[color="#006600"][b]Since we don't get any womens opinions of abortion on here .... I figured I would post this message written by a woman blogger, that has been circulating .... Feel free to add your thoughts .... [/b] [/color]



[u][size=4][quote]The World Needs More Dakotans
by Nina Burleigh [img]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/nina-burleigh/headshot.jpg[/img][/size][/u]


The world needs, apparently, more Dakotans. Thanks to yesterday's signing of what's billed as the most sweeping anti-abortion law in the nation, women in South Dakota could soon get the honor of bringing more of them forth, whether they want to or not.

What is it about South Dakota that makes men want so badly to breed?

Is the loneliness of the prairie and the vast dirt emptiness of the Black Hills so profoundly affecting that only the idea of more brand-new babies can relieve it? Shouldn't the state's lawmakers be more worried about how to improve things for their already-born residents, who find the land is so ungenerous, the place so jobless, that they are moving away faster than they can be replaced? Is forcing their females into unwanted motherhood the best solution they can come up with in the face of what the social scientists call long-term economic stress?

These are questions that Governor Michael Rounds did not bother to ponder when he signed the bill into law, mouthing predictable Christian radio platitudes about how "unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society."

What Rounds really wanted to do, of course, was congratulate himself and the legislature for helping make South Dakota the state that gives Alito and Roberts the chance to show their stuff and really, truly thank Focus on the Family for their lifetime jobs. With a stroke of the pen, Rounds ensured that the state of South Dakota will now waste millions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars defending their statute, in the hopes of getting a favorable hearing from Alito and Roberts and thereby winning the moral jackpot for all eternity.

The last time I was in the Dakota territories, I was following Pat Buchanan in his whirlwind campaign for president. Wheels down, briefly, in Rapid City airport, 1996. Pat was on a roll, having just pulled off a shocking win in New Hampshire, and his stump speech - anti-abortion, pro-gun - had earned him the nickname "Lock and Load" after his signature, crowd-pleasing closing line.

By the time we reached Rapid City on that raw, late winter afternoon, we'd been in four or five states and three different climate zones in something like 24 hours. My trained-observer faculties were a little jagged, I must admit. I am pretty sure though that what I witnessed at that airport was real and not a hallucination provoked by sleep deprivation and sensory overload.

We stumbled off the plane and were met at the gate by a small but vocal, flag-waving crowd of Pat's people: American Gothic-styled, grim-faced men in blue overalls flanked by pairs or trios of women in long floral dresses, a local polygamist sect, apparently. They wouldn't be interviewed but I couldn't take my eyes off the females. These glaze-eyed, pod-women had been allowed to make the trip to the airport that afternoon to see and hear Pat, in what was surely their only voyage off the dirt vista of the frozen American steppe since their last trip to the hospital delivery room.

According to the New York Times, there is only one single abortion clinic left in South Dakota anyway, in Sioux Falls, a city on the Missouri River across from Iowa. About 800 women a year get abortions there. Those women represent the tiniest percentage of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies in the state of South Dakota. The rest don't even bother to try to find a doctor who will help them. They just get with the Graco program.

"This is our time," crowed South Dakota legislator Roger Hunt, who sponsored the bill that would make felons of doctors who perform abortions in any case except where the life of the pregnant woman was in jeopardy.

I don't think I'm alone in wanting to debate Mr. Hunt on the definitions of "life" and "jeopardy." Mr Hunt: Having an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy on the vacant flats of South Dakota with no job, no meaningful purpose in life, and no way out would seem to me to put a "life" in "jeopardy."

I know there are organizations in New York City that already house women from states where abortion clinics are few and far between. If the United States Supreme Court picks up the Dakota gauntlet and puts the United States back on equal footing with Catholic Ireland and Taliban Afghanistan, so that states are allowed to criminalize what we now consider a right, I'll put the first $100 into a fund that for starters, would buy the dwindling number of women in South Dakota plane tickets to states that may still respect their rights. I welcome the advice of the financially savvy to set this up.[/quote]

[color="#000099"][b]another great blog message about the issue of abortion in North Dakota [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [/b] [/color]


[size=4][u][quote]Those Faces are Smiling on Mount Rushmore Tonight
Robert J. Elisberg[img]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/robert-j-elisberg/headshot.jpg[/img][/u][/size]

"The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them." -- Gov. Michael Rounds, R-South Dakota

While to some, the actions of Republican lawmakers in South Dakota banning most abortions may seem oddly and perversely hateful, such unwarranted outrage is missing a larger and, I am happy to say, extremely encouraging issue.


