Feminists for Choice Proves Women are Often Ignorant about Abortion

Belief in abortion rights does not equal knowledge about abortion. This was made clear when the group Feminists for Choice asked women, “Can you be pro-choice if you wouldn’t choose abortion for yourself?” Most women answered the question with the same pro-abortion, deceptive language that has been fired off by abortion proponents for years. And it proves they don’t know anything about fetal development or abortion.

It’s My Body

Aurelia says, “I am pro-choice for the most basic reason. I don’t want anyone to tell me what to do with my body and I don’t think I have any business telling anyone what else to do with their body.”

Van claims, “It seems intuitive and obvious to me that I should be the ultimate decision maker of a decision that has to do with my physical body. On top of that, the fact that the majority of government is men makes it even more insulting.”

 

What these two fail to understand is that the baby/fetus is a completely different person from the mother. She has her own body developing with her own unique DNA within the womb of her mother. This is scientific fact. To be peddling the old line that abortion is something a women does to her own body is ignorant and disingenuous. Besides that, the government tells us we can’t use drugs or prostitute ourselves – actions that actually only affect our own body (unless of course the person is pregnant).

A Fetus isn’t Life, Just Potential Life

Sophia wrote that, “When I realized I was pregnant I realized this wasn’t an abstract moral decision any more. I had a potential baby growing in my body. I don’t think an abortion is killing a baby, but it is causing a potential baby to not exist. If I hadn’t done anything, then odds are I would have given birth to a healthy baby – my child – eight months later.”

This is one of the most bizarre, inaccurate arguments for abortion. How is a growing, developing human inside the woman only a potential baby? Ultrasounds allow us to see inside the womb and what we see is in fact a baby. If she is only a potential baby, than is an infant not a person but a potential toddler, and a teen only a potential adult? This potential life has a heartbeat and a face, the ability to recognize voices, feel pain, and the ability to bond. She has all the traits and characteristics that make a living person.

The Government Can’t Police My Morals

Van says, “People oppose abortion for a lot of different reasons. You can oppose it for moral reasons or maybe for religious reasons. Either way, you can still believe that the government does not have the right to invade that space in your life. Just because I think something is wrong does not mean I believe that everyone should be forced to my moral code.”

By this thinking, child abuse, rape, murder, drugs, and incest should all be legal. The government should have no say in what we as individuals do and we should not be forced to live by a moral standard. Laws should not exist to protect us from harm because if someone wants to hurt another person, that is his right.  This thinking leads to the breakdown of civilized society.

Feminists for Choice have done nothing here but prove how wrong abortion is and how blind they are to the destruction of human life happening around them. It is interesting to note that the majority of the women quoted said they would never have an abortion. Obviously, their conscience is telling them something.

  • Adam7

    “By this thinking, child abuse, rape, murder, drugs, and incest should all be legal.”

    That isn’t where the logic would lead, because (with the exception of the last two, which plenty of people have valid arguments for supporting – Portugal decriminalized drugs and has had tremendous success treating addicts as people in need of help instead of criminals to clog the prisons with) all those things involve using force against another person. 

    What makes abortion different is that there is dispute over whether a “person” in the relevant sense is effected or not. So it is at least understandable how someone might apply this reasoning to abortion in this way instead of classifying it with abuse and murder.

    Personally, I classify myself as neither “pro-life” nor “pro-choice.” There seems to be no recognized title for the position I take. It seems to me clear that the morally significant thing is consciousness: the reason it is wrong to abuse an animal is not because they have DNA like ours or because their cells are dividing, but because they are conscious and can experience the abuse. If the cessation of consciousness at death is the *end* of the identification of a “person” with that body, then doesn’t it stand to reason that the beginning of consciousness during development is the *beginning* of the identification of a “person” with that body? It sure seems so to me. Alternatively, the only basis on which we could say that developing cells are morally significant from the moment of conception is because: (1) they have unique DNA – but if we culture human cells in a test tube, surely they don’t deserve human rights! or (2) they (unlike the cultured cells) have the potential to become a (conscious, living) “person.” So I think the “potential personhood” argument has been rather brutally misunderstood here, perhaps because an inarticulate pro-choicer poorly presented it his/herself. So, in any case: I don’t know when fetal consciousness first begins. But I think the obvious answer to this issue is to make the most conservative estimate, and then allow abortion for any reason at all prior to that point, while allowing it only for the most extreme circumstances (danger to the life of the mother when rescuing the fetus is not possible) afterwards. 

    It should probably tell you something, however, that someone with an opinion like the above is so interested in this website. I’m absolutely sick of the mindblowingly ridiculous spin being put on issues like Komen’s funding of PP, the contraceptive mandate, etc., and this site is one of my antidotes. 

    • http://anythingmightgo.blogspot.com/ Sam

      In regards to making “the most conservative estimate.” What if you are wrong?

      If you end up say, even a bit off of the “margin” then would you be violating a person then? Would you be willing to make that decision? 

      When men are trapped in some sort of cave-in, and we don’t know if they are alive or dead, do we, if there is the slightest chance of them being alive, give up since they’re probably dead?

    • Hovish13

      So it’s Okay to abuse children, puppies, and women when they’re asleep or unconscious? Or otherwise cannot truly experience the abuse? Also you state that a person must be “conscious” of their body to be a person. Did you know, though, that infants in fact do not develop self awareness until some time after birth? Does that mean infanticide is okay?

    • Beth

      The most “conservative” estimate would be THE BEGINNING.  Oh wait.. that’s what pro-lifers say. Can’t possibly be that…

    • SuperLogic

       If you can’t even define what life is, and when it begins, how can you even rationally debate the morality of abortion.  Shouldn’t the priority be to determine when life begins PRIOR to killing millions of innocent lives??   The most conservative estimate would be Conception.

      Your argument is not based on logical reasoning, as if your are arguing that consciousness and awareness defines life, then someone who is sleeping or in a coma is no longer alive??

