for preserving human life at all stages of human development.
You prove once again that you do not understand the term or know what you're talking about!
Whether abortion occurs or not is the choice of the woman. They are allowing and respecting the woman's right to make that choice for herself!
Then don't have one. no one is forcing you or telling you to get one. But you do not get to make that determination for anyone else!
But only in instances to save the woman's life, and no other time, right?
See first statement!
While restricting or prohibiting another's established rights in the process!
I would like to make some corrections and commentary to this article.
Normal people are not pro-abortion. They are pro-choice. You chose what you feel is morally right, and I get to chose, within some limitations.
There is no virtual war. It's a culture war. No normal person should ever engage in violence.
The idiot who said: "as easy as flicking an embryo out of a uterus should be", has no class, to say the least.
Now here is my deal.
I don't believe life beings at conception (both scientifically and spiritually). I think that these new laws if they actually happen will not stop desperate women from having abortions and we will go back to back ally abortions with WOMEN dying. I think that women will go back to trying to do it to themselves. So what a gain. Women dying instead of a bunch of cells being safely removed.
Here is the thing. I don't begrudge you to not have an abortion if that is your belief. But don't dictate to me what my beliefs should be, based on your beliefs and I won't do the same to you, because that is what these laws are doing.
At the very least it had to be Tiny Tim's dwarf brother.
Naturally exposing this was my favorite part of the seed. It was a militantly pro abortion woman who made that quote as to how easy getting an abortion should be.
LOL Mr. F!
So? Abortion should be easy. The sooner it's performed, the easier and less invasive it is. I already mentioned that it can be done pharmacologically. That's about as easy as it gets.
So you disagree with Perrie calling that a tasteless comment?
And now we pro life people can give women who decide to start that abortion drug process a choice to change her mind to at least try to save the life of her baby if she so desires. You favor women having access to and knowledge of that choice too, don’t you?
Most human beings have ZERO respect for life, plants, fish, insects and other mammals,
that's why we eat so well and multiply so readily.
or what we do to unwanted male "dairy cows"
Then of course we have the very bored, very rich and their children who think that baiting large exotic animals and killing them with large modern high caliber weapons is somehow a test of their mettle and manhood.
Add to that the millions of millions of people that people have killed in the name of religion or politics/
or in conquest of territories or been killed for the same excuses
and as a so called apex predator and self appointed most intelligent species on this planet,
there is very little evidence that life is important to anything or anyone,
certainly not any omnipotent creator or God/Goddess,
that's simply and totally illogical and beyond current evidence.
I've made no mention about the comment itself. What's considered "tasteless" or not is a matter of opinion.
Women have the absolute right to change their minds, or not.
Sure. Do you favor women being able to choose to continue with an abortion if she so chooses?
Very true.
Thanks for the video SP, but I had to stop at 1 minute. Cruelty to animals is one of those things I simply cannot watch, and as a former Marine, I have seen some really horrifying stuff....but cruelty to animals? Can't do it.
Agreed! It seems that obscenity is as relative as is the value of life...
I can't watch that stuff either. I had to briefly cutaway to youtube and reverse the ill effects by watching street preachers getting assaulted. that always cheers me up. hopefully the attempted aggressive implementation of unconstitutional xtian sharia laws in a secular USA will be providing some newer viewing content soon.
At least we agree that Michelle Wolf has no class even if we disagree on almost literally everything else on almost every issue.
As long as some in the so called pro choice movement refer to pro life as anti choice, some in the pro life movement will be fully justified in referring to pro choice as pro abortion. And on a tit for tat basis.
So you support a woman's choice and right to have an abortion if she wants?
I think we should all get past the hyperbole and use the terms that are supposed to be used.
I don't think everyone understand the correct terminology to use. I noticed they often equate terms with erroneous one. For example, some equate an embryo or fetus with baby or child. All totally different terms with different uses.
I have never met any person who would ask a pregnant woman what sex her embryo or fetus or zygote is.
Very true.
That is because no one knows what the sex of a embryo of zygote is, without doing an ammio, which goes to show how little is developed, that they have to use DNA to figure it out. At some point, that changes during the pregnancy and then we can address what the fetus' sex is.
I would feel much pity for any man who told his friends within earshot of his wife that she was carrying his zygote or fetus or embryo.
I choose life. I never claimed to be for any other choice except to save the life of the mother. And to remain neutral not supporting or opposing abortion in the case of adult incest upon a child or young dependent adult or rape.
