When under pressure, which is just about all the time, billnewbie quickly descends into egomania, superstition, insults, and incoherency.

Let's see...we've decided that some people here are against abortion ever, as in never, for any reason.
.
And there are some here who think that it's the womans choice.
.
The ARTICLE is refering to second trimester abortions, which, as I understand, are, by law NOT given to women on demand, but by medical necessity. I'm not a doctor, I don't play one on TV and I don't know any doctors. I've seen a couple people here that put themselves forth as being nurses, but that is not the same thing as a doctor...well, the last I knew, anyway. So while I don't understand what reasons there would be for a late term abortion, there are PROFESSIONALS that feel they can be needed. Somebody bring a doctor into this "discussion" and maybe we'll all have a better understanding of what is behind the UW doing this.
.
NOT ONE person has said that they thought that getting an abortion is just the best possible birth control there is. Did anyone else notice that? NOT ONE!
.
And if you need some sort of medical care and the best place to get it happens to be a hospital that also does abortions and you CHOOSE to not have what's needed done or you CHOOSE to go elsewhere because of that, then you are a fool.

Have you people signed up for my fan club yet? Send me an e-mail and I'll tell you where to send the initiation fee.

read one billdubie rant read them all. "I believe in an all knowing God which logically means I am all knowing and I know you pathetic people are wrong."

darwin, justsaynotomath, chemical_6: thanks for bringing legitimate points to the discussion--along with some humor--love it!

bill: you are the one who is suffering form desperate rationalization.

Yes, some apparently do read my "long winded rants". Why else would so many be so vexed?
.
It seems to me that the "life support" a child receives doesn't end until they move out on their own or go to college (sometimes not even then). Do we get to deny that life support should they become too inconvenient at any time they are dependant? No, since it seems to me that's called murder. Don't we usually require the advance consent of those who we would disconnect from life support even if that consent is limited to a relation swearing in court that the subject requested same? The courts generally assume that a close relation would have the welfare of the subject at heart, but in the case of abortion, it is clear that the one making the decisions may well be most concerned with her own welfare at the expense of the child. So who attempts to determine the will of the unborn? Who defends the child’s interests? What court can the unborn appeal to? That life support argument is yet another example of a desperate rationalization.

And you pray to an invincible man using a book written by a bunch of men...

Think of a fetus as someone on life support. Remove the life support and it dies like in a miscarriage. So, therefore it is in fact not alive. Next of kin get to determine when life support is take off.

billdubie, do you think anyone reads your long winded rants?

Let's see now, to be judgemental about war is acceptable as is being judgemental about child abusers. But being judgemental about the morality of abortion is wrong and those who do so are bible thumping pontificators. That must be what's known as moral relativism.

Its humorous to read the judgementalism of those who decry judgementalism.

billnewbie - You talk the talk. Have you ever been FORCED to walk the walk? The definition of Pontificate -to speak about something in a knowing and self-important way, especially when not qualified to do so, (which I might add you do very well). I wonder how many innocent lives have been lost over the centuries in the name of GOD by people who, just like you, felt that their cause was just? Judgmental people only end up hurting the cause they so vehemently fight for.

I realize that the word "God" appears in the bible, but some may be surprised to discover that word appears in many other texts as well. "God" is a universal concept. I suspect that those who would like to leave "religion' out of this discussion actually wish to leave morality out of it. The concept of right and wrong does have its roots in religion. After all, the original laws meant to protect the weak from the strong (such as an unborn child from the whims of its mother) are found in ancient documents of religious origin. Our entire civilization is based on those concepts of right and wrong established by religion centuries ago. I realize that it would be convenient for some to exclude such precepts as religion and morality from the abortion debate. It only inflames the conscience, and that is hard enough to control when one considers doing something they can’t quite justify.
.
Aside from that, I don’t accept restrictions placed on the substance of what I write by those who don’t agree with me.

I realize that I craft a forceful argument, but that is hardly forcing my opinions on anyone.
.
All are free to read, rebut or disregard anything I write. But I will not cease discussing this issue for my cause is just. I do not apologize for those I have distressed with my opinions as I believe that their discomfort is only inflamed by my appraisals as a festering wound is by incidental abrasion.

justsome1here: Well said!
.
billnewbie: I said without Biblical citings. You couldn't do it. You mentioned God. Just because you believe there is a God who views abortion as morally unacceptable, doesn't mean your neighbor does. Leave God, the Bible, ALL religious facets out of it.
.
Can you leave all the big 10 cent words out of it too? It makes my head hurt. lol

I reject the contention that only women have a right to an opinion on this subject. The issue of dead babies transcends the politics of sex.
.
How easily some dismiss the pain of death and a life cut so short rationalizing that it is better for the child to have never known life than to know misery, even extreme misery. Where does one acquire the prescience to determine that the welfare of any given unborn child is better served with death than life? That is one very high horse to be perched upon indeed. One doesn’t need a bible to know that to claim the right to make such a determination is the exclusive domain of God. We humans lack the capacity for such perception and wisdom. Even that little girl choked to unconsciousness battered and bruised may yet know great happiness and may well bring joy to everyone she knows as may her unborn sibling in spite of their present circumstances. The fact is that those who choose abortion often convince themselves that death is better for their child but there is no way they can know that and they are likely to be completely wrong since their main purpose for assuming thus is self-serving. But even if that assumption was right, is the purpose of abortion now to be known as “mercy killing”? How long would abortion be politically viable if the purpose was thought to be “mercy killing” rather than a woman’s right to control her body (at the expense of her unborn child)? Those are specious arguments indeed as is the absurd contention that one who opposes abortion must therefore be in favor of child abuse.