      • Samohtrotciv

        okay so what defines life then? what makes YOU right. Then is life based on strictly human matter? because if so, what about the millions of cells that die and fall off of you every day? what about all the other sperm cells in conception? what about all the eggs from menstruation? we have no right to deny those either. There are even problems with other definitions. Also, what makes the child innocent? according to the bible then the child would have the original sin, correct? so he wouldn’t be innocent until baptized? so, even using your amazing attempt at justifying your restriction of innocent citizens, you contradict yourself. 
        Personally, I would be VASTLY more tolerant of these pro life arguments if they presented facts, without insulting the people they are arguing against. And yes, I do know that this post is insulting, but quite frankly I think it is justified. Just in scrolling down to this post I saw at least ten personal attacks on those who share my beliefs, and even on Adam 7, who was only stating the information he has been presented and his interpretation of it. My point with this is that, yes my post could be insulting, but that didn’t help my argument did it? All that this does is make the other party more and more steeled against any facts you provide, prolonging the debate. This helps no one.

        • Bobbie

          I just wanted to say that I am in agreeance with you in regards to the personal attacks.  I am from the other side in that I’m prolife and I’ve experienced the same with being personally attacked when stating my opinion on different topics on the internet which is probably why I tend to not say anything at all.  I am sorry that not only you, but others have been attacked as well…it resolves nothing.  I love a good healthy discussion, especially when people of differing opinions can share their viewpoint and still show respect for each other.

        • Chukwudi

          Yes, they are insulting, simply because, diplomacy did not get their point across. Look repeating same things over and over again, without getting through to the listener can be frustrating, especially when you know ur view point is right. 
          This is not a matter of isolated logical arguments, with no real life consequence, but people, real people are dying because of this line of reasoning, and people feel hurt that it is done so easily, because of an errant view…… I am sorry for ur perceived hurt, but it is merely vocal and can go no deeper than the skin
          … For the children whose lives lie in the balance, they would really really wish these words where all they had to put up with, for no matter how bad life is, people generally want to live
          … In fact suicide rate is higher among the wealthy and the comfortable than the poor class, that you are trying to protect these children from. Don’t you know that poverty does increase peoples appreciation for life? Don’t you know that to the truly poor social structure means nothing, and getting by day to day is not just a struggle, but an adventure? 
          … Well, Mr Samohtrotciv, please I would urge you, leave the thorns in those arguments and focus on the sweet smelling roses; focus on them dying innocent Children, yes innocent I say, because the sin that is due them, they did not commit it themselves, so let them be given that opportunity to redeem themselves and if possible redeem others, because relatively whether u assent to it or not they are innocent…
          Thank you and God bless

        • SuperLogic

          Ok, you obviously skipped out on your high school biology lessons.    It
          isn’t life until the sperm fertilizes the egg.   That is when there is
          100% of the complete individual.   Nothing is ever added from that point
          on and is just a matter of growth. 

          Seriously? You are debating the definition of innocent, and whether an unborn child is “innocent”?   He’s definitely innocent enough to not warrant a death penalty!     There is absolutely no contradiction.  Your argument would mean we should all be put to death, as none of us are innocent.   Not sure what your point is on that one?!?!

          There is also a difference between a personal attack on an individual and “attacking” their argument.  As an example, I think you are most likely a great guy/gal, however with that being said, I think your arguments are deeply flawed.

    • Chukwudi

      Wow, consciousness = worth
      So knocking a man unconscious or druging a man makes murder less grievous right?
      Don’t answer that, I don’t need an answer bro, 
      Cheers

    • Adam7

      Apparently the only response most commenters here can give is to twist my use of the word “consciousness.” Nevermind that [I was not making those points to start a debate; I was merely giving background on my own view in order to emphasize other parts of my comment]. Starting any debate about those points at all only shows that you’ve completely missed the point of my comment. With that said, I’ll quickly address those misconceptions before getting back to why they were never even the point. @HarryLange:disqus and @a0931f06b169800a8ab560408d405987:disqus , a person who is asleep is still a “conscious being.” They are still either having experiences (e.g., dreams), or are at that very moment capable of having them. The same does not hold in any way for one of (http://www.advancedfertility.com/images/blastocyst-components.jpg) these clusters of cells. The more apt comparison is not with someone who is asleep, but with a dead body — we have a body, yes; but the “person,” the conscious being who once inhabited that body, is no longer there. In the same way that the “person” is no longer present in a dead body — and not just temporarily turned “off,” but literally not present whatsoever — so I say it is with zygotes and blastocysts, if not possibly even embryos up to some point (but here I would err for caution).@59be88f633ef94f83fcb284203c416f6:disqus clearly did not read my comment: anyone with grade school reading comprehension should realize that (1) my argument is that consciousness itself is just literally what a “person” is; and not their body, or anything else; (2) consciousness obviously does not appear at the moment of conception; and (3) I gave independent arguments against the suggestion that conception is the morally significant event anyway: namely, that having human DNA is neither necessary (cf. animals) nor sufficient (cf. cultured human cells) for moral significance. I’ll be glad to have a serious discussion about any of these points with anyone who understands my position and actually knows what they’re talking about, but I won’t labor to correct these childish misinterpretations as it isn’t now and wasn’t during the original comment my purpose to persuade anyone to this point of view. I think it is correct, but I could mostly care less if anyone agrees. I was only providing background on my own position for other purposes.With that out of the way, my actual point in commenting was: (1) to address a simple fallacy in the statement I quoted at the beginning of the comment, which no one responded to; and (2) to actually compliment the site by letting you know that even someone like myself who is pro–choice within very modest limits values a great deal of what you’re doing. It is incredibly dissapointing and frustrating that the response to this was to ignore point (1), and overlook point (2) in favor of making the most juvenile criticisms of a position I was merely explaining, not trying to sell to anyone; and which I am already thoroughly familiar with all the philosophical debates surrounding (in other words: your responses are all on par with objecting to the Kalam argument by saying that the premise “everything that exist has a cause” is question–begging since the Kalamist doesn’t want to apply it to God). This is not how to persuade someone to move closer to your side in a debate. 

      • Bakakurisu

         Here you go:
        _____________________
        Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic): “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

        Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School): “It
        is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at
        conception.”

        Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania): “I have learned
        from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of
        conception.”

        Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “the Father of Modern Genetics” (University of
        Descartes, Paris): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has
        taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of
        taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”
        ________________________
        What other tired, sophomoric, pedantic bumper sticker-rhetoric can I debunk for you today?

        • Adam7

          Obviously, they aren’t talking about consciousness, so this has nothing to do with my argument. Sure, the cells are dividing and they have DNA. I addressed that already. 

          I also explained that the point of my original comment was to explain my background in order to compliment the site, and not to start this argument. In reply, dozens of pompous commenters completely miss the point, take down red herrings, and then congratulate themselves in circles with ‘likes.’Good job losing a fan and a visitor, I guess. You’ve all proven that my initial estimation of the intelligence and compassion here, and attempt at compliment, was completely misguided. 

          Way to go.

          • Bakakurisu

             NO! WAIT! PLEASE!!! COME BAAAAAAAACK!!!!! WE NEEEEEED YOU!!!!!!

            *eyeroll*

            YOU have missed the point. I already pointed out the fundamental flaw in your “consciousness” problem; sentience and self-awareness doesn’t even begin until several months after birth, yet newborns are protected.

            Get over yourself. You’re NOT as smart as you have deluded yourself to believe.

          • Djushi

             I was hoping that first paragraph was sincere.

            Just so’s you know, that is *not* the way to encourage someone to engage in a helpful and possibly view-changing debate/discussion with you. Even I would shy from much discussion with you after that. And I’m a very talkative pro-lifer.
            Note: CAPS are generally considered rude over the net. Rolling your eyes at someone is considered rude in any circumstances.

            Please, even when you disagree with someone, be polite and … well, polite. :)

      • Chukwudi

        Adam I want not to apply for u to move closer, as though it was about just the logic of the thing. I want to apply more to ur conscience. You see for me conception, shows something is alive and growing. And as you did state consciousness(as in the fact it is living) doesn’t come up at conception, then pray do tell when does it? Because at that point it starts acting independently, taking from its host environment the nutrition it needs…
        … What we are saying to u, is not an attempt to insult u, sorry it comes out that way, but it is frustration that speaketh, but rather we are trying to tell you what we have said over and over again, life begins at the moment of conception, and no attribute of that human life should be used to deem it fit to die!!! That is all I/We are saying. Please Adam, Keep your eyes on the ball, forget our manner of presentation, Just see that child/those children being killed because of an attribute, without  taking into cognizance the fact that it is/ they are…Cheers and may God be with you

      • SuperLogic

        You made the argument that consciousness would be the determining factor, and spent most of your comment on that.  It doesn’t matter that YOU didn’t intend on that being your point, or your intention to start a debate or not.   This isn’t a classroom where you can state your opinions and not expect other people to respond to or criticize them when they disagree.  Especially when someone states a pro-abortion opinion on a pro-life site, it’s incredibly naive to not expect criticism of your comment. 

        Since as you state, you don’t know when consciousness begins, and we should be conservative in our estimates, then conservatively speaking that should be at conception.

    • Bakakurisu

       There IS a title for your position; it’s called “ignorant”.
      ___________________________
      Philosophically, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be. The simple acronym SLED can be used to illustrate these non-essential differences:

      Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more valuable than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

      Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that the immediate capacity for self-awareness and a desire to go on living makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Infants do not acquire distinct self-awareness and memory until several months after birth.[4] (Best case scenario, infants acquire limited self-awareness three months after birth, when the synapse connections increase from 56 trillion to 1,000 trillion.) As abortion advocate and philosopher Dean Stretton writes, “Any plausible pro-choice theory will have to deny newborns a full right to life. That’s counterintuitive.”[5]

      Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already valuable human beings, merely changing their location can’t make them so.

      Degree of Dependency: If viability bestows human value, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

      In short, although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal (and valuable) because they all have the same human nature.

      SLED test initially developed by Stephen Schwarz but modified significantly and explained here by Scott Klusendorf. Stephen Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990) pp. 17-18.
      __________________________________________
      If you support abortion’s legality, you are PRO-ABORTION.

      • Bakakurisu

         Also, no “estimate” needs to be made about when life begins. It’s already been determined.
        ________________________
        Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic): “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

        Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School): “It
        is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at
        conception.”

        Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania): “I have learned
        from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of
        conception.”

        Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “the Father of Modern Genetics” (University of
        Descartes, Paris): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has
        taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of
        taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”

        • Samohtrotciv

          Actually, I did research on these for a report over medicine in the womb. These sources are not written as an admission of life, but more-so in the context of “development”. meaning that the foundations for life ( or what will happen when the organism is alive) are determined in this period. Also, value here isn’t even relevant considering that is is an individually perceived construct, based upon situation at the time. Life is a universal issue, what right do we have to assign value to anything? If we do, it can only be applied from our own personal view, meaning that it is important to us. For example, parents value their own child more than the children of others. I value five dollars more than a glass of water, but if I was stranded in the desert I would want the water. Value is not set in stone, it is situational at best.

          • Chukwudi

            Then it should hold that if value is subjective, then I should be able to murder a man simply because I do not think him of much value…
            Samohtrotciv, ur logic is seriously flawed, value is neither situational nor subjective, human life is always always sacred 

    • JAE

      I find that we give the dead more rights and respect than the unborn. If you chop up a dead body and throw it away in a dump, you’re facing some serious charges. If you rip an unborn child from the womb, causing severe damage to it’s body, and dispose of it as medical waste…you receive a paycheck.

    • Elise77

      I don’t agree with you, but I understand where you’re coming from and I respect that you’ve given the issue real consideration. It at least means something that you don’t think sentient human beings should be brutally murdered prior to their births. Your last sentence seems to reaffirm that you “lean toward pro-life” at least. :) Your position is a whole lot more respectable than the pro-“choice” perspective that, even after all facts and reasoning and logic have been exhausted, boils down to “my body my choice”. Thanks for being willing to contribute to the dialogue! I hope you keep coming back. :)

    • Minxcomix

      {Adam7}”…the morally significant thing is consciousness.”
      So says Pete Singer too. He supports the destruction of human life in infancy, pre-toddlerhood (would that be “potential toddlers”?), about 3 or 4 yrs of age if they are not wanted by anyone. And even further out for those with mental disorders who never really achieve a ‘sense of self’…according to him, but maybe you would say different? So who should determine then? Who is Caeser with the thumb up or down?

