Abortion

[hazeh]

In anycase, getting back on topic, it is true that they would most likely deny her the funds for an abortion since that is not what they're there for just as Planned Parenthood would deny her the funds to raise her child.

Maybe they can't give her the funds, but they will sure as heck help her find a way to find the funds/resources if birth is what she chooses. Anti-abortionists are a single-option group that refuse to help women once their choice is made. Which is completely wrong. And that's why Planned Parenthood is here, and needs to stay here.

[Zephyrgirl]

Couple more links:

http://exposeplannedparenthood.net/get-the...ur-tax-dollars/

http://exposeplannedparenthood.net/get-the...oiting-women-2/

Edited December 31, 2011 by Zephyrgirl

[hazeh]

Couple more links:

http://exposeplannedparenthood.net/get-the...ur-tax-dollars/

http://exposeplannedparenthood.net/get-the...oiting-women-2/

I'm not really going to trust an obviously biased website that are saying things like "98% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions". That is a flat-out lie.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Zephyrgirl]

I'm not really going to trust an obviously biased website that are saying things like "98% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions". That is a flat-out lie.

How do you know it's a lie, and how do I know that the Planned Parenthood website isn't lying? After all, they have more to gain.

Also, I wonder what every one here thinks that anti-abortionists are going to gain if abortion is outlawed? You seem to think that those who are pro-life are pushing an agenda just so they can rule young, scared mothers who don't know what to do.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Zephyrgirl

[LascielsShadow]

I'm not really going to trust an obviously biased website that are saying things like "98% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions". That is a flat-out lie.

^This. Also,

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102010014

http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-nation...king-video-hoax

http://www.progressohio.org/blog/2011/02/h...parenthood.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/03parenthood.html

 

Renders that whole site untrustworthy, sorry.

 

We KNOW PP gets government funding. They are not legally allowed to use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. There's even more than one law that ensures that.

[skinst]

How do you know it's a lie, and how do I know that the Planned Parenthood website isn't lying? After all, they have more to gain.

You think so? Their job is to provide health care to woman. Very little of that is abortions.

 

Also, I wonder what every one here thinks that anti-abortionists are going to gain if abortion is outlawed? You seem to think that those who are pro-life are pushing an agenda.

Frankly I have to wonder what agenda you think pro-choice people are pushing aside from protecting the rights to their own bodies.

 

Also, there's a reason why we call pro-life people pro-birth instead. Because all they seem to care about is whether or not the baby is born, not what happens next.

[hazeh]

How do you know it's a lie, and how do I know that the Planned Parenthood website isn't lying? After all, they have more to gain.

Also, I wonder what every one here thinks that anti-abortionists are going to gain if abortion is outlawed? You seem to think that those who are pro-life are pushing an agenda just so they can rule young, scared mothers who don't know what to do.

Seems a lot more trustworthy and unbiased.

 

And what would Planned Parenthood have to gain? Healthy, liberated, safe women? How terrible. Anti-abortionist agendas do nothing productive or helpful. Planned Parenthood offers BOTH abortion assistance AND adoption assistance. They aren't a one-way street.

 

Yes, that seems to be what they're pushing. They've yet to show me they know any true good would come out of what they keep trying to do.

 

 

Edit: Anyone against Planned Parenthood is also against cancer screening and prevention, STD prevention and treatment, and other health services for women that have nothing to do with abortions or pregnancy at all. Stopping funding for an organization such as that is absolutely terrible and selfish.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Obscure_Trash]

Edit: Anyone against Planned Parenthood is also against cancer screening and prevention, STD prevention and treatment, and other health services for women that have nothing to do with abortions or pregnancy at all. Stopping funding for an organization such as that is absolutely terrible and selfish.

If you don't support the Salvation Army, you don't support helping vets, the homeless, the poor and those in poverty, victims of natural disasters, etc., never mind that you're just trying not to support their homophobia (see link).

 

Language in comments: http://www.bilerico.com/2011/11/why_you_sh...n_army_bell.php

 

If you don't support the Red Cross you don't support helping those who need blood donations for any reason, never mind you're just trying not to support their homophobia.

 

I agree that Planned Parenthood is an excellent organization and attempts to shut it down severely terrify me and I have taken action to stop this in the past, but I don't think it's fair to list a whole bunch of good things people "don't support" if they don't support PP, as there are plenty of places I don't support or would like not to support for their policies, though they may do other good. Just because you don't support one aspect of something doesn't mean you don't support another. ^^

[hazeh]

If you don't support the Salvation Army, you don't support helping vets, the homeless, the poor and those in poverty, victims of natural disasters, etc., never mind that you're just trying not to support their homophobia (see link).

 

Language in comments: http://www.bilerico.com/2011/11/why_you_sh...n_army_bell.php

 

If you don't support the Red Cross you don't support helping those who need blood donations for any reason, never mind you're just trying not to support their homophobia.

 

I agree that Planned Parenthood is an excellent organization and attempts to shut it down severely terrify me and I have taken action to stop this in the past, but I don't think it's fair to list a whole bunch of good things people "don't support" if they don't support PP, as there are plenty of places I don't support or would like not to support for their policies, though they may do other good. Just because you don't support one aspect of something doesn't mean you don't support another. ^^

But don't donating to an organization because of my beliefs, and shutting it down, are things that should not be equated. Someone can disagree with a certain organization, but to go about trying to shut them down over it is outright ridiculous, for those same reasons you posted.