You mean they ask if her baby 👶 is a boy or a girl?
Me too.
Well duh, of course not. The sex cannot be determined in a zygote or embryo. Only when the fetus is at least 16 weeks gestation can a determination be made. But that doesn't change the meanings of the correct terminology.
That's assuming his wife would take issue with it. But the man is essentially correct. I know someone who called her unborn "zygote" throughout her pregnancy. Although, I think she just liked the term. It does sound somewhat cool: "zygote." That would be a good name for an alien species on Star Trek or as the name of a band. They "Zygotes."
First of all, this is not about any man, but the women who get pregnant. The reason people call an embryo a baby, is that is the hopeful outcome from a concerted effort by both the father and the mother. I doubt many women who were raped would call the cells growing in her body a baby.
Then you're anti-choice. Being pro-choice means you respect the right for any choice the woman makes. You don't have to agree with it. But if you think women should not have a choice in continuing a pregnancy or not, then that is anti-choice. Pretending or trying to justify otherwise is just as good as lying. So the "anti-choice" label and distinction is an apt one!
I am sure that everyone here can name one exception to virtually anything but the usual term used isn't zygote. That would be weird.
Zygote is the correct term when conception occurs. After that, it's blastocyst, and on and on. But "zygote" just sounds cooler.
I just had a thought on this---subject. What would happen if the parents informed 'the wanting to know whether it's a boy or girl inquisitor' that their 'prospective child' has already made the decision that whatever 'sex' it is born with--'it' will choose to be the opposite?
Holy crackers!
Actually, it is removing the choice altogether.
Egads, it boggles the mind.
Lol
And I am fine with that, so long as you don't try to force others to do your will.
Indeed. As we clearly see, that is what some want to do or prefer. The only "choice" they allow is if the woman's health is at risk. So they basically allow the woman to choose if she wants to live or die. Hmph, some "choice." When you look beneath the surface, that's not really a choice either.
Good. No one claimed it was.
Are you suggesting that transgenders have a choice regarding their sex?
You mean it could turn out to be something else?
If I’m anti choice you are pro abortion. If I’m pro life you can be called pro choice. It’s really that simple.
You really don't seem to understand do you.
While there are virtually no people who desire terminating pregnancies just for the sake of terminating pregnancies, aka "pro-abortion", there are those who believe it shouldn't be done in any case, not even rape or incest, no matter how early after conception. Those you can rightfully call "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice".
Now, some loosely use the general misnomer "pro-life", but of course are really "pro-choice" when it comes to the death penalty or stand your ground laws. So they aren't really "pro-life" at all, and it's more correct to consider them "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice" since their supposed "pro-life" conscience only applies to taking away a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy up to when the fetus becomes a person at viability. It's far more accurate to refer to someone who is "anti-abortion" as "anti-choice" than it does for them to call "pro-choice" persons "pro-abortion".
anti-abortion/anti-choice? "I don't want any woman to get an abortion for any reason! I don't want a woman to be allowed to choose to terminate a pregnancy!"
Yep, that checks out.
pro-abortion/pro-choice? "I don't want anyone to have an abortion against their will, I don't want anyone to have an abortion if it was possible to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. But I accept its not my body and I want a woman to have the choice to terminate if she isn't ready to be a mother or if there are complications or the woman was raped or carrying the child of their father or brother. Those are harsh sad realities in this world and I'd rather a woman have more choices than less when faced with such a huge physical and emotional responsibility."
Um, nope, that doesn't sound "pro-abortion" at all.
Let me put it to you this way KAG. Are you against anyone touching themselves? Are you anti-masturbation? If not, then you're "pro-choice" but likely not "pro-masturbation" where you go around recommending it to all your friends, telling them the benefits of regular masturbation. If you are "anti-masturbation" then you're also "anti-choice" when it comes to whether you believe people should be allowed to choose to masturbate or not.
If you believe society has the right to inject itself into the privacy of a young mans bathroom by banning masturbation punishable by up to 99 years in prison, I'd say you were pretty damn "anti-choice". If you think what could be argued as the mass murder of 200 million potential humans is the governments business so they should be allowed to monitor all restrooms and young boys rooms to prevent them from making such an apparently deadly choice, then you are "anti-choice".
How is injecting oneself between a woman and her doctor threatening the doctor with 99 years in prison and taking away a woman's choice to get an abortion anything other than "anti-choice"?