  • Guest

    I’m a high school student, and I practice abstinence, and I would never, under any circumstance, get an abortion. I think it’s murder. But that’s my personal view. I would honestly like to know why it matters what other people do. I wouldn’t agree if someone I knew got an abortion, but why should I take her right to choose away?

    • Hovish13

      If you think that it is murder, but you are completely okay with other people going about having abortions, then there is something wrong with your moral compass. If you saw someone being beaten to death on the street, would you try to help them or at least call the police? Or would you walk by, saying it was the mugger’s “personal choice” to beat that person, and we shouldn’t interfere? No. If you truly believe abortion is murder you should be working to end it. That is the right thing to do..

    • SuperLogic

      That’s a pretty bizarre statement.   You think it’s murder, but it’s none of your business what other people do??   So, you are ok with it, when other people murder??   Would you be ok with it, if they murdered an infant in front of you?? As you don’t have a right to tell people what to do or not to do??

      Wow, bizarre sense of reasoning.

      • Samohtrotciv

        Wow, bizarre sense of reasoning SuperLogic? You can sit and judge people from afar and critique them with polarized situations? You see, no one said they wouldn’t stop murder, they said they aren’t going to go “Mission Impossible” with a coat hanger to stop it. How are you going to stop a murder if it happens miles away and you find out about it after it happens? 

        • SuperLogic

          Yes, you’re statements are bizarre.    You said “I think it’s murder, But,…. I honestly want to know why it matters what other people do.”  Umm… maybe because it’s MURDER??  Yes, murder is murder, no matter what the situation is, unless it’s self-defense.   Don’t think you could plead self defense for an abortion.  :oP   Does a murder that you don’t witness make it ok??   Murder is morally wrong, whether anyone witnesses it or not.   Again, not sure what your point is?!?

    • Chukwudi

      U can’t have a lamp and hide it…
      The good you experience you should share, so others would benefit, and in this case, live because of it…
      Imagine if Christ had kept all his good to himself, and worship the Father in utter silence, he would not have died on the Cross, and Christianity would never have taken root and also the abstinence u practice would not have made a whole lot of sense…
      U can never never practice virtue in isolation, if u do, u miss the point completely, do u ever ask yourself why Jesus’ parable used 5 wise Virgins and 5 stupid Virgins, and not just women? That was because he wanted to show that there are also wrong way of practicing ur faith. And one sure way of doing that is indifference to the evil perpetrated around u…
      Cheers

    • Lessenc1234

      The answer is in your own statement…because is “murder”.  A civilized society should not just stand by and accept or support the murder of an innocent child regarldless in whose womb the baby is in. 

    • TheMoreYouKnow

      You yourself just said, ” I would never, under any circumstances, get an abortion. I think it’s murder.” So, if it is not okay for you to murder. Why would it be okay for someone else to murder? Read the post from SuperLogic. You may find that interesting :) 

    • Elise77

      What is murder?
      If you say that it is the unjust killing of an innocent human being (or something along those lines) then how can you be ok with someone ELSE doing that?
      Are you ok with murder under OTHER circumstances?

      Let’s read your statement like this: “I would never get an abortion. I think it’s the unjust killing of an innocent human being. But that’s my personal view. Why should I take away someone else’s right to choose to unjustly kill an innocent human being?”

      Under what circumstances is it ok to rip apart the body of a helpless innocent living human being?

    • St_joanarc

       Because the abortion will have long term effects on her (after you get over the fact that abortion is legalized murder…). Despite everyone who praises it, women who have abortions are actually ashamed of what they have done (either immediately or some time down the road). If it is okay, then why feel shame?  The women go through PTSD which is not to be taken lightly. At it’s extreme, suicide attempts are common. I won’t even begin to get into the physical harm she would have a VERY good chance of experiencing in the process, possibly even her own death… It makes me sick to hear the stories so I try not to think about them too hard. :(

      • Samohtrotciv

        women who have children can get post pardom depression. Explain this. They are sad because they wonder what it would have been like to have a baby. 

        • Hovish13

          “Baby blues” are often in response to a change in social role as a result of childbirth, not caused by childbirth itself.

    • Samohtrotciv

      I’m in high school too, and yes, I also practice abstinence. I do not agree with your view. In spite of this, I applaud your view on the controversy! 

  • Kimberly Hamann

    I think that most pro-aborts believe in some magic “fairy dust” that makes the “potential” baby into a real one. Kinda like how life “magically” grew up out of a bunch of chemicals…

    • Singingmama

      I always laugh about the magical vagina.  What magic happens in my birth canal that makes a baby a human life all of the sudden?  They weren’t a baby, and then they were.  And my son was stuck in mine for a couple hours during labor, so what did that make him then?  Half-human, half clump of cells?  But the problem is, we know the arguments are illogical.  Science is on our side, but their argument is solely based on emotion.  You can’t really argue with that.  I think we must find a way to reach people’s hearts, not their minds.   

      • Hester Jones

        sorry what I said on the other article. I thought you were playing devil’s advocate or something. Good point.

  • SuperLogic

    Ever notice how those that
    support abortion do not like to be labelled Pro-Abortion?? “Pro-Choice”
    sounds so much nicer and cleaner. During one conversation with an
    individual I referred to him as Pro-Abortion and here was his response. –
    “I have absolutely never been pro-abortion, and that is a disingenuous
    thing to say. No one is pro-abortion, that’s just a demonization of
    views you don’t care to understand. This isn’t an American election, so
    there is no need to paint the opposition as something they’re not.” I
    responded that I find it very revealing that he considers it
    demonization to be associated with something that he supports. After
    all this isn’t about Choice, but WHAT that choice is. EVERYONE
    including Pro-Lifers love choice, but this isn’t about which shirt to
    wear, or what to have for lunch. If someone thinks it is ok to hit a
    women, or ok to steal, do we label that as “Pro-Choice” as well??