billnewbie - I was not commenting on the moral issue of war, just your convenient use (or lack) of it. You were the one that stated "In no other circumstance would we as a society tolerate such inconsideration for an innocent life. The fact that we tolerate this is a testament to the ability of people to rationalize the abhorrent to the point of calling it good.", not me. My comment was not directed at the troops who are at war under the guise of protecting our country, but at the innoncent men, women and children that BECOME casualties of wars. These are the deaths that are tolerated by society BECAUSE of the war. Therefore, by your own admission, these deaths are justifiable. You are correct, abortions are legal. You can pontificate all you want about how wrong they are but by doing so you are being the judge, jury and executioner. You have displayed a lack of tolerance, compassion and understanding about this subject, while fiercely defending your right to believe that one murder is justifiable over another. The reality is it is not your choice unless faced with the decision. It is a women's right and (hopefully) the father's right to choose. No one has the right to preach and force their own moral code on another, even you.

billnewbie: it sure is easy to sit atop that mighty high horse when you are a man, isn't it?!
.
If "you" REALLY cared about harming a poor innocent child, then "you" would show up the next time Stephanie Witt and Norbert Cantu are infront of the court, wouldn't you.
.
What makes abortion so much more wrong and grotesque than someone who abuses their child to the point of rendering them unconscious? What makes abortion so wrong for that matter, while LEAVING out the biblical inferences!
.
Early (first trimester) abortions are one thing. Late term abortions are an entirely different beast, and I do agree they are barbaric. HOWEVER, don't be so naive as to think that a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant (or a MAN who doesn't want her to be) will take of that child while they are physically on this Earth--let alone make the sacrifices while in gestation. In an idealic world, women embrace their pregnancies-whether wanted or not. Moms-to-be and their partners give up alcohol and drugs willingly because it is the right thing to do. Dads-to-be stop beating their partners because it would harm the baby (both while unborn and after they are born). Moms-to-be stop worrying about those extra few pounds and no longer have the necessity to purge after every meal. We, as a country, are far from ideal. And, just because YOU and I made those sacrifices and would do so again willingly (because the ends, in this case, absolutely justify the means), doesn't mean we will EVER be able to get some to kick their bad habits--whatever they are. Anyone impregnant or become impregnanted. But, that doesn't mean you should. Just ask the little 3 year old girl lying in a hospital bed because her mom and her boyfriend *allegedly* beat the bejesus out of her. She is now 4 months pregnant. Only time will tell if she or the "baby daddy" has the propensity to victimize another child.
.
Call it what you want, but I'd rather have "Jane" aborted, even if she felt the pain as a 11 week old fetus than face the pain and uncertainty she is facing today as a fully aware and cognizant 3 year old toddler recovering after being knocked unconscious by the mother who seemingly obviously didn't want her.

Rocky - I don't believe so becuase I didn't find out about it until I was an adult, yet have always felt abortion was a choice for the woman, not the gonvernment or my peers.
.
I admit, I do see your side of the argument, and although it will not change my mind on the issue of right and wrong concerning abortion, I do respect your opinion and outlook on the matter. As well as Billnewbies because I can see both sides of the argument.
.
Hence my last comment. I just really feel that whether I think it is right or wrong, I don't see it changing due to the fact that people in general have such strong conflicting outlooks and beliefs on the subject.

There seems to be a lot of angry guilt on this page.

Chemical_6

I'm sorry your mom had the abortion -but are you sure you aren't effected by it? Aren't your attitudes effected by your Mom's decision?
---

You did nothing to refute any of my arguments...you only re-stated the pro-choice talking points. Not effective debate. Please try again.

----

And: Yes - I am comparing abortion to the Nazi treatment of Jews. In both cases the victims are dehumanized. In both cases there have been millions of innocent deaths. That is why I can't just turn my back to the issue. It was legal to kill Jews in concentration camps in Germany in WWII, that didn't make it right. Abortions legality does not make it right, either. My conscience demands that I speak out against the killing of the innocent. Every abortion ends a life...and that should be a crime.

"Brunette acknowledged state-paid doctors working for the university would provide the services but she said its lawyers were comfortable the plan is legal. She said the abortions themselves would be paid for by insurance and patient fees, not public money"... RIGHT, SO EVEN THOUGH THE ACTUAL PROCEDURE WILL BE PICKED UP BY INSURANCE, Etc., THE DOCTORS ARE STILL PAID BY US...THE TAXPAYERS OF WISCONSIN! As a lifelong citizen of WI and a graduate of the UW, I think something needs to be done, this is outrageous.

Yes abortions are legal, they are also wrong. The rationalizations of its supporters prove that many of them know its wrong. Rare is the would be mother who can knowingly kill her child without remorse. Those who have problems with their conscience may wish that others would stop reminding them of their repressed emotions but the goal of this anti abortionist isn't to instill guilt or to condemn, but to prevent more deaths by pointing out the fact that while one may have a right to an abortion, it is not right to do so. The fact that many who support abortions acknowledge the emotional distress that abortion choosers have is yet more proof that they are aware that abortion is wrong.

I am actually at that point where I say, "who freakin cares?" Roe Vs. Wade is not going to get reversed in my lifetime, so everyone might as well just deal with it.
It is too big of a debate for it to actually be illegal so maybe people should put more effort into prevention than anything. Instead of damning the woman that have the abortions help the ones that are not yet in the situation.
.
I could sit on here for days and discuss this issue but eventually the same things are said over and over and over, so what's really the point? lol... abortions are legal, move on.

I wonder, did the state franchise the UW logo to UW Health Centers or is it true that UW health centers are actually part of the state owned UW system as the article above states?

It's not true that federal funds pay for abortions. When President Bush took office he signed an order prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions. Soon to be President Obama has promised to reverse that order when he takes office.

SarahB: For God's sake it is not. Stop the damn drama. Seriously. It is the MADISON SURGERY CENTER. It is NOT done on the UW campus. It is a private facility and staffs UW doctors-a joint venture between the UW Medical Foundation (medical school) and Meriter Hospital. Just like the Madison Abortion Clinic...they staff doctors who are part of the UW system. In fact, I think one of them (abortion docs) might be a lecturer at the medical school.
.
I don't like the FACT that my tax dollars go to house, support and provide medical care to inmates...convicted child molestors, murderers, thieves, etc.. BUT it is what it is and me jumping on my holy horse isn't going to change a bit of reality.
.
.
UW Health (ie ancillary clinics, and the main Hospital and their staff) are NOT employees of the UW educational system. Even if it were done, lets say, at the med school or at UW Hospital, I find it VERY hard to believe OUR tax dollars would be going to pay for those services. I'm pretty certain that they don't get any more tax dollars than Mercy, Meriter or Beloit Hospital gets.
BTW--SarahB...your tax dollars, through federal funding and grants, also go to help PAY for abortions for those who cannot afford them.