And yet, the concept still eludes you! Or is this just an attempt at a "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort? I'm not going around advocating anyone have abortions, only that they women are free to choose that option or not. So that is not "pro-abortion," but rather pro-choice. Maybe when you stop equating the 2 terms, you won't look so foolish. You on the other hand have clearly said women should not be ale to electively choose to have an abortion. Therefore, that makes you anti-choice.
You are clearly pro abortion.
You are clearly making an erroneous assumption on something you completely lack any understanding of.
You use the term anti choice on pro lifers we will on a tit for tat basis use pro abortion on the pro choice gang on a tit for tat basis irregardless of your rationalization of not calling us by our preferred name. You will address us as pro life or we will address your side as pro abortion. End of subject. No compromise. Call us exclusively pro life and then we will exclusively call the other side pro choice...
Now I know how vain gloriously detached from reality a comment can be.
Those words were spoken by Michelle Wolf a so called comedian. We agree that her words were tasteless it seems.
Do you want me to go down the list of the disgusting things trump has tweeted out over the last three years? I didn't think so.
I agree she was off color and said some things she should not have said, but, she is a COMEDIAN. You really should know the difference between comedy, hyperbole and sincerity.
Trump is not the topic of the seeded article
From the article;
She was not attempting comedy with her comment. Though that’s all she can do is attempt it. She is not funny.
All jokes aside, MAGA--or whatever--a civil war in right wing world is far more likely to be waged for the ( re-institution ) of slavery than the abortion thing. Besides, in the grand scheme of things nobody--and especially the right, the christian right or the nutfluger right gives a crap or has ever given a crap about a zygote, fetus, newborn, toddler, pre-teen, teen, young adult, middle aged adult, retired adult or geriatric adult.
[deleted]
They are still mad that they lost the civil war.
Actually we won it over the long term. Now many progressives wish the south wasn’t kept in the union where with like minded people in other regions can win political power regularly now. And yes I’m a child of the south having been born in Tennessee.
Ah, is that why you still fly the confederate flag? You won? Too funny..
No, he didn't win or lose.
Nor did anyone else alive today.
I don’t have or fly a confederate flag.
A Jefferson flag is just as offensive.
Got one?
What is offensive about it?
you bet, in the form of a bumper sticker on my Sorrento.
Absolutely nothing at all.
Please enlighten us all as to how our movement and future state flag is supposedly offensive. Inquiring minds want to know.
True. I was referring to the region of the country now emerging as a winner.
Outlawing terminations does zero squat nada zip to decrease the demand...
The demand for abortions is completely the result of unwanted pregnancies.
The last I checked advocating for a damn civil war is what?
Treason. Sedition. treachery, ect… I have more.
Then by all means don’t do it. We aren’t.
Except nobody except far righties ever really advocates for a civil war...
"advocating for a damn civil war is what?"
More distraction for the 'brokahontas' occupying the WH to keep the conversation away from the dirty-dirty-dirty Russian money that has been floating his debt ridden arse for the past couple of decades.
That is what this is and nothing else.
TDS lives on.
If that 7.2 wasn’t a sweeping 🧹 generalization there is no such thing.
Indeed and agreed.
No, it is not. The comment does not make broad stroke statements about large groups of people. That is a sweeping gen.
You clearly do not understand what a sweeping generalization is then. Perhaps that's why you make them so often?
[Removed]
Yes actually in fact it does. It’s saying that the whole motivation of the entire prolife movement and the mass advocacy of other conservative social issues even a civil war is part of a mass conspiracy on our part to protect trump and hide his dealing with the Russians. That is what he is sweeping all of us with. But heck, he’s a liberal attacking conservatives....
I am defining a general subject, not a person. I gave you a definition of what a sweeping gen is on the site.
Without a doubt. Did you read here that the whole purpose of the pro life movement and our group efforts to get a law passed somewhere to use to challenge roe vs Wade is nothing more than a conspiracy to protect trump from his supposed dealings with the Russians and his taking of money from them? That’s all that we all are about according to that conspiracy theory aired against all of the pro life movement.
Actually the seeded article was warning against and advocating against a civil war. Clearly some comment on a seed without bothering to read it first.
I caught that right away (because I read the article) but figured it would be a monumental waste of time pointing it out to those who refuse to read it.
And despite this comment:
All the writer does is paint people who are pro-choice as a group of crazies who apparently have no moral compass. Yes, I did read the article and found it quite offensive.