What I find remarkably hopeful in Governor Rounds’s statement is to discover that South Dakota Republicans have finally grasped the concept of actually protecting vulnerable and helpless members in our society. Who knew?!! For far too long, Liberals everywhere have painted Conservatives as being heartless, cold and uncaring about the underprivileged, but how unfair. For here is a group of Republican officials willing to take a progressive stand and say, “No! We have seen the light! We are finally for protecting the most vulnerable and the most helpless!” Bravo, I say. Bravo, Governor Michael Rounds and his Republican nobles. A new champion for the destitute is come.

Taking the extraordinary governor at his word, certain that there isn’t a hypocritical bone in his entire being – for no open-hearted man devoted to protecting the most vulnerable and most helpless in our society could be anything but upstandingly honest – I look forward now, as should we all, to the bounty of new progressive legislation coming from South Dakota on behalf of the poor, the homeless, all minorities, the elderly, gays and lesbians, the handicapped, those without health insurance, anyone suffering religious prejudice, the undereducated and women everywhere (provided they’re not pregnant or have the ability to ever become pregnant. Or were at some point in their lives or could have been pregnant).

Admit it, you never thought a state like South Dakota could be so progressive. But we have the governor’s word. He is on the record in defense of the most vulnerable and most helpless in our society. Happy days are here again.

The disenfranchised of America have a new home, and thy name is South Dakota. The underclass will begin pouring into the state. No longer will San Francisco be the lightning rod that attracts all those in need; from this day forth they will leave their heart in South Dakota. Power to the people. We shall overcome. Brother, can you spare a shelter?

To be clear, there are a few skeptics who argue that unborn children are actually the most protected and most helped members of society. After all, they don’t have to eat, think or breathe for themselves, or twiddle their thumbs (provided they had thumbs), just lounge inside a warm, comfortable environment and let their host mother unit do everything for them. But such skeptics are in the minority – which actually qualifies them for assistance under the South Dakota Vulnerable and Helpless Act.

(There is just one admittedly-troubling question: Why does Governor Rounds refer to only unborn children? Who knows what they will become once they actually are born and become human beings? Why presume that these unborn will only grow up to be children? What about all those unborn teenagers and unborn adults out there? Aren’t they allowed the same protections? I say yes.)

In the end, the profound good that will come from this proposed law by South Dakota Republicans dismissing all the women of the state should not be overlooked. After all, the great benefits from the progressive action on behalf of all those who are vulnerable and all who are helpless – not just for the unborn, non-existent residents – will help lead the way for greater compassion and concern for the needy everywhere in the United States.

Except New Orleans.[/quote]

You marginalize yourself, BJ, by the way you prefer to deliver your message.

We all know what the intended purpose of this SD law is - it's so it can be challenged in court, over and over again, and ultimately go on to the SCOTUS.

Hell, there are pro-life (or, anti-abortion) groups lining up asking to pay the state's legal fees so that they can say they had a part in doing this.

What you could do, to really bring a women's perspective to GB.com, is to post multiple articles or blogs, from both sides. We all know that you care not about the costs of bandwith, so that's not the barrier. There is plenty of text out there from both sides. If your goal is to bring a woman's words, then do so.

If you want to bring BJ w/tit's words, then save us. We've heard them all before.

[quote name='Kool Keith' post='227559' date='Mar 7 2006, 11:50 PM']You marginalize yourself, BJ, by the way you prefer to deliver your message.

We all know what the intended purpose of this SD law is - it's so it can be challenged in court, over and over again, and ultimately go on to the SCOTUS.

Hell, there are pro-life (or, anti-abortion) groups lining up asking to pay the state's legal fees so that they can say they had a part in doing this.