    • Samohtrotciv

      First of all, you are arguing over semantics, not the real issue here. Second, pro-choice is not the same thing as pro-abortion. It means that the person has a chance to decide whether or not the operation is right for their situation, whereas pro-life would remove that option. This removes a “choice”. Also, if we are going to consider this logic as an overall truth, then I could say the same thing holds for pro-life as a title. I could call pro-life “pro-government” control. The quote is not saying that he considers pro choice demonizing, but that it has been misconstrued into something of that variety when it really isn’t. Besides this, what does domestic abuse or theft have to do with this situation? This is exactly the opposite. Are pro-life proponents “pro rape”? What if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, but she cannot receive an abortion? Even when looking at this from a religious stand point you could point that god would be the final judge of anyone who got an abortion, meaning that by trying to deal with an issue of life yourself, you are playing god. This means that those who do it will receive justice anyway if it is wrong, and if it isn’t then this whole dispute is null. This logic invalidates any religious justification from both parties argument. (Also, I am not under the assumption that you are a religious person, however this is a common argument for pro-life)

      • ApologeticJedi

        When a woman has been victimized by rape or incest it is a bad time to take advantage of her mental state and suggest actions that will cause her more pain or regret later on. Killing the child will not magically heal the pain and suggesting such only builds victims up for a fall. A daughter is not the same as her father and promoting the connection only exacerbates a bad viewpoint. The most beneficial argument for a rape victim is to maintain the boundaries in life that are universal constants. Doing right by the child gives the added benefit of creating an assuring boundaries for the victim during a confusing time.  

        • guest

           I’m sorry, but as person who became pregnant as the result of rape I can say absolutely that your post is utter nonsense. Yes, after a rape is horrible time to take advantage of women’s (or girl’s) mental state–by suggesting she CARRY HER RAPIST’S BABY to term. How cruel can that be? To suggest that a rape victim not be allowed the option of an abortion is inexcusable. Really.

          • ApologeticJedi

            You assert that not killing an unborn child is somehow cruel, yet give no justification for such a knee-jerk plea.

            I assert that suggesting we should execute a child for the crimes of her father is an unhealthy state of mind. My feeling is that this is not hard to establish. Speaking of a health frame of mind, one should easily be able to distinguish between two people distinct from one another. Killing someone because of who their ancestors are is irrational and definitely not a state of mental balance. You pretending tha killing the child is likened to some magic pill that will fix the rape is equally ludicrous. There is no valid reason to abort in the case of rape when many other options are available. Murderers are often bad problem solvers.

            I find your notion that it is cruel to be baseless. I realize you assert it, but there is no justification that I can find for your assertio

          • thistle

            Offspring of rape mainly live in one parent households in poverty and near low life conditions. These are the fields used by homosexuals when looking for prey–most homosexuals will tell you they were forcibly initiated at a young age. If this isn’t enough cruelty for you I don’t know what is.
            Preventing someone from having such an abortion to improve their situation is callous and ignorant…qualities communists are fond of in their followers.

          • bakakurisu

            What are you prattling on about? What do homosexuals and communists have to do with anything, you loon?

            Abortion kills a living human being. Period.

            Your crackpot homophobic conspiracies are irrelevant.

      • guest

        It IS an issue of semantics. We are not animals, we have an ability to reason and feel way above the levels of any mammal. But, sadly, even animals do not kill their own young unless in severe issues of hunger or survival. Funny how nature tells us a simple truth and yet we try to over-rationalize the situation. When a woman chooses to abort her child, she chooses to be a murderer. Many women after their opperations have severe depression and guilt because they KNOW this. Sure, pro-choice should not exactly be called pro-abortion, because no one but a cold blooded killer would think that ripping a baby limb from limb is a good thing to do. I do, however, agree with the article. If you are pro-choice for one unnatural, disgusting “right”, then you should be for all. Otherwise, the reasoning in your logic is extremely flawed. You can’t have it both ways. I am intrigued how you think religion invalidates pro-life, though. If  God creates a plan for every person individually, then why would he ever approve of one of his children being killed before his plan could even begin? See, religion tells us that God grants free will, so we can still do things he does not agree with. I am still quite unsure about your stance, since you just disproved basically both view points. As far as the government goes, if they regulate crime, then abortion is within their control, in my opinion. In the justice system, if a woman is pregnant and murdered (even at the earliest stages of pregnancy) the person responsible for the crime is charged with two counts of murder, not just one. My last qualm with pro-choice: what about the father’s choice? Sure, it’s not his body that is changing, but the baby inside of his partner is just as much his as hers. If you really want a fair world, then the father should consent for the abortion as well.

        • guest

           You talk about nature tells simple truths. In nature mother animals (of many varieties) leave a newborn to die if the newborn is physically deformed in some way. In nature animals that are sick are shunned by their kind because they are a liability to the survival of the whole. Do you really want to look to nature to make your points?

          What about the father’s choice? He had a choice not to have sex in the first place. It is immoral to suggest he has a right to FORCE a woman to go through labor and delivery, no matter what price she pays.

          • thistle

            One parent does not have the right to force the other parent to have a child against their wishes.

            The father cannot force a woman to carry a pregnancy and a woman cannot get pregnant against the wish of the father.

            A child is not a pair of shoes. You CANNOT FORCE any kind of real loving care, for a lifetime, for a child, by one of the (future) parents who does not want the child, (be they father or mother).

            It is immoral to pretend you care about the father’s opinion under the ruse of equality or fairness, when what you are looking for is not the child’s next 20 plus years of care/welfare but to weasel in no abortion.

          • thistle

            One parent does not have the right to force the other parent to have a child against their wishes.

            The father cannot force a woman to carry a pregnancy and a woman cannot get pregnant against the wish of the father.

            A child is not a pair of shoes. You CANNOT FORCE any kind of real loving care, for a lifetime, for a child, by one of the (future) parents who does not want the child, (be they father or mother).

            It is immoral to pretend you care about the father’s opinion under the ruse of equality or fairness, when what you are looking for is not the child’s next 20 plus years of care/welfare but to weasel in no abortion.

          • bakakurisu

            Hey… Retard… Why don’t you pay attention to what is being said?

            A woman CAN force a man into parenthood; she can slap him with a paternity suit and garnish his wages until the child is 21.