Starting with post #7, the discussion is about civil war.
And that is fine if you find it offensive, but which side is advocating for a civil war? The article gives some examples of such talk by certain folks.
the writer of the article is CERTAINLY not advocating for a civil war--in fact, is talking against such nonsense.
No, it doesn't. What it gives is examples of people who say they are going to fight for their rights. Not a physical fight, but a metaphorical one. There are a few fringe lunatics on both sides of this issue, but the average person is not going to start a war over this.
In fact, I doubt SCOTUS will even hear these cases and defer to lower courts, as clearly these laws are unconstitutional, and Roe v Wade, is the law of the land.
You are 100% correct as usual here. Thanks for reading the awesome opinion article.
He painted the pro choice people accurately as you describe by quoting their own words.
I don't know what's going on here lately, it seems like the crowd who loves Trump's 'tell it like it is' is having a problem with controlling the narrative and wants to flag everything. I've never had as many tickets since I've been here and I'm trying to be good, so this topic must make them squirm. So many men who think they should be able to mansplain pregnancy and abortion, and none of them have the faintest idea what goes on in a woman's body. That idiot from Ohio thinks ectopic pregnancies can be reimplanted in the uterus. Hard to keep passion down when the most basic right of controlling ones own body is being usurped by a bunch of sanctimonious men and the female chattel enabling them.
Also, everybody needs to remember this: YOU is both personal and plural. That fact get lost every time as some look for reasons to make it personal and get comments deleted.
Hi Lib,
Look, despite what people think, I do try to be fair and I realize that you have been hit with some tickets, but the rules are the rules, even if I basically agree with you. I try not to take these comments too personally, and so I can keep my calm. But I assure you, I am quite upset about this. In fact, this issue is very personal to me, since my aunt had to go to a back alley doctor at 15. No one should have to do that.
Wait, seriously?
Or by those just plain ignorant or those who have to be "nosy busybodies."
yep...
Wow, just wow.
Dred Scott was once the law of the land as well. Roe vs. Wade is anything but settled law.
[Any further Meta and you will get a metacation!]
The difference is, Dredd restricted rights. Roe expanded them. Big difference too!
Another "man" who has NO concept of what the fuck he is talking about...where did he get his medical degree from a cereal box....
Maybe a Cracker Jacks box? Lol
Where do they come up with this erroneous information, there is NO medical procedure where you can reimplant the embryo.....let's just torture women because they want to control women....
As a friend used to say: "from the encyclopedia of their ass!"
I know, I just want you to know I'm trying to do it right. I'm distracted lately with our house being on the market and everything very unsettled. But I am working on it. You have to admit it makes some people more uncomfortable than others when they come to try to justify positions. And most of them are men. Just an observation.
My sister-in-law almost bled out internally from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. The hospital she used at the time was in Ohio. They're trying to kill women like her, to save a pregnancy that has no chance of being successful.
Pro-life, my ass.
The war hawks on the right, (Bolton and Darth Cheney come to mind), always wanting a war, which ultimately kills lots of young men.
Free access to fire arms in this nation kills 10's of thousands a year.
Denying universal healthcare, which kills an estimated 20,000 a year, (the flu alone kills close to 40,000 a year).
....
These things kill 100's of thousands of people a year without so much as a thought about it from most of the right wing, it's all perfectly ok. But take the "life" of a fetus? OMG! The outrage!!!!
I mean, FAKE outrage. If they were pro life, they would be voting to increase welfare, housing, education, etc. for poor people, women in particular.
So what's the game here? Make sure it's born so they can watch it die poor, hungry and diseased in the streets? If that's what is known as, "Christian Love"? I want no part of it.
No one forces you to have or want any part of it.
Say what? Anti-choice want to force all women to adhere to their values. Whether or not we believe in the same ones. If one values life, prove it. Plenty of children are already born and conservatives give zero fucks. In fact, the second the fetus leaves the uterus, they don't care if it has healthcare, food or shelter. So yes, someone IS forcing women to be part of it.
That part of your comment is a total fabrication. THIS is why "emotions run high"--because both sides often misrepresent the other side.
Hell, I am not even against abortion, and I get painted with the same broad brush of disdain many seem to hold for anything even remotely related to conservatism.
Pro abortion people care nothing about the human right of pre born babies to simply exist and live. Whatever happened to coexist?
Your sweeping generalization aside, specify where in the law books it says the unborn have rights!