What you could do, to really bring a women's perspective to GB.com, is to post multiple articles or blogs, from both sides. We all know that you care not about the costs of bandwith, so that's not the barrier. There is plenty of text out there from both sides. If your goal is to bring a woman's words, then do so.

If you want to bring BJ w/tit's words, then save us. We've heard them all before.[/quote]


[b]Keith .... I didn't know someone was stopping you from including womens words that you deem appropriate .... I love how the pro Bush crew complains about the anti Bush material (not realizing that Pro Bush material is an oxymoron) but yet don't post some of the things that they think he is doing well ....


Have you ever stopped to think that the reason why it always seems like Bush is constantly fucking up .... is because "He is"

and sadly you and others who mean well are too tribalistic in your support that you are going to sit and whistle as he destroys the entire foundation that this nation has built up over centuries .... [/b]



[color="#990000"]also I think some of the pro bush guys are afraid to actually post some of the crap that Rush recommends ... because they know that once us guys who have actually graduated Middle school read it .... we will laugh our ass off [/color]

The only Bush in this thread should be one thats between a womans legs.

I criticise where I feel appropriate, when I feel appropriate. No one is safe from my commentary, like it means much. That includes the POTUS.

Also, to tie in another thread... please try to keep some kind of a running summation in your head. I've said repeatedly that I don't listen to Rush.

Actually, now that I recall my memory, I'm not sure that any of our posters in the J&D forum have ever claimed to be Rush listeners. I've never heard him on the radio in Cincy before, and I listen to AM radio exclusively (although it's mostly 700 WLW and 1360 Homer).

So, what was that you were saying about abortion again?

[quote name='Kool Keith' post='227577' date='Mar 8 2006, 12:24 AM']The only Bush in this thread should be one thats between a womans legs.

I criticise where I feel appropriate, when I feel appropriate. No one is safe from my commentary, like it means much. That includes the POTUS.

Also, to tie in another thread... please try to keep some kind of a running summation in your head. I've said repeatedly that I don't listen to Rush.

Actually, now that I recall my memory, I'm not sure that any of our posters in the J&D forum have ever claimed to be Rush listeners. I've never heard him on the radio in Cincy before, and I listen to AM radio exclusively (although it's mostly 700 WLW and 1360 Homer).

So, what was that you were saying about abortion again?[/quote]


[b]Keith .... "Rush" is a encompassing metaphor .... for all of the reactionary talking parrots who have their uneducated heads up their asses (Coulter, Malkin, Savage, O'reilly, Hannity, Cavuto etc etc etc)

and "Bush" in the above instance was used as a way to symbolize all of the Ideas that his loyal congregation usually adhere too ....


so go ahead and give us some anti abortion in the case of rape essays .... because that is what this law does [/b]

Let me put my BJ hat on for a minute, and play shock-poster.
[center]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -[/center]

[center][img]http://stream.hoosier.net/natoa2000/knight.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]
[b][size=5]"I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."[/size][/b][/center]


How was that for a BJ style shock post?

[quote name='Kool Keith' post='227587' date='Mar 8 2006, 12:52 AM']Let me put my BJ hat on for a minute, and play shock-poster.
[center]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -[/center]

[center][img]http://stream.hoosier.net/natoa2000/knight.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]
[b][size=5]"I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."[/size][/b][/center]


How was that for a BJ style shock post?[/quote]


[color="#993300"][b]Much more creative than saying that Goo is life .... because a 2,000 year old Jewish fable with man swallowing whales and talking snakes says so .....

continue[/b] [/color]

I would like to see somebody here attempt to defend this law
if hypothetically speaking it was your sister, or your girlfriend,
or your wife for that matter, who was raped and impregnated.

How would you feel about that then?

How would I feel sneaky?

First off, I think there are two totally seperate situations that you are talking about. One, the rape of a loved one. Secondly, carrying a child to term.

So the first question is obviously easy - no one wants to see a loved one raped, and you would feel horrible to know that it happened to them. There's a whole self-defense tangent that's very applicable here, epecially with women and concealed carry, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll leave it alone.