These are our tax dollars at work and to each poster that has stated that we mind our own business, I remind you once again these are OUR tax dollars at work and it IS our business. Dont tell me to mind my own business when my dollars are supporting murder. Pro life supporters need to rise up and fight against this crazyness.

A baby IS HUMAN before the child is born! The baby has a beating heart while in the womb! It is a LIVING human being!!!

SarahB....I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU!

Some claim that since we mark the age of a baby from its birth, that is evidence that it is not human until it emerges from the womb. What does a woman say when she feels her baby move within her? Does she say her “tissue mass” is active today? When the child is born, is she introduced to this stranger, her baby, by the doctor or does she already have a relationship and an attachment to this “new arrival”? I think the answer is obvious.
.
Is a woman the creator of the life within her? Creation of anything is a willful act. It is also an act of bringing something forth from nothing. Is pregnancy a creative act? Yes. But who is responsible. A woman cannot become pregnant on her own, she needs something with which to fertilize her ovum. Furthermore, when this fertilizing substance is deposited within her, she still has no control over whether a pregnancy will result, nor does she even have knowledge of the results of her efforts for weeks thereafter. I do not consider that an act of creation. The fact that a woman can be impregnated against her will is even more proof of the fact that pregnancy is not the act of creation by the mother. Pregnancy is the result of a process that is beyond the control of a woman after she consents to, or is forced to engage in sexual intercourse. Clearly, the credit for creation of a baby belongs to someone else (not the father either).
.
Are those who are unaware of the death of an unborn baby affected by that death? Yes they are, even if they don’t know it. They have been denied the opportunity for a relationship with a person they do not even know existed just as society on the whole is denied the talents and future contributions of the killed unborn child. When anyone is killed, we all suffer a loss to some degree and that is our legitimate concern. It’s a pity that some can’t see that.

Momof5: It is my damn business when it is proposed that abortions be performed at a state facility. Sure, the doctors may be paid by insurance or whatever, but that building, the instruments used, the table the woman lies on and the bucket that fetus (AKA baby) is dumped into are paid for by me and every other state taxpayer.

Ditto Momof5 --- I say everyone should mind their own business when if comes to someone else's body. If you don't like it, then don't have an abortion and be against it.

bottom line is that is no one's damn business. Period.

SICK SICK SICK....is all I have to say! This is just wrong! To do an abortion in the first trimester is one thing (I am still opposed to it) BUT to do it even later in the pregnancy is just WRONG! There are plenty of wonderful people out there that cannot have babies and would LOVE and CHERISH a baby to love and to call their own, ADOPTION! This coming from a woman who had to take several fertility pills and several infertility apts to get pregnant. I love my kids, they are my life! Kids are innocent and do not ask to be brought into this world and DO NOT DESERVE to be MURDERED like that!

ROCKY -
“…. the aunts, the uncles, the siblings and most importantly the baby - and every life that baby would have touched if allowed to live”. ------- *** The abortion does not effect the people that will never know it, such as aunts, uncles and strangers… they will live their lives just like they do now. I know because my mother had one, before I was born and I live my life and don’t even think twice about it, except for when debates such as this arise.
"…were born into ideal circumstances?” ------ ***Yeah, and a lot don’t. There is a better chance that someone born into poverty, filth, and bad surroundings will end up in the same situation, rather than a Pulitzer Prize Winner.
"… Nobody would be interrogated over a miscarriage. Ever.-------*** The person that posted this was trying to explain why you cannot justify being anti-abortion when a mother could just as well take drugs and alcohol, which in turn kills the baby and yet pro-lifers turn the other cheek. There would need to be an investigation to prove how the baby died, since if the mother did it, it would technically be a self induced abortion…
"….No baby is unwanted.”.-----*** A lot of babies are unwanted… that is why they find them in dumpsters and trashbags in the woods. Not everyone is ok with giving up 9 months of their lives, ruining the skin on their stomach among other bodily changes, just to give up the result to someone you don’t know, but are told are good people.
"…Nazis used against the Jews-----*** The fetus is a person, but without the mother during the first trimester, it would not survive. Therefor it should be her choice whether to sacrifice and have the child. And are you seriously comparing abortion to the Nazi’s ??? Give me a break. . .

We are not adjudicated the legality of second-trimester abortions here. That is established by the Supreme Court, which is now unlikely to gain a majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. The question is whether a state entity can perform a legal medical service.

The reality of it is, the UW shouldnt be doing this. Too much controversy, how convienent that they also do stem cell research. I for one will never use the UW health system again, and I am sure there are many who would agree with me. People wonder why the world is in the state that it is, callous disregard for innocent human life perpetuates that in other forms. War, death penalty are results of choices that those humans have made, an innocent has made no such choice. Being that life is nothing but choices the "right to choose" is a joke. It is such a travesty that some of us humans think it should be our choice to kill our offspring. Think of how many advances in technology, medicine, and science has been delayed or eliminated because someone decided that it was their "right" to kill the life growing in their womb. It really is sickening. Some states will even prosecute a murderer for the life of the unborn child if the mother is murdered, how can it be both ways? Murder is murder, sugar coat it however you have to so you can live with your choices and opinions, but it changes nothing. We all have to live with the choices we make. As humans we make mistakes, that's just how it is, but to kill the life inside you? How can anyone rationalize that?

It has been stated that the brain functions of the unborn are too undeveloped for that person to matter. Are we quite sure that we can correctly ascertain the functions of the unborn brain? We seem to have problems correctly assessing the brain functions of adults do we not? Many who slip into comas with minimal detectable brain activity have emerged from their comas intact and with vivid memories of their dreams while comatose. The fact is that as much as we know of the functions of the human brain, there is much we do not know. Basing our decisions on whether an unborn child should die on that limited understanding of its brain functions is a defective argument. But even if the unborn have limited brain function, is that the only criteria for judging its humanity? Hardly. It could also be said that the brain functions of toddlers and even adolescents are not advanced enough to be fully aware of their environment. Would that justify their execution? Measuring the humanity of anyone based on their brain functionality is dangerous as someone in authority may contend that you or I, or anyone, are unfit to live by those same standards.