Whatever happened to minding your own business when it comes to other peoples rights and choices!
Just make women breeding machines by taking away their rights, got it. An embryo, fetus, CANNOT and NEVER will have rights that supersede that of the woman it resides in.
That's certainly what some seem to want.
It's funny how some get so worked up about an embryo/fetus they have no vested interest or business in. To the point where they think it supersedes a woman's established rights.
More fabrications in that post than I can shake a stick at.
Person: Can I have free college?
Democrats: Sure thing, buddy!
Person: Can I have free medical care for life?
Democrats: Sure thing, buddy!
Person: Can you pay for my birth control for me?
Democrats: Sure thing, buddy!
Person: If my BC fails, will you pay for my abortion?
Democrats: Sure thing, buddy!
Person: Can I have a job that supports me and my family in the way I would like to live?
Democrats: Sure thing, buddy!
Person: Can you ensure that I will never be offended in my life?
Dempcrats: Sure thing, buddy!
Person#2: Who and how are we going to pay for all of that?
Democrats: Why, we will tax the rich!
Person #2: How will that be enough money to pay for all of that?
Democrats: Don't worry about that, buddy, we've got it covered!
“Let’s just say someone goes out and they’re raped or they’re sexually assaulted one night after a college party — because most of my rapes were not the gentleman jumping out of the bushes that nobody had ever met. That was one or two times out of a hundred. Most of them were date rapes or consensual rapes, which were all terrible.” - Missouri Republican Barry Hovis
Yes, that's the hurdle reasonable, logical and sensible Americans have to overcome. Massive, unmitigated, extreme right wing ignorance of facts and definitions that make it nearly impossible to have a constructive debate. How can you come to an agreement if the very words we use to convey our position are either misunderstood or improperly defined? How can you get through the density of stupid if not just anyone, but a Republican legislator, believes rape can be consensual? How can you reason with someone who believes marriage is something handed down by their God within which a man can't marry a man, but he can apparently "consensualy" rape his wife wince spousal rape is argued by some evangelicals as not being possible or wrong?
Really, I think going to the civil war topic is a mistake.
Such a course is a reflection of failure of reasoning and balance. Of course, that seems to be the hot lick path du'jour.
What is civil war? Does anyone know what civil war is? To paraphrase a pop singer, what is civil about war anyway?
Here is what civil war looks like. Is this what we want on our own land? In our neighborhoods? For those we love and know?
Do you see that white building? Rather, what remained of that white building? Do you know everyday Joes and Jane, Okay, Oleksandrs and Olyas went to work that day just to do their jobs, just like any of us. Probably thinking of some homemade pelmeni (stuffed or filled dumplings) or maybe a luxury such a borsch (yes borsch) when getting home. Instead they died very painful deaths that very day because of ideology promoted by our nation.
hmmmm?
What is civil about war anyway.
It wasn't a pro-choice activist who blew up clinics, a gay bar and Olympic Park.
The threats to our personal safety and civil society come from forced birthers.
I don't mean this between you and me, though that stuff happens and that is life. I mean the following to be about us as a nation.
I hope you have time and patience to wade through this:
This is the life of many in a civil war, which our news chooses to remain blind to. This is a disney world version of civil war.
Then this one, just skip forward to 6:30 minutes, otherwise you will be bored to tears watching not so well oil artillery machines drilling holes through the air. Funny to watch a couple folks pick up a piece of hot spar and play with it.
Is this what we as a nation really want?
You know what, those old ladies in the first vid don't give one shit about how un-oiled those artillery folks are. They want a life again.
When do we as a nation put aside the political divides and rhetoric to be a united, functional Republic again? None of the so called "leaders" have that ability do that, in my estimation. In my observation the news makers all have divisive agendas.
We have to stop them. Stop them all. That is up to us. US.
For example, who is going to bring this discussion to the table and address it? Our so called "leaders" aren't doing it.
That tells me something about our leaders. In fact we are even in a civil war discussion now.
Thank you, "leaders".
It starts at home. It starts in the heart. That doesn't mean we all have to agree. But we have to disagree civilly. The alternative is bad.
It seems that the pro abortion crowd needs to cool down their rhetoric rather than escalating it? We are opposed to civil war on the pro life side.