As for the second part - who knows what it's like? I can't think that you know what it's like to carry a child...as far as I've been able to understand, you are a man. What I DO know, is that there is a system for getting newborn American children into families where they will be loved and taken care of. Talk to your boy Clyde Gray [url="http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/ENT/603060305/-1/all"]here.[/url]

I don't know how I'd deal with it. I hope that I'd never have to. Like I said before, this law is in essence, a sacrificial lamb. I've not even read the exact language of it yet. Are you sure there aren't any exceptions in there for rape victims, like in the case of mother's life in other anti-abortion laws?

Whatever the case may be, I find myself grossly underqualified to make those decisions for a woman. It doesn't mean I can't have a belief about what I think should happen, and how I would do things. It's just that I don't really expect my opinion to matter that much in these situations.

[quote name='Kool Keith' post='227598' date='Mar 8 2006, 02:43 AM']How would I feel sneaky?

First off, I think there are two totally seperate situations that you are talking about. One, the rape of a loved one. Secondly, carrying a child to term.

So the first question is obviously easy - no one wants to see a loved one raped, and you would feel horrible to know that it happened to them. There's a whole self-defense tangent that's very applicable here, epecially with women and concealed carry, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll leave it alone.

As for the second part - who knows what it's like? I can't think that you know what it's like to carry a child...as far as I've been able to understand, you are a man. What I DO know, is that there is a system for getting newborn American children into families where they will be loved and taken care of. Talk to your boy Clyde Gray [url="http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/ENT/603060305/-1/all"]here.[/url]

I don't know how I'd deal with it. I hope that I'd never have to. Like I said before, this law is in essence, a sacrificial lamb. I've not even read the exact language of it yet. Are you sure there aren't any exceptions in there for rape victims, like in the case of mother's life in other anti-abortion laws?

Whatever the case may be, I find myself grossly underqualified to make those decisions for a woman. It doesn't mean I can't have a belief about what I think should happen, and how I would do things. It's just that I don't really expect my opinion to matter that much in these situations.[/quote]

Keith,

Based on what I have read and heard the only exception in the new South Dakota abortion law,
is only if the woman's life is at risk.

What the hell do you mean, "as far as you are able to understand I am a man?
I thought it was pretty well obvious the knowledge of my sex when I have so eloquently implied
for you to lick my balls in the past? But anyway, we are getting off subject here..........

It is just a hypothetical question, and albeit a disturbing one as well. Im asking you as a man to a
man.................

What if your "significant other" was raped and now carrying the child of her attacker......

Are you going to provide and care for this child?

Would you want this child to be put up for adoption?

Will you still support the law, if this were to happen for you?

I would really like you to stop tap dancing around the questions and try to answer them.


-Do Better.

Didn't you read my reply?

I can't make those decisions, especially by myself. I'd need to know how my fiance feels, and then proceed with her input considered heavily.

My first instinct says adoption - BUT! BUT!!!!!!! Please understand, that like you, I have NO children, am unmarried, and I'm still relatively young. (mid twenties)

There's lots of things in my head that tell me why I should want to have my OWN child as my first child, and that being unmarried and together for 6 years and yet to have have children (we are waiting until after we are married and finacially secure, and own a home) that we should have our first on our terms. On the other hand, if she wanted to raise the child in our family, I think that I could do it, and do it well.

Like I said, on these matters, I think it's the womans decesion more, and the role of the man is to be as supportive as possible (in your rape example, and in the abortion example).

[quote name='Kool Keith' post='227605' date='Mar 8 2006, 03:27 AM']Like I said, on these matters, I think it's the womans decesion more, and the role of the man is to be as supportive as possible (in your rape example, and in the abortion example).[/quote]

You are not supportive of this new law in South Dakota.

Correct?

[center][img]http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060309/sack.jpg[/img][/center]

example:

Successful couple: men here pretend this is you and your wife.

Woman is a manager at a successful company and well on her way to reaching her goals and getting that promotion she's worked so hard for.

Scene: On the way home from work, she stops at a gas station. It's dark and she gets grabbed as she walks behind her car, dragged off into the bushes and raped repeatedly.