I am looking at this from a couple of angles: I am disappointed, but not surprised by the UW's decision, however, UW is the only other facility around here that my insurance covers other than Mercy Health System. Mercy has its reputation for a reason and sometimes it's best not to go there for certain procedures or for a 2nd opinion. Rocky just said everything else I was going to say, so read on...:-)

I made a few comments at the start of the thread, but work has kept me away in the meantime. Amazing how pretty much all of the "pro-choice talking points" show up here - so let me address some of them directly. (I apologize in advance for not referencing the individual posters who made the points).

---

Cases of rape. These should not be an issue here. We're talking about second trimester abortions. Rape victims are usually given an abortive such as RU-486, immediately after the event to prevent or abort the pregnancy. Cases of rape that require a second trimester abortion are virtually non-existent and red herring for this discussion. The morality of an abortion after a rape is a completely different topic.

-----

"The abortion only effects the mother". So does infanticide, by that reasoning. No - an abortion effects the mother, the father, the grandparents, the aunts, the uncles, the siblings and most importantly the baby - and every life that baby would have touched if allowed to live.

-------

"Having an abortion is an act of mercy for the mother in difficult circumstances and prevents a child from being a burden on society". Another red herring. Many people are born into difficult circumstances and go on to lead important, meaningful lives. How many of you were born into ideal circumstances?

-----

"If abortion is a crime then every miscarriage will be investigated." A total lie and fear-mongering tactic. Abortion statutes usually only address the person performing the abortion - not the person receiving the abortion. Just because miscarriages are called "spontaneous abortions" does not put them in the same medical or legal category as elective abortions. Nobody would be interrogated over a miscarriage. Ever.

-----

"Better to abort than to have an unwanted baby". No baby is unwanted. The line to adopt babies goes out the door, around the corner, down the block, across town and into the next county. If the 8400 abortions in Wisconsin in 2007 were all brought to term and given up for adoption, there would still be a long waiting list. Abortion is about convenience for the mother - not out of some sense of altruism for the baby.

-----

"The fetus is not a person" - Oh, really? What is it? A chicken? A pig? No, it is a human being. Check the DNA. It has it's own, you know. It is an individual, the same as you and me. This is the same argument the Nazis used against the Jews or slave owners used against Africans to justify their oppression (Not really a person). History has judged those movements....what will it say about abortion in 100 years?

unlife = unlike

Billnewbie - The fetus does not have a brain functional enough during the first trimester to know what is happening. That and when you abort, it is ending the possibility of the life of the fetus, therefor not affecting the future life of the child, unlife affecting the life of the woman.
Also, you say it would be effecting someone so young and innocent... but that takes me back to when life is alive... if it were as you say a "young" child... than why do we not say our babies are a year old, three months after they were born??? Makes sense doesn't it?? But then again, when you are born, your life begins, so until then, you are not, leaving your destiny up to your creator... and by that I mean the woman. (and in some cases, the father as well)

You can talk all you want about abortions being ok or not ok. Just remember how a woman gets to that point. If there is no birth control or prevention then the odds are pregnancy will occur.it is the human responsibility that is lacking here. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!

Chemical_6:
Aren't you overlooking someone? You wrote "Does it really effect YOUR life if I abort my baby? It doesn't effect anyone but me, and possibly the father". You mentioned 3 people yet you say it affects only you and possibly the father. It seems to me that you left out the one who is most affected, the one who is chosen to die.
By the way, the death of one, particularly one so young and innocent, affects us all as that is why we as a society have chosen to ban murder. That is also why so many go to such great lengths to rationalize their abortions as anything but murder. Most of us still recognize that murder is evil and so those who participate in abortion do everything they can to convince themselves that it is not. They also tend to hide the fact of their abortions from those whose opinions they most value because they know very well that the death of that child will have an effect on those who know. That is why abortion defenders rely on the argument that the unborn are just a “tissue mass” that can be removed just as they would a tumor. If they accept the life in the womb as human, their justifications for abortion fail.

I cannot believe that our society today! There is no value in life anymore! A baby is a baby as soon as it is concieved, you and I were there once. and to terminate a pregnancy on purpose is MURDER! It is not a right or a choice , it is a life. You can deny it all you want but you and I are proof of this. I personally know a few people who have had abortions and they still deal with it mentally everyday. They don't tell you when you get one how devastating it could be when you get an abortion. As soon as you jump into that bed, car, or whatevr and have sex, you have made a choice. Grow up and take responsiblity for your actions!! there are more than enough people who would adopt!

CYCLEPATH...what does it mean that I am on your "Thought Wave"? Are you a Scientologist or something? Janesville has enough weird Christians attempting to run things. We don't have room for another cult to shake up the status quo. But...out of respect...may Jett Rest in Peace.

Nah...there is no sarcasm from my direction. I just usually hit on chicks on Gazette message boards until one finally agrees to meet for fast food. I have to admit though, I usually troll the "abortion" themed threads because that is a topic that is best to get out into the open before "Value Meals" are shared between two consenting adults.

WOW!!!! This thing will never end. I mostly read posts and not post myself, but I want more from Testerrific. You are on my thought wave.

Testerrific - I believe I sense some sarcasm :) But I like chicken so you're on. ;)

Ohhhh, sorry about that CHEMICAL...see, I get so caught up in hitting on one chick, I don't read BOTH posts from the previous chick. I really do apologize Chemical_6. Upon further review, I see that you are actually on my side. I am humbled, and shamed. If you want to join me and JUSTSAYNOTOMATH at Del Taco, I will throw in an extra chicken soft taco just for you. Okay, okay...that is not enough. I will actually GIVE YOU ONE OF MY CHICKEN SOFT TACOS THAT I WAS GOING TO EAT!!! I can't believe I just typed that out loud. Believe me, that is penance, baby!!!!!!