Tiller the baby killer? Babies can be murdered after birth? We have the right to force our personal religious beliefs on all women because men know better? The same people shooting up temples make up part of the base? Marching for white supremacy? Cheering when Trump lies and attacks other Americans and our allies, but is NEVER as harsh with our (former) adversaries, Putin and other dictators and authoritarians? Cheering when a supporter yells 'shoot them' at a rally talking about immigrants? Ring any bells?
I think my thoughts here apply to all of us.
It seems most of the dialogue on this seed ignores the central point.
we are locked into positions that are polar opposites and given those positions there is no area of compromise. That leads to several possible outcomes
1 civil war
2 dissolving the Republic
3 destruction of one side by the other
my preference of these is dissolution
Where is the option to quit forcing your religious beliefs on others or to be sent to the Middle East so you can experience the same level of oppression by Muslims that you are demanding your Christian sect wants to impose on everyone in the US?
That is certainly not the point here
I don’t advocate for imposing any religious moral laws
im speaking strictly of the difference between those of us who believe it to be a human life and those who don’t. There is no compromise between those two positions
and the Democrats have proposed the repeal of Hyde and taxpayer funding of all abortions at any time up to birth.
we who believe it is murder will not cease stating so nor will it likely cease among those who don’t view it as a life. That is just one element of the deep ideological divide in this country
So why not offer your position on how this doesn’t lead to another civil war or the other two solutions I listed.
I know of no instance that Yeshua said it was permissible or advocated overthrowing governments. Yeshua's kingdom is not in or of this world. If it were, then Yahweh/Yeshua would be the head of world government. People, who are clamoring for civil war, have written their own religious book or ignored the translations approved by the majority of Christians in the US where Yeshua tells his followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
How many people in your religious sect are currently planning a military offensive against everyone in the US outside of their sect? This would not be civil war. It is treason against our government and should be dealt with accordingly if the need ever arises.
I haven’t called for overthrow of the government nor do I know any Christian who does. You correctly cite that our King Jesus and His Kingdom are not of this world.
and you misstate what civil war implies. The civil war was NOT about trying to overthrow the Republic. It was states and people seceding from the Republic. The south though completely wrong on slavery had the right to dissolve the union as the founding principles in the Declaration of Independence state.
the greater threat is the totalitarian left that can not tolerate those who don’t worship statism.
There is NO Biblical violation to prefer liberty in Christ over enslavement to a Godless State.
The message of Jesus is the message of Liberty for EVERYONE
““The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Luke 4:18-21
I follow the wisdom of founders and Christians like Samuel Adams
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man ; but only to have the law of nature for his rule."-
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave "
Samuel Adams November 1772
Belief does not equal fact and some of us don't go by mere belief.
You are free to continue to be wrong then!
Not likely to happen.
Here's a better solution: Mind your own business when it comes to someone else's personal choices regarding abortion!
Wouldn't this apply to women also?
I believe the goal should be to learn from history instead of trying to repeat it.
It is foolish to keep repeating the same mistakes and expect a different result.
Good old fashioned 'cow girl' sense.
Option four is generational change. That is when old ways die with their stubborn, bigoted hosts and new ways emerge from younger generations.
Really? You don’t believe anyone under 50 is pro life? You must live a very isolated life
I will admit though that you will get to see your wish fulfilled after Christians are removed from the world and complete Godless values rule completely. But it will not be the utopia you envision
I am going to give you the benefit and assume you did not actually think that is what I wrote or implied. That would, however, mean that your reply is not an honest one.
You seem to be full of presumption and/or misinterpretation today. What is my 'wish'? What is the 'utopia' you think I envision.
If you are going to make things up at least give some details on your fabrications.
No it was the logical conclusion of your premise that once older people are gone this issue will go away
Once one has read your posts over time it is not far fetched to know that you are hostile to Christianity and that you desire but are somewhat skeptical of achieving a more “equitable” humanist driven world
tell me where I’m wrong
I see. You do not understand how generational change works.
Generational change does not mean that the next generation -as a whole- adopts certain new ideas and drops specific old ones. Rather, generational change refers to the net effect of each individual child holding views different from its parent based upon the contemporary circumstances in which the child grows up.
In result, some individuals in the future will still grow up being supreme bigots due to their family indoctrination being more powerful than external influences. Others will be far more suited to the times and be open to very new things such as covering their bodies with tattoos, non-traditional marriages, etc.
Issues fade away like lights from countless candles slowly flickering out -at different times- until they are all gone. It took a while for the old flat-Earthers to die out in the Middle Ages and even today a few little flat-Earther lights remain. It takes time for generational change to occur.