            What you are looking for is not “equality”, “freedom of choice”, or “care about our system”, but to weasel a holocaust.

          • bakakurisu

            Hey… Retard… Why don’t you pay attention to what is being said?

            A woman CAN force a man into parenthood; she can slap him with a paternity suit and garnish his wages until the child is 21.

            What you are looking for is not “equality”, “freedom of choice”, or “care about our system”, but to weasel a holocaust.

          • bakakurisu

            Hey… Retard… Why don’t you pay attention to what is being said?

            A woman CAN force a man into parenthood; she can slap him with a paternity suit and garnish his wages until the child is 21.

            What you are looking for is not “equality”, “freedom of choice”, or “care about our system”, but to weasel a holocaust.

          • bakakurisu

            Hey… Retard… Why don’t you pay attention to what is being said?

            A woman CAN force a man into parenthood; she can slap him with a paternity suit and garnish his wages until the child is 21.

            What you are looking for is not “equality”, “freedom of choice”, or “care about our system”, but to weasel a holocaust.

      • SuperLogic

        Actually, the individual who I referred to as Pro-Abortion is the one that is arguing over semantics, as are you.  However your argument is not valid.   Again, the label Pro-CHOICE is ridiculous as it is not about CHOICE, but what that Choice is.   Are you anti-choice because you don’t agree with the right to murder, steal, rape, etc, etc.  No, this is ONLY about the right to abort a baby, nothing else.   And, no you can’t call it “Pro-government control, because that would also imply a government control over everything.   And again, that’s not what it is about, it’s specifically about the right to kill an unborn baby.  You could accurately label a Pro-Life individual as Anti-Abortion.   That’s exactly the point, is that he doesn’t consider the term “pro-choice” demonizing, but the term Pro-ABORTION demonizing.    Your logic lacks any sort of reasoning, by your argument, anyone would would label anything from murder, to rape, to theft as wrong is Anti-Choice and is playing God.   That’s absolutely ridiculous!   By that standard, since you say others can not say abortion is wrong, you forfeit the right to call absolutely anything else as wrong, as that would be hypocrisy.

      • macatcas

        You have missed the boat entirely. The parallel between abortion and any act that society views as a criminal assault against another person is what SuperLogic is making here. We do not have the freedom to choose a violent act that will kill or harm another person. Period. What pro-lifers are saying is that abortion is not a choice, it is a barbarous convenience for people who will not recognize the humanity of the unborn. We cannot judge the soul of the person who commits a crime, we can only judge the act itself. If it is an innately violent act, we must acknowledge that. You are busy considering apples and oranges. Stick to the topic.

      • guest

         Thank you, Samohtrotciv. The anit-choice people just don’t get these things.

  • Oklahomaprincess07

    these feminists love abortion so much, yet they do not realize planned parenthood is as anti women as u can get. they support sex trafficking and pimps, offering to do abortions and keep hush hush so no one can break up their biz by rescuing the women they exploit. They are so blind, that they are all against Christianity but support other religions that say beating women is fine, as well as raping them. Sad world we live in. Abortion is used for mass gendercide in china and other countries as well, people killing off female babies like its nothing, in favor of males. Let the feminists chew on that.

    • Life Action Fan

      You are right; but in all fairness, the concept of Feminism is being high-jacked by people who profit from performing abortions.  Abortion has nothing to do with Feminism; the association is merely propaganda.  Many women who are ignorant of the basics of biology are easily misled and exploited by pro-abortion slogans and politics.  The pro-abortion lobby is so fierce, they fight attempts to educate anyone on the early stages of human life.  When life begins is scientific fact, not a gray area.  It has nothing to do with religion, morality or personal beliefs.  Feminists For Life is proof that wise women know this.

  • Lessenc1234

    Life begins at conception…period.  The Mayo clinic states that a heartbeat is present at 5 weeks.  It is in the interest of pro-abortion folks to de-humanize the fetus so they can accept and defend the act of murder.  Our society does to unborn humans what we would not do to animals.  If your dog or cat showed up pregnant would anyone’s instict be to perform an abortion on this animal? after all is your animal and the puppies and kittens are unwanted.  Liberals are more conerned with saving trees and wetlands than human life…so who are the nuts again?

    • 12angry_men

      You can’t really compare humans and animals. By doing so I can then make the comparison that animals are put to sleep when they get too ill, or when there are too many of them, while people are not.

      • Sorceress2000

        “animals are put to sleep when they get too ill, or when there are too many of them, while people are not.”  
        Well, that is the direction things are going:  many who believe the world is overpopulated view abortion as a solution to reduce growth and also support the idea of euthanasia/assisted suicide for the elderly and terminally ill.

      • Elise77

        I think you’re kind of missing the point.
        The point of the comparison was that animals are protected from inhumane death, whereas human beings who happen to be tiny, helpless, and dependent (through no fault of their own) can legally be literally ripped limb from limb.
        You may not have realized this, but you’re actually kind of arguing Lessenc1234’s point…

      • guest

         Not yet anyway.

    • 12angry_men

      We also eat animals, and I don’t know about you but I’ve never eaten a person.

      • Chitay Andrew

         i have.. but its still not to kill babies

        • Chitay Andrew

          *cool

    • Jordan

      Meanwhile conservatives are abolutely concerned about you right up till the moment you’re born.  No abortion!  No abortion!  But then as soon as you’re born, no WIC, no child care, no health care, no preschool, no public school, no after school programs…  Conservatives don’t want you again until you’re military age.  As George Carlin once pointed out “If you’re a preborn, you’re fine; if you’re in preschool, you’re fucked.”

      • bakakurisu

        So…. Killing a child is OK, but not giving them enough handouts to get an XBox 360 for Christmas is a heinous crime?

        REALLY?