Tessterific - - I am agnostic. Enjoy your tacos.

JUSTSAYNOTOMATH...forget what that Jesus freak Chemical_6 said to you. You sound like my kind of girl to be honest. Would you like to meet at Del Taco for some delicious chicken soft tacos and flirting? I'll buy!!!

War is murder. Due process murder is still murder. Does your God split hairs too? Sucking a parasitic mass of flesh from a woman's body is not murder since it is a part of her body like any other organ that can be removed. Notice the part about HER body.
-
What about miscarriage? Nature's abortion. Isn't the UW merely extending one of God's natural miraculous events.
-
According to God's laws a fetus is not innocent because it is tainted with original sin.

justsaynotomath – I think you may have some screws loose. Either that or you are just completely nuts… I can’t decide.

Does it really effect YOUR life if I abort my baby? It doesn't effect anyone but me, and possibly the father.
.
I don’t understand people’s reasoning behind being pro-life/anti-abortion.... If I decide to keep my baby, you in turn say, “well I saved an unborn child, yay for me” and move on to the next woman considering abortion… It doesn’t change anything in YOUR life, but changes EVERYTHING in mine. I am now stuck with a child that I didn’t really want, and you better believe if I had to go thru 9 months of being pregnant, I am not giving the child up for adoption…. If however I decide to abort the child, you in turn say, “you are a horrible person and a murderer who is going to hell” and then move on to the next woman considering abortion… STILL it didn’t change ANYTHING in your life, but I still have to live with knowing that I killed my unborn baby and that there are people that now look down on me for my decision… thus changing my life. It will ALWAYS affect the woman making the decision, it will NEVER effect your life.

I see the testy juvenile delinquent is back playing with his computer and the sensibilities of others. Apply yourself to your education with the same zeal that you apply towards being offensive and you may just make something of yourself, youngster.

Sportthewar:
I wrote that I would encourage a woman to have such a baby as the heroic thing to do but that I can sympathize and identify with one who will not. I did not write that I would favor forcing such a woman to have the child.

MAXDETAIL..."Sportthewar" never used the term "religious nut" in any of his posts. How dare you judge another incorrectly. That in fact was me, you nut. Odd that you have the word "detail" in your username, yet you are susceptible to overlooking the most basic of details when responding to a post. This is a common fault of religious types like yourself. That said, you defined embryos as..and I quote..."tissue blob', 'products of conception', 'fetal tissue', 'embryonic cells". Thank you for so perfectly describing an embryo. You should have the last name 'Thesaurus'. Any other "ridiculous" definition of the word "embryo" would clearly suggest that the message board typist had been overindulging in the Body of Jesus Christ of Nazareth...so much so that a finger would have to be inserted deep into the throat to induce the vomiting up of the overabuse of the Eucharist, so that even more of Jesus' "newly established" yeasty fleshly Body could be taken orally. The whole procedure sounds kind of homosexual to me. But then again, Father Vosen was completely innocent, right?

Sorry Sportthewar, you didn't do the name calling, that was Testerrific. My ire clouded my memory.

I will say this. A baby is not a disease or a punishment. A baby that results from rape is still a baby. Killing the baby doesn't make the rape go away it just adds murder to the equation. I'm all for killing the rapist, I'm all for saving the baby.

I have 3 adopted children that I thank God every time I look at them that they were not aborted. Abortion would have made sense by your standards. There are tons of folks who want to adopt children and wait for years to find them.

Sportthewar, you demand logic and then play such twisted games with definitions that you reject logic. You refer to a human baby as a 'rape-product child'. What in hell is that????? You might as well say 'tissue blob', 'products of conception', 'fetal tissue', 'embryonic cells'. Logic tells me that humans have human babies. A baby is not a baby because the mother decides to bring it to birth. You stack the deck with flawed definitions and then demand logic? I call foul.

Your name calling ('religious nut') betrays both your prejudice and your inability to defend your knee jerk liberalism.

MARYFAN should be quiet. I swear, some people can eat so much Eucharist that eventually they just become full of it. In regards to MARYFAN, she is just another mindless religious nut, evidencing Jesus' preachings of "Judge not" by signing onto an anonymous message board and "judging the hell out of people". And let's be honest... the world is full of plenty of those kind of hypocrites. Do what I do...Whenever an actual tragedy occurs somewhere in the world, and some religious nut tells me "The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways"...I always respond, "Yeah, That Is What I Thought On 9-11". And then I slap them across the face and steal their Slurpie.

MaryFan...
.
...So a rape victim should thank god and her attacker? That's sick.

So let me get this straight, Bill and Mary. You believe a woman should carry a rape-product child because it's your god's will? You would ban abortion when the mothers life is at stake? What about conception because of incest? A logical explanation of your beliefs, please. And no references to scripture, bible passages, etc. Logic being the key word.

Madman... A child conceived as the result of a rape is a special gift from God...Although the woman may not know why at the time, there was a reason she was chosen to carry this child. Abortion is wrong no matter what. As is the death penalty, euthanasia, and war. No one has the right to take the life of another human being. That is reserved for God.

Whatever happened to providing the baby to someone who really wants to adopt.
It seems that everyone gets upset at giving their baby to be adopted. What do you think??

I also think this surgi-center could lose a lot of customers. I don't think I could handle having my gallbladder removed in surgical Suite 1 knowing that a 5-month-old baby (fetus) is being dismembered, stabbed in the brain, or whatever, in Suite 2. For crying outloud, I have a nephrew who was born healthy at that stage.

I agree John.... I don't understand how a woman has to have the father's permission to give a child up for adoption, but not for ending the child's life.

Abortion Is MURDER. enough said.

Regardless of the law, a woman's right to choose, whether a 22-week-old fetus is really a baby, etc., I am totally against the UW performing abortions. To me, that is the issue here. As a twice-graduate (bachelor's and master's degrees) from the UW, I think the school needs to stay out of this issue. Let the patient travel to Milwaukee or to Rockford, IL., if they desire an abortion. I know if the UW goes through with this plan, it won't get any further alumni monetary gifts from me. And, I bet I am not the only UW grad who feels this way.