So, no, your presumption that I was claiming everyone under 50 is pro-choice is a result of your misunderstanding the concept of generational change.
I am not hostile to Christianity. I am and have been surrounded by Christians my entire life. Almost all of my friends and family are Christians (or Jewish). Further, the super super majority of them are decent people who basically try to help each other and be decent people. Almost none of them have a very deep understanding of their religion (most are Catholics ... explains that) and are remarkably ignorant of what is actually written in the Bible. The Christianity of my circle is net good (all the good NT stuff; highly cherry-picked). In that regard I support that form of Christianity. What you apparently teach your flock I am quite against. I think you are doing a great disservice to the next generation.
I do not support humanism as a movement. I agree with a lot of it, but I am not a member nor will I ever be. I am not interested in carrying someone's water (parrot talking points) and I do not accept marching orders from any group.
I would like to see a more equitable world in terms of more opportunity for people to pursue their ambitions but I am absolutely against any attempt to force (or even encourage) equal results. Equal results is impossible and entirely undesirable. Equal opportunity (to the degree we can achieve that) is an entirely different matter.
What you interpret as hostility towards Christianity is actually my crusade for critical thinking. This applies to all religions, all partisan politics ... basically group-think in general. It just so happens that Christianity dominates the USA so it and the Bible become the natural conversation points.
Not happening. This goes back to treason by attempting to overthrow the US government.
Evidently, your sect ignores Yeshua and marches to war drums. Most of us, Christian or not, prefer peace.
I don't advise anyone taking on the US military if they can avoid it. Martyrdom is not something that I understand or approve of, but ask and ye shall receive.
[deleted]
Except that in the Bible everyone except for Christians Dies In The End...
Not true. The death the Bible speaks of is spiritual death, eternal separation from God. The spirit of mankind is eternal
Many of your fellow Christians see things differently. Time for you folks to get together and figure out the correct way to interpret the Bible. Or, and I think this is much better, write a new Bible that gives good moral lessons and leaves out the fantastic tales of ancient men with pens and agendas.
Eternity in hell and the eternal nature of our Spirit is the United understanding of ALL Christians who believe the Bible is the Word of God.
Only those who deny the words ofJesus and thus are not actually Christians deny as authoritative what He said
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”Matthew 10:20
The word destroy in the Greek text is apollymi
“a strengthened form of ollumi , signifies "to destroy utterly;" in Middle Voice, "to perish." The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being. This is clear from its use, as, e.g., of the marring of wine skins, Luk 5:37 ; of lost sheep, i.e., lost to the shepherd, metaphorical of spiritual destitution, Luk 15:4 , 6 , etc.; the lost son, Luk 15:24 ”
“Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! “ Matthew 13:40-43
“Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:11-15
Jesus and the prophets clearly taught that the soul is eternal.
“‘That’s when Michael, the great angel-prince, champion of your people, will step in. It will be a time of trouble, the worst trouble the world has ever seen. But your people will be saved from the trouble, every last one found written in the Book. Many who have been long dead and buried will wake up, some to eternal life, others to eternal shame” Daniel 12:1-2
Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Matthew 25:45-46
And those Christians who do not believe in hell are not true Christians?
Those Christians who do not interpret the Bible per your standards are not true Christians?
Young Earth Creationists hold that God created homo sapiens (no evolution) and dropped them on the planet about 6,000 years ago. They also believe that land animals (including dinosaurs) were created less than 24 hours prior (same day) to the creation of human beings (Adam & Eve).
Mormons believe that hell is reserved for Satan and a few of the very worst people. Most everyone, per Mormons, goes to Heaven. But ... tada ... there are three levels of heaven. (hint: you want to try to get into the top heaven vs. the low heaven because then you turn into a demigod to rule over other universes).
This could go on forever ... you get the idea.
No, that would be a particular religious interpretation of the bible that many do NOT agree with. Religions have been perverting the real message since the beginning, using it as a way to increase their wealth and power. You can see it to varying degrees today! It is wrong for anybody to force someone else to adhere to values that aren't theirs. There is one side that wants to deny rights and deny equality to certain groups (it is NEVER white men denied, by the way, interesting, don't you think?) Everybody is allowed to have their own spiritual beliefs. Women deserve full autonomy without interference. Abortion is not murder, its nobody elses business. Nobody is forcing abortion on anybody. Some men (and a few stupid women) are trying to take the choice away from women.