  • Janadahill

    i do not understand people who get an abortion. unless having a baby is severely life threatening for someone  then, honestly why should it be an option? seriously i think that abortion is so selfish, women get abortions because it is convenient for THEM. and just like the article says, a baby is human human being that possesses all of the characteristics that people outside of the body do. so with that being said, im against abortion.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Audra-Williams/1663008846 Audra Williams

      i am against abortion for any and every reason.  it is never medically necessary to have an abortion to save the life of the mother.  let’s say i have cancer, and the baby may die if i have chemo.  ok, the baby MAY die, which is sad.  if i have an abortion, the baby WILL die, not a chance at all it will live.  why not let it have the chance?  and if my baby was going to die anyway because it had some sort of handicap or condition that would cause him/her to have a short life?  so be it!  none of us are guaranteed long lives, healthy or not.  i would enjoy every second i had with my sweet, innocent, handicapped child.  if i were raped, i still wouldn’t have an abortion.  this makes NO sense to me.  someone violated me because of their CHOICE to do what they wanted with THEIR body, so i’m going to violate my child because of my choice to do what i want with mine?  NO!  i am not going to put my child to death for a crime that his/her father committed!  now, with all that being said, i am NOT judgmental.  i can sympathize with women in these types of situations.  i can even sympathize with a woman who has an abortion simply because she doesn’t want a child.  i can sympathize with a woman who kills her abusive husband too.  i can sympathize, but it still isn’t right.  there is always a better way than to choose death, especially when you are talking about someone as innocent as an unborn child.

      • guest

         if you really found yourself in the position of being pregnant with your rapist’s child, you might feel differently.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Audra-Williams/1663008846 Audra Williams

          you know, i might FEEL differently, but i KNOW that i wouldn’t act on my feelings.  i would act on my knowledge that the child is MINE, and the child is innocent.  i know me, and i know that i would not kill an innocent child.  i don’t know if i would keep the child or not, but i do know i would not kill it.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/Q47VZ6OIYCJJXWBQ4MOVDZTVJM Amanda

         If you really found yourself in the position, as some women do, of facing permanent organ damage or a ruptured uterus, or an ectopic pregnancy, you might feel differently. And if your pro-life convictions were consistent, you would NOT sympathize with a woman who has an abortion because she doesn’t want a child because you would believe that she is a murderer.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Audra-Williams/1663008846 Audra Williams

          first of all, if i were facing a ruptured uterus or an ectopic pregnancy, i never said i would not treat the problem.  if treating the problem inadvertently killed the child, that would not be the same as having an abortion, which is directly and purposely killing the child.  and who says i can’t sympathize with a murderer? 

  • rouge1

    It’s kinda like saying, “I can drink and drive if I want to, and NO ONE should be able to tell me otherwise.  It’s my CHOICE!”

    • Bakakurisu

       That’s what I always say!
      “MY body, MY car, MY booze, MY choice! To hell with the people that I hurt; I want to do something that pleases ME!”

      • Chukwudi

        And that my friend is selfishness to the core…
        Sad I tell you

  • Live Action Fan

    A friend with a son told me that she was originally carrying twins, but one of them didn’t make it.  I asked if she had miscarried into the toilet or something.  She said it must have just re-absorbed into her body. I couldn’t bear to tell her how absurd that notion is.  Unfertilized eggs re-absorb into your body.  Fertilized embryos are not your body.

    • Samohtrotciv

      no unfertilized eggs are sent out through menstruation, embryos are absorbed for nutrients. Also I heard a joke too:
      “Hey, if god had his own son killed for our sins, doesn’t that mean he got a late term abortion?”

      • Olaler

        That goes along with a theory of mine- those that support abortion may reap what they sow, eventually- when they aren’t productive anymore, inconvenient, and the family just can’t afford them anymore- they may be aborted. Remember Clinton talking about people with a poor quality of life not needing attention?

  • Live Action Fan

    I sent a joke to a co-worker showing a baby chic
    screaming at a scrambled egg, “Is that you Fred?!”  She said it made her
    feel so bad that she wanted to become a vegetarian.  I said, “A scrambled
    egg is just an egg that didn’t get fertilized.  Whereas an embryo is an
    egg that has been fertilized and become a genetically distinct
    creature.  What’s the big deal about an egg, when you probably support abortion?”  She was like, “Oh that, yeah, of
    course.”

  • Whoru2judge

    Apparently none of you have ever had to deal with having to make the choice. I haven’t myself but I watched my best friend have to make the choice because the baby had a very rare heart illness that the doctors cant guarantee the 4open heart surgeries it would require from 1 week old could cure it. And even with those being successful the oldest recorded life with this illness was 20yrs. Would you want to bring a child into this world with an expiration date?? And what would you do if you your mom sister daughter cousin was rapped and got pregnant? You would forbid her from terminating the pregnancy? What about all the drug addict women that sell their body’s? You would much rather these women bring drug addicted babies into the world? Children they can’t take care of? Yes the women should take precautions but they don’t. Noone can stop that. So these poor children now live with addict mom who also is a whore and can’t take care of her children? More kids for the foster system right? There are already too many children that don’t get adopted! Why continue to fill orphanages and foster homes that are already packed? And yes there are women who use it as a form of birth control and that’s disgusting! No, abortion isn’t something every woman can do or even live with herself for doing but that doesn’t mean you have any right for judging someone who already had to make such a hard choice!

    • Bakakurisu

       Oh, GEEZ… Cry me a river!
      Do you really think this is the first time we’ve heard this tired rhetoric and hyperbole? You want us to take sympathy on the very few women faced with tough “choices”, but you show NO sympathy towards the 1.2 million children that are being slaughtered by “doctors” at their own mothers’ requests.

      “Hard Cases” represent less than 2% of all abortions in the country. Should we be allowed to murder any adult because SOMETIMES murdering adults is done in self-defense?

      Over a million children are slaughtered every year, but you say it’s OK because they MIGHT have a less-than-perfect life? We advocates of life believe that life is the RIGHT of EVERY human being; not a PRIVILEGE for the fortunate, the planned, and the perfect.

      • Whoru2judge

        So let me get this straight!?!? You would much rather the women who know they can’t take care of there children still give birth to them and have them starve cuz mom can’t afford to feed them? Or abuse them because mom doesn’t know how to take care of it?? Again that’s putting more people at the poverty level and assisting in more and more people getting on and abusing government assistance. Or allowing more and more children to be abandoned and left because mom didn’t want it. And because the government wants to say a woman can’t choose to abort the pregnancy that happened on accident.