Why doesn't the father have any standing in this issue?

Morality is precisely the issue. It is what defines our humanity. Without morality there could be no society and no protection of the weak from the strong. Not just the weakest among us, the unborn, would be subject to the whims of the strong, but the old, the sick the disabled, and yes, women would all be forced to live subservient to, and at the pleasure of the strongest among us at all times and in every way, which pretty well sums up the plight of the unborn as things are now.

There is no rational reason why any woman needs a mid or late term abortion, period. I don't support abortion, but I can at least try to understand their 'right' to an abortion up to 10 weeks or so. After that I just can't figure it out. Why can't they make that life altering decision before that? WELL before their baby could sustain itself? Ridiculous and stupid.

I may not believe in God but I still think that any civilized society should think that abortion is WRONG! To me it is not a religious issue but one of how we treat everyone including those that are unborn.

Any wonder why the cost of higher education is going up and up?

Fighting in defense of one's country is not murder. The execution of a person who has enjoyed all the rights and diligence that due process provides is not murder. The execution of an innocent life, judged expendable by a party with an interest in its death, either as a matter of convenience or finance, perhaps both, without any hearing and with no one to appeal to is in my opinion indefensible.
.
I'll regard the argument that there is no distinction between the taking of innocent and less than innocent life as not well considered. If one cannot see the difference between the execution of one such as Ted Bundy or Richard Speck and a baby, there's not much I can write that will have any real effect. However, on the subject of war, the concept of innocence is the question. Our soldiers are volunteers, and as such, they knowingly risk their lives in our defense. This has not always been the case as we have used conscription to fill the ranks of the military. But even then, it has been acknowledged that defense of one’s country is a duty and that losing one’s life in the line of duty or taking the lives of the enemy isn’t an act of murder if the cause is just. I would be opposed to an unjust war just as I am opposed to abortion. People of good conscience may well disagree about the justification of a war. How can people of good conscience ever justify the destruction of human life in the womb for the convenience of another?

This is about freedom of choice and not what is moral or not. It's unfortunate that people have to resort to such methods of birth control, though. Late term abortions are dangerous to the mother, too. Look at how many unwanted children there already are in this world. We as a modern society still cannot properly care for those who already exist. How can we support even more unwanted children? We don't have enough resources as it is. Maybe the US should think about family size limits like in other countries.

billnewbie - You stated "In no other circumstance would we as a society tolerate such inconsideration for an innocent life. The fact that we tolerate this is a testament to the ability of people to rationalize the abhorrent to the point of calling it good."
.
You are incorrect. We as a society put weapons in the hands of young adults and send them off to war which ultimately results in the taking of innocent lives, theirs or someone else's. We, as a society, may not like it, but we tolerate it. I believe also that you have previously stated that you believe in capital punishment. If you truly believe that murder is reprehensible then taking a life is taking a life whether innocent or not.

No gramps, it's not Obama's fault, it's not Gov. Doyle's fault, it's not Sen. Robson's or any other politician's fault. They made clear their stand on Government provided abortions when the ran for office. The fault lies with all those who oppose abortion and voted for these people anyway for whatever self interested reasons they may have had. This is the result of those votes. The lawsuit to stop the University is a waste of time. This issue was decided at the ballot box.

Concerning abortions to save the life of the mother, it's a difficult choice to die for the sake of another. If a person won't do it, they are in plenty of company as most of us would not as well. That's what makes the difference between a hero and the rest of us.
Similarly, if one is forced into a pregnancy, it takes a heroic person to make the sacrifice to bring forth that life, a sacrifice few would choose to make.
To those who face such choices, I would exhort them to make these sacrifices, but I cannot condemn them if they will not. As the old saying goes, “there, but for the grace of God go I”. I have the same love of life and human frailties as everyone else. Those that choose to make those sacrifices deserve our admiration while most of us can identify with, and should be sympathetic to those who cannot
However, when were talking about abortion, some 99% are not done for such reasons as the mother's life is at risk or the pregnancy is the product of rape. Were talking about the “final solution” in birth control. The wanton execution of an innocent life whose sole purpose for dying is that someone isn’t ready, or someone has better things to do, or my boyfriend won’t like it, or that it’s a girl and we really want a boy, or any list of reasons that value the convenience of one over the life of another. In no other circumstance would we as a society tolerate such inconsideration for an innocent life. The fact that we tolerate this is a testament to the ability of people to rationalize the abhorrent to the point of calling it good.

Some contend that the poor girl who got pregnant but has experienced a change of circumstances or even the one who just happens to be pregnant, as if such a thing just happens, must be free to choose to be spared the consequences as if there is no need to consider the life within and those of us who object to that rationale must be willing to bear the consequences for her. They further contend that death for the unborn is a more desirable fate than the uncertain and presumed less than ideal circumstances that child may be born into. Such arguments are mere rationalizations meant to assuage the conscience. How can we base a decision on whether an unborn child is allowed to live on the assumption of the quality of life held by a person with a conflicting interest, the mother? Would any of us want our fate determined by someone who stands to benefit from our death? I suspect not.

I get so frustrated with this issue. This is a personal decision for the woman. We can not make someone else believe in the same things as we do. In this country we have the freedon of choice on all sorts of issues. If a woman makes the decision she needs to have an abortion than we should allow her to do that- safely and legally. Could I ever have an abortion, no. But that is my personal decision.

MaryFan and dub190...
.
...So you believe that pregnancy as a result of rape doesn't exist? That the ONLY time there is child conceived, the parents made a choice to have sex?
.
Or do you think that it can't be rape if the woman gets pregnant? I believe it was Strom Thruman, republican senator from South Carolina for a century or so said, on the floor of the Senate and in the senate record that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to get pregnant because of rape, because to get pregnant, that has to be arousal and that means that she liked what was happening and therefore, it's not rape.
.
Is this what YOU believe, too?