She becomes pregnant. She does not want this child. It serves as a constant reminder of her ordeal.

She would have to carry the child to term (possibly risking her job by having time off), and going through all the changes pregnancy causes a woman. Not to mention complications could result from pregnancy and she could have other health issues to deal with.

I don't think ANYONE, other than this woman can know what she can and can't handle. And seeing as she didn't ask for this to happen, this isn't a situation where she would have to live "with her choices"

Woman's opinion?

My wife is pro-abortion, in a legal sense. But whenever she hears about people getting an abortion, she is disgusted by it, especially when people do it just because they are not ready. She would never have one herself, and she loves children. So, I'm not really sure why she is pro-abortion... maybe just for rape cases and such. She won't discuss politics with me, it gets ugly.

two things about this law:

1. i like the fact that they are trying to overturn the bad law of roe v. wade... as i've said all along, the peolpe that the ND's voted into office will now either be held to the fire or rewarded, depending on the will of their constituents... that is exactly how democracy should work... if our leaders don't talk for us, then we replace them... this should be the case in every state, to make sure the will of the people are talking through their leaders...

2. they went about this ALL wrong, and i don't support the law itself, as much as i might want to... they simply went to far... my arguement against abortion is that you made the choice to have sex, whether w/ protection or not, and everyone knows what can happen if you have sex... you take responsibility by making that decision... but that isn't the case if the woman is raped.... in good conscience, i couldn't and wouldn't make a woman keep that baby... to be honest, if it happened to my wife, no chance i keep it... i also wouldn't allow for it to be aborted, but it would be adopted....

one disclaimer, like KK... i am married but w/ no kids so its easy to say this, w/out actually being in this situation...

but i don't agree w/ this law, b/c it goes to far, and defeats the purpose (like roe v. wade is about to do for the pro-abortion movement)...

Rick, I'm glad you wouldn't ALLOW for it to be aborted, but you might wanna see about getting your woman to agree to that.

And it's your OPINION that RvW is a BAD thing. And how is Roe v Wade "about to go to far" for "pro-abortion". Which, btw, I don't think anyone is Pro-abortion per se. But Pro Choice - meaning that the woman should have the right to choose. Pro-abortion insinuates it's the preferred method. I am pro choice, but I disagree with abortion.

[quote name='BengalSIS' post='228806' date='Mar 10 2006, 10:11 AM']Rick, I'm glad you wouldn't ALLOW for it to be aborted, but you might wanna see about getting your woman to agree to that.

And it's your OPINION that RvW is a BAD thing. And how is Roe v Wade "about to go to far" for "pro-abortion". Which, btw, I don't think anyone is Pro-abortion per se. But Pro Choice - meaning that the woman should have the right to choose. Pro-abortion insinuates it's the preferred method. I am pro choice, but I disagree with abortion.[/quote]

sorry, i didn't mean it like that... i was talking personally... luckily for me, my wife and i share the same feelings about abortion... only in extreme circumstances, and rape would be one... but your right, i came acrossed wrong on that... of course it would ultimately be up to the woman...

the reason i say pro abortion, is b/c pro-choice doesn't fit... to be pro choice, you have to force abortion on every state w/ no choice by anyone there... this was decided by 9 unelected judges that noone can hold accountable... it went too far imo, b/c its going to be overturned, b/c (according to many people) is a poorly ruled law and the only reason it has held together is precident...

the way it all should work, is instead of 9 judges making up the minds for all 50 states, all 50 states should make up their own mind, and if you live in say KY and the KY governor and representives bans abortion and you disagree w/ that, you beat them by presenting ideas, and not stockpiling the court w/ ideologues and changing laws that way... that isn't the way the courts were intended...

[quote name='Kool Keith' post='227587' date='Mar 8 2006, 12:52 AM']Let me put my BJ hat on for a minute, and play shock-poster.
[center]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -[/center]

[center][img]http://stream.hoosier.net/natoa2000/knight.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]
[b][size=5]"I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."[/size][/b][/center]


How was that for a BJ style shock post?[/quote]


I know what your attempting here, but this post isnt even close to funny or ironic. I dont know if you have or not, but when it happens to people you care about then somethings become very very out of bounds. Im pretty disapointed by this post.