        • Chukwudi

          Nobody is judging, we r just stating a fact, MURDER IS VERY VERY VERY INTRINSICALLY WRONG….
          We state this despite the fact that the person murdered might have being very wicked, or might have done other great evils etc. All these are irrelevant to the fact that murder is wrong…
          Two wrongs don’t make a right, you get pregnant when you are not ready, carry it to term, and trust in God to see you and your kids through them trying periods, don’t play God…

      • Samohtrotciv

        okay, so you want to violate the rights of those having the babies by eliminating their freedom of choice? congratulations. especially because in violating their rights you hurt everyone around them, hurting even more people.

    • SuperLogic

       So, we should bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, and match the morality of the druggies, pimps, and prostitutes??   Do their “sins” give us the right to do wrong as well?? 

      Maybe you should ask someone that has been born with a life expectancy of 20 years if they wish they’d never been born?   So, instead of living 20 years, you want to kill them at ZERO years?  

      The thing is, you always get so many arguing about rape victims, and drug addicts, etc, when abortions due to rape account for 1%, and health issues 6%.   Thats a full 93% of abortions that are just birth control.

      “That doesn’t mean you have any right for judging someone who already had to make such a hard choice!”   So, by that reasoning, if life gets difficult for a single mother of an infant, we have no right to say it’s wrong to kill her infant??  If an unborn child is a baby, which science says it is, convenience is no excuse to kill it.

    • ApologeticJedi

      So your child won’t live 20 years, so kill him even earlier? Good example of why we say murderers are bad problem solvers. 

      Yes, we have a child with hypo-plastic left heart and has gone through 3 surgeries and likely will still need a heart transplant (there is no such thing as an expiration date of 20 years). He was ALREADY brought into the world (or do you think the womb exists outside space and time), so we did right by him and did not kill him. Who knows what will happen when he was older. 

      • Djushi

         That’s a good line, actually. ‘Does the womb exist ouside of space and time?’
        Thanks for that phrase … I think I’ll use it somewhere :D
        God bless you and your boy! I hope he’s an amazing man ‘when he’s older’.

  • olaler

    The father and baby are given no choice- even though he’s given the responsibility if the mother keeps it. This should probably be taken to court- no responsibility without  the privilege of custody.  

    • guest

       If men don’t want to be fathers they shouldn’t have sex. Whether or not a woman wants to continue a pregnancy is her choice.

      Women don’t have a choice about having to be the one to endure the risk and pain, etc or child birth, and men don’t get to choose whether or not the baby is born. Just the way it is.

      • Olaler

        So, by your logic, then if women don’t want to be mothers, they shouldn’t have sex, either- right? Men also don’t have a choice about whether to support the baby. As far as risk- we’re finding out abortion has far more implications on the health of the mother- not just mentally. Some things need to change for the better – the way it should be. Society is getting better about giving men more equal custody rights, though.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jeep.obsessed Brooke Mehr

          You took the words right out of my mouth.
          “Then if women don’t want to be mothers, they shouldn’t have sex, either.”

          It takes two to tango. Wouldn’t it be so nice if adults today would learn responsibility and know that having sex leads to children. If you know that you aren’t ready to be a mother/father, maybe you shouldn’t be engaging in the act that creates children. It is simple choice and adult responsibility.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/Q47VZ6OIYCJJXWBQ4MOVDZTVJM Amanda

       The reason for this is simple. It’s not the father’s body that has to support that new life for 9 months. Giving the father veto power implies a kind of ownership over the woman’s body, which is incompatible with a free and democratic society.

      • ApologeticJedi

        Ironic since it is the child’s arms and legs being torn off. 

      • Olaler

        Not the body, the pro-creation. If he has no ownership of it, he shouldn’t be given the responsibility of it.

  • Zmmeyer

    I think, not only should we kill the babies, but we should also eat the. They make a fine sauce, really. 

    • Zmmeyer

      My recipe:

      A cup of ground garlic
      2 cups of tomato sauce
      2 1/2 cups of dead baby
      a teaspoon of pesto
      and a dash of onions.

      Goes great with spaghetti.

    • Pro Life for life 997

      THAT IS HORRIBLE! it makes so much waste, why not go all “silence of the lambs” with it? or even haggis!

  • Delanci123

    If a woman was not allowed to have an abortion then she would have two options; Adoption or parenting. Say she was a victim of incest and she chose parenting. She has to be reminded of her trauma every day. The child will more than likely have some sort of birth defect. She would never be able to heal completely or love her child. The child would grow up with severe mental problems since his grandpa is also his father. Tell me how this is the better choice?! Lets say she went with adoption. There are 500,000 children in foster homes since there are more children for adoption than there are adopters. This number would only increase if abortions were outlawed.  These children will be more likely to suffer from depression, PTSD, ADHD, and anxiety. Only 15% of foster kids will attend college and an even lower percentage will graduate with a degree. 51% will remain unemployed and will end up on welfare and they will spawn children that also have to be taken care of on welfare and they will suffer too. Most of them will end up criminals. That life that you fought to make the mother keep could be the criminal robbing your neighbors, a rapist, or a murderer. Then they end up in prison and we support them. What if the mother has severe medical problems that prevent her from safely giving birth. Would you force this mother to keep the baby and risk her life and the babies?  Taking away a woman’s choice would do more damage than you could imagine!

    • guest

       THANK YOU for your sanity!

  • thistle

    To choose to be pro lie is to be pro communist/fascist by eliminating any choice of abortion whatsoever and forcing pregnancy by rape on women.

  • thistle

    To choose to be pro lie is to be pro communist/fascist by eliminating any choice of abortion whatsoever and forcing pregnancy by rape on women.

    • Guest

      Hey… Retard… You don’t know what communism or fascism are.

      Killing someone takes away entire lifetimes of choices.

      Give up. You lost. :)

    • bakakurisu

      Hey… Retard… You don’t know what communism or fascism are.

      Killing someone takes away entire lifetimes of choices. The pro-life side is not forcing anything at all. YOU are forcing death onto innocent children.

      Give up. You lost. :)