Some have wondered just when does life begin? At what stage of development is an unborn baby fully human? I contend that a child in the womb is human at conception and deserving of the same legal considerations as any of us. Its DNA is human, its stage of development is the same as yours or mine at any given post-conceptual age and we do rightfully claim our humanity and our legal protections. One must judge another’s humanity by shared characteristics. These pre-respiratory humans share the same characteristics we had when we were at that stage of development. How can we deny their humanity because they have not yet drawn a breath? By what magic does respiration create humanity where it previously did not exist?

" life begins when life can sustain outside the mother's body"-JSNTM

***********

Then you agree with me that a selective (not to save the life of the mother) partial birth abortion performed in the third trimester on 1.5 to 5 lb "fetus" is murder?

Hey.......where is Bill's input. I'm waiting for him to blame Obama.

Dear housewife, you're playing the slippery slope game. Thousands and thousands of babies are killed for for less severe reasons.

Surely you aren't equating nature or God ending a pregnancy with abortionists with implements invading the womb and killing a healthy baby.

Keep it rational.

The thing that really got me supporting Obama this year was the issue of abortion and the republicans' attitudes toward women's health. THey want to tell me who I can sleep with, what I can and Cant do to my body, and once they are done with that, they wont care to help me if I cant afford medical bills for this child that may be unwanted? They are only going part of the way with their stance it seems to me. Either be supporting children for their whole life, not just in-utero, or but out.

If a fetus or embryo is a human being fully entitled to protection, then every miscarriage becomes a crime investigation. So all women must submit to interrogation if there is no difference between a pregnancy and a live baby. Given that nature ends 33% of all pregnancy, we will need a whole new task force to investigate these grieving mothers... excuse me, murder suspects.

Interestingly enough, "Christian" life insurance companies do not sell life insurance for fetuses/pregnancies.

And I personally know someone who had to abort her twin boys at 22 weeks due to rapidly advancing HELLP syndrome. By the way, she and her husband conceived by IVF after 8 years of trying for children. She spent 4 months on her back not moving trying to save these boys. And then she had to abort them or die.

So, you would rather she travel farther and find it harder to go though this personal hell? How very compassionate and "Christian" of you.

As a pro-life person, I am seriously asking the pro-choicers here: When do you believe life begins ?

Somehow, the 'liberty' clause of the fourteenth amendment was twisted and deformed by liberal jurists to mean 'right to abort'. As a result we hear people today speak of 'legal abortion'. Where? The lawyers and judges played with and changed the meanings of words - words like 'life', 'liberty' and 'privacy' but no law was passed that made murder legal.

I used to shy away from calling abortion murder. Calling someone a 'murderer' is not a very winsome technique for winning opponents but I've just grown tired of the word games. Murder is the taking of a life without just cause; that's a simple enough definition. I'm not anti-death or anti-killing. Death is a part of life and killing is sometimes necessary. There are those who justly deserve to be killed. I am anti-murder. Men, women, children and babies should not be killed unjustly.

I'm not pro-life either. At least I'm not any more pro-life than the average abortion supporter. Everyone is for life. For the theist life is an opportunity to serve and glorify God; for the unbeliever, as the humorist has said, life is nature's way of keeping meat fresh. Either way, life is a good thing.

I'm pro-dignity of mankind. All men are created in God's image and that image should be recognized, respected and protected (Genesis 9:6). Every human has a dignity that comes from God and should be treated as such. If one man murders another he has shown a total disregard for the image of God and should, himself, be put to death. Executing the murderer is the means for protecting and giving weight to the dignity of the image of God in man.

In as much as abortion is the taking of a life unjustly, it is murder. Murder has never been legal and therefore abortion has never been legal. Yes, there are cowardly lawyers and judges that will not prosecute murder that involves an unborn baby, but that doesn't make murder legal. We are just playing with words and murdering babies. In one room a doctor has delivered all but the head of a nine month 'fetus' whom he now kills with scissors to the back of his skull. In another room doctors work tirelessly to preserve the life of a 23 week preemie, a little person. Now tell me with a straight face that we don't play games with words.

I'm tired of incrementalism too. Pro-life groups spend millions of dollars to force legislation that certain things must be done before an abortion can take place. The pregnant woman must be informed about the development of the fetus; the parents of the pregnant girl must be notified, etc. You know what? I don't care how many hoops the pregnant girl has to jump through if it all ends with another baby being murdered. Do "a", "b" and "c" and then it's ok to murder the baby? NO! I'm not playing that game anymore! I will not play nice.

Abortion is illegal, always has been illegal, and I challenge the lawyers and judges to start prosecuting murder wherever it happens.

Why not say human life begins at three years? That would give the woman, the father, and their doctor a little more time to decide if they want to keep the baby. After that, it's murder.

I believe like Judy Robison in 4th Trimester Abortions!

I'll briefly skip over the whole abortion issue but I do have a complaint about the article. The Alliance Defense Fund is not a religious freedom group, they are a conservative Christian group. Whether or not you agree with them, calling them (or allowing them to call themselves) a religious freedom advocate is not accurate. They seek to promote the freedom to practice a certain religion (or at least certain core collection of religions).

Wow...the right to choose. The choice was already made long before whether or not to have an abortion is something to decide. When two people decide to have sex, they have made the decision to create a human being whether they realize that or not. The only method of birth control that is perfect is abstinence. All other forms of birth control have failure rates. If people learned self control and saved sex for inside a committed relationship joined by God and open to life, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Human life begins at conception. Life is not a choice, it's a baby. I know many families that would love to adopt.

I believe the correct term is "Pro-life" NOT anti-abortion. Shall we call the pro-choice groups, pro-abortion? Stop with the subversive term usage Gazette.

Big girl is a smart girl.