[quote name='bengalrick' post='228814' date='Mar 10 2006, 10:19 AM']the reason i say pro abortion, is b/c pro-choice doesn't fit... to be pro choice, you have to force abortion on every state w/ no choice by anyone there... [u]this was decided by 9 unelected judges that noone can hold accountable... [/u] it went too far imo, b/c its going to be overturned, b/c (according to many people) is a poorly ruled law and the only reason it has held together is precident...

the way it all should work, is instead of 9 judges making up the minds for all 50 states, all 50 states should make up their own mind, and if you live in say KY and the KY governor and representives bans abortion and you disagree w/ that, you beat them by presenting ideas, and not stockpiling the court w/ ideologues and changing laws that way... [b]that isn't the way the courts were intended...[/b][/quote]
[u]and just who do you think would be overturning this?[/u] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/23.gif[/img]

[b]yes it was[/b]

Rick, I don't deny that abortion should be a states issue, but abortion isn't FORCED on anyone. The CHOICE is there for the woman involved.

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='228824' date='Mar 10 2006, 10:32 AM'][quote name='bengalrick' post='228814' date='Mar 10 2006, 10:19 AM']the reason i say pro abortion, is b/c pro-choice doesn't fit... to be pro choice, you have to force abortion on every state w/ no choice by anyone there... [u]this was decided by 9 unelected judges that noone can hold accountable... [/u] it went too far imo, b/c its going to be overturned, b/c (according to many people) is a poorly ruled law and the only reason it has held together is precident...

the way it all should work, is instead of 9 judges making up the minds for all 50 states, all 50 states should make up their own mind, and if you live in say KY and the KY governor and representives bans abortion and you disagree w/ that, you beat them by presenting ideas, and not stockpiling the court w/ ideologues and changing laws that way... [b]that isn't the way the courts were intended...[/b][/quote]
[u]and just who do you think would be overturning this?[/u] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/23.gif[/img]

[b]yes it was[/b]
[/quote]

your right, they will have to...

but at least they will give us all a real choice...


<edit> i just caught your second part... are you saying that they 9 unelected judges were meant to dictate to the rest of the country? thats wrong man... judges are there to read and interpret the constitution... the problem w/ roe vs. wade, is that there is no writings about abortion in there... therefore, if they wanted to allow it, you do what we did w/ slavery... you create an amendment... but there was never any chance of that happening, b/c its hell to amend the constitution... so instead, they took the shortcut and 6 of the 9 judges found something in teh constitiution that wasn't there...

[quote name='BengalSIS' post='228827' date='Mar 10 2006, 10:36 AM']Rick, I don't deny that abortion should be a states issue, but abortion isn't FORCED on anyone. The CHOICE is there for the woman involved.[/quote]

what if i have sex w/ a girl, and she becomes pregnant... she tells me, and i'm happy as fuck and on top of the world... then she tells me that she isn't keeping it, she is going to abort it... what choice is there for me?

so if anything, its pro woman's choice, b/c the man has nothing to do w/ any decision.. he couldn't get it aborted if he wanted... he couldn't keep it if he wanted...

but that is sort of beyond my point... i am against abortion, but i wouldn't be so against it if it were not the forced law... i would accept it if it were legal in my state, but i would obviously push against it... but right now, the law is forced on me, b/c i can't do anything about it, and i think it is dead wrong and extremely immoral...

[quote name='bengalrick' post='228832' date='Mar 10 2006, 10:49 AM']but that is sort of beyond my point... [b]i am against abortion, but i wouldn't be so against it if it were not the forced law[/b]... i would accept it if it were legal in my state, but i would obviously push against it... but right now, the law is forced on me, b/c i can't do anything about it, and i think it is dead wrong and extremely immoral...[/quote]

I'm not making any sense out of your argument here. You are talkin outta both sides of your mouth.
Abortion is a choice currently. How do you say, "i wouldn't be so against it if it were not the forced law."

The only other law besides making it a legal choice is to ban it altogether. So are you saying you would be for it then? What point is that? Rick, please slow down while typing.