I also agree that if a woman wants an abortion, she is going to get one, one way or another. At least she could have one done by a professional and not done in someone's basement where infection could set in or even worse she could bleed to death because of a botched procedure. It is unfortunate that other people have to stick their nose into someone else's business. I too also wonder about the ProLife groups--who is going to take care of the baby once it is born??? Does anyone think a ProLife supporter will be with the mother who really didn't want to have the baby on a day-to-day basis? I realize that people need to take responsibility for their actions, but all situations are not black and white. What about rape victims, what about men who use condoms but they failed, what about oral contraceptives (if not taken at the same time every day there is a chance to get pregnant), or even the teenager who was never taught about abstinence or contraception. No one is perfect (even you ProLifers). The women who get abortions will have to live with that forever. Please ProLifers just let them be. They have enough to deal with without having to feel like they have to justify anything to you.

UW needs to decide, abortion money or taxpayer money, they shouldn't have both. Child support needs to start at conception, give women a real choice. Not the male choice of either "you have an abortion, or your on your own".

Let's say abortion were outlawed.
Would that end the procedure?
Legally, yes but the practice would continue.
They would happen in back rooms under less than ideal condition performed by poorly trained people.
Just a different viewpoint...

It is a very tough decision either way you choose. And abortion will be debated for ever, but it still remains, and should remain the woman, husband, and their doctors decision to choose.

I wish more people would look into the specifics of these later term abortions. Frequently, the mother really wants a child and finds herself in devastating circumstances. In fact, attempts to ban late term abortion except in cases where it hurts the health of the mother (rather than her mental health) would likely force mothers to keep non-viable fetuses in their wombs because they cannot be aborted. The mother suffers huge psychological harm, knowing she has a "baby" who will never be alive. People should stop insisting on one irreducible law, as if it can encompass all tragic circumstances, and people should speak more to the women, who have found themselves in the difficult and painful choice of making this decision to abort late term (and middle term). No woman is waking up one day, and saying, "I'm bummed; I guess I'll get an abortion." That's the biggest myth perpetuated by the anti-abortionists.

I support UW in its decision to later abortions to its ob/gyn, and I hope they will consider offering late term abortions too.

Rocky – I believe the child is alive as soon as it is conceived, that doesn’t mean that it still shouldn’t be the woman’s choice whether to have the child or not, IMO. And as you say, if the child DOES survive, outside of the womb, who is paying for the medical care of the child? Who is paying for the medical care if the mother will not? Taxpayers? Me? You?
.
I don’t so much agree with 2nd Trimester abortions unless it is compromising the woman’s health, or is necessary for some reason that the child be aborted. I also don’t agree with abortion as a birth control, but I personally would not make the decision to abort a child after the first trimester (unless needed medically) or use it as a birth control. I still sleep at night knowing that there are people out there that do that… why? Because truth be told, it doesn’t affect me in the way it affects some people. Most of them I don’t even know, so why would it really bother me? If a woman thinks that having a baby would not be a good idea then good for her for being able to make that decision. I wouldn’t want to be born into this world if my mother had me, knowing my life would suck.

And to answer this question : “Why do we give the mother the power of life or death over her pre-born child, but recoil in horror when a mother kills her newborn baby?” That statement has two sides… let me put it to you this way… IF the mother decided to have this child against her will because abortion were not an option, do you truly think the baby would be cared for efficiently? Also, what happens when the mother does not have the means to care for the child and the child ends up homeless and or in a gang… who pays for that decision? Not the mother I would think…
.
I love babies and they are cute but they are a lot of work and should only be brought into the world in a strong and stable, loving environment, or at the least, to a mother that can care for her child efficiently.

I`m pretty sure the laws are clear on the reasons a second trimester abortion can be performed. Abortions in this country have been going down for many years, the use of sex education classes, and birth control are starting to pay dividends. The same thing could happen with regard to health care if we went from a reactive(after a diagnosis) to a proactive(early screening, checkups,etc.) society. As long as the existing laws are followed abortions should be allowed. When there is, if ever, enough sentiment to prevail at the ballot box, then they can be outlawed.

Abortion should not be used as a form of birthcontrol. Nor should the woman have total say. If a man and a woman make a baby, how does the man lose all say in an abortion or not. Makes us mere sperm donors...jmo

I believe it is the mother's choice, but once it hits 2-3 months it should be illegal to abort. That gives the mother almost a month to make a decision. Only exception should be if it means life or death of the mother.

WTP - I'm assuming from your argument that the child is better of dead than in a dysfunctional home where they become a burden on the mother that you would support the mercy killing of children in a similar situation? Or the elderly? Or the physically or mentally disabled?

OK, Chemical 6, so when is that baby "alive"? Clearly the baby can survive independently outside the womb well before the time of birth - so is killing it at that point when it becomes murder? 2nd trimester babies have survived both premature birth and abortion attempts, Are they really "alive"? Why do we give the mother the power of life or death over her preborn child, but recoil in horror when a mother kills her newborn baby? It is, essentially, the same thing....

---

Oh - and for the sake of discussion, let's just consider pregnancy that does not threaten the life of the mother. (BTW - life"style" is not the same thing).

Great comment, chemical_6!

I fully agree with chemical 6. All these advocates who wants to stop abortion are not around when the baby arrives and the mother is unable to care and support the baby. So the baby grows up in a dysfunctional situation and ends up many times on the wrong side of the road and gets in trouble. There is no one to guide them as they grow up because so many mothers where to young them selves or living in poverty to care for the child. Accidents happen every day and mothers should have the choice to abort if this puts to much burden on her to have this child.

MURDER is every ones business. (period)

There will never be a “common” ground on this issue. It’s one of the most debated subjects in America and always will be. I believe that it should be up to the woman to decide since it is her body. People say it is murder, but when a “murderer” kills someone, (or doesn’t), it does not effect the murderers body (as far as I would think) depending on the decision they make. Pregnancy can be a scary thing and so many things factor into a woman’s decision to abort or keep a baby, for example… health, job, significant other, age, religion . . . the list goes on and on. These anti-abortion groups mean well, but it’s not like they care what happens to the baby once it is born… they don’t pay for it or care for it or love it… they just want to make sure that people don’t abort it. . . I say it’s not their choice.

Isn't that like "If you don't like murder, then don't commit one?"

"If you dont like abortions, then dont have one"

Bull..Its sick, and beyond sick in second trimester.

No matter if Madison does the abortions or not if people want one bad enough they will find a way. And its really noone elses business.