 

 

Edit: Ah, I think I was the one who made the mistake, I'm sorry. When I said "against", I really just meant people who were trying to stop Planned Parenthood from existing. Not in a personal, "i don't like this" kind of way. I see the latter is how I sounded. u_u;

Edited December 31, 2011 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Obscure_Trash]

But don't donating to an organization because of my beliefs, and shutting it down, are things that should not be equated. Someone can disagree with a certain organization, but to go about trying to shut them down over it is outright ridiculous, for those same reasons you posted.

 

 

Edit: Ah, I think I was the one who made the mistake, I'm sorry. When I said "against", I really just meant people who were trying to stop Planned Parenthood from existing. Not in a personal, "i don't like this" kind of way. I see the latter is how I sounded. u_u;

Ooooh, my bad and my apologies! I misunderstood, as the conversation has turned that direction a couple of times. Your wording was fine! I see what you mean, then.

[DarkLadyNyara]

Exactly, but the doctors get a salary, too, out of performing these opperations.

 

They also get harassed, stalked, threatened, shot, their homes attacked, their families threatened...believe me, there are far easier ways to make money.

 

What services are our tax-dollars going too, then?

 

Birth control, women's health care, cancer screenings, STD screenings, general health care, treatment for many medical conditions, education about a ton of various issues and a whole host of other things that don't have a damn thing to do with abortion.

 

Oh hey! You know what else they provide? Prenatal care.

 

Seems a lot more trustworthy and unbiased.

 

And what would Planned Parenthood have to gain? Healthy, liberated, safe women? How terrible. Anti-abortionist agendas do nothing productive or helpful. Planned Parenthood offers BOTH abortion assistance AND adoption assistance. They aren't a one-way street.

 

Yes, that seems to be what they're pushing. They've yet to show me they know any true good would come out of what they keep trying to do.

 

^Thisthisthis.

 

You know what I find interesting? The pro-choice movement does far more to reduce the rate of abortions (through education, providing contraceptive and the like) than the pro-life movement. People who identify as pro-choice are also far more likely to support programs that help mothers and children than people who identify as pro-choice. Funny how that work out.

 

And we already know what happens when abortion is made illegal- women dying in huge numbers.

[Brite]

They also get harassed, stalked, threatened, shot, their homes attacked, their families threatened...believe me, there are far easier ways to make money.

 

And the ones threatening call themselves pro-life and against death

[prairiecrow]

And the ones threatening call themselves pro-life and against death

To play Devil's advocate for a moment here, I think that in any situation where perceived suffering/death is inflicted on the perceived innocent/undeserving there will be people who assert that protecting the innocent by killing their oppressors is a valid way to end the cycle of violence. This is especially true when the violence is perceived as being entrenched in and protected by the government.

 

It doesn't surprise me that some pro-lifers advocate the killing of abortion doctors, because from their point of view such doctors are instruments of pain and death and the victims are helpless children. And the government condones the acts of murder in question. With that perspective it becomes much easier to see the killing of abortion doctors as a necessary (and indeed noble) act.

 

Do I agree with this point of view? Not in the least. But I can understand it. To some of the pro-lifers who advocate homicide, that homicide would be committed in order to save the lives of countless innocent babies. It's a case of "breaking eggs in order to make an omelette". To them the cognitive dissonance we're perceiving doesn't exist, or can be ignored.

Edited December 31, 2011 by prairiecrow

[Brite]

It doesn't surprise me that some pro-lifers advocate the killing of abortion doctors, because from their point of view such doctors are instruments of pain and death and the victims are helpless children. And the government condones the acts of murder in question. With that perspective it becomes much easier to see the killing of abortion doctors as a necessary (and indeed noble) act.

 

Do I agree with this point of view? Not in the least. But I can understand it. To some of the pro-lifers who advocate homicide, that homicide would be committed in order to save the lives of countless innocent babies. It's a case of "breaking eggs in order to make an omelette". To them the cognitive dissonance we're perceiving doesn't exist, or can be ignored.

 

That still sounds like a bunch a hypocrite to me. It's linked to there "We don't kill one to save one quote" which goes by them wanting a mother to sacrifice herself in a birth when her life is at danger to make sure that the child is born. Who says the mother isn't innocent? So now their quote runs by another thing now. "We don't kill one to save one.....unless they're the doctor performing for the mother, no matter what they're excuse, so they get to be bombed!"

[Kestra15]

In defense of the Christian anti-abortionists; some are decent.

 

Amerylis is against abortion through her beliefs. She did, however, allow my sister to call her several times, let my sister talk through her decision, wish my sister well, and still talks to her and gets on very well with her, even if my sister did go through with the abortion. Amerylis did tell me she didn't believe with the decision, but also recognised that is was my sister's choice and out of that respect supported her as best she could.

 

So not all anti-abortion Christians will damn you.

[xhunter]

Exactly, but the doctors get a salary, too, out of performing these opperations. I'd like some more information on Planned Parenthood. Are they a non-profit organization?

speak up for who that doesn't have a voice? offspring that can turn into a tumor or be born to end up in the system? the mother that needs an abortion becasue of health and every Christian place making her feel horrible for trying to remove something that could kill her or take up more space in a rapidly falling system that has many children waiting for a home or committing suicide? or just the people that abortion doesn't effect like people that want a baby. abortion 'will' not effect those people, it only affects those that 'need' them. We are not forcing you into anything we are placing out facts that you don't want to go look up. sorry to sound mean though it is true and you seem to be jumping on peoples backs about the same things over and over because of your beliefs.

 

they are though not the doctors if i'm right then they just pay the doctors and have no other organization with them.

 

and Tax dollars too go to helping young teen mothers that sometimes only push out a few offspring just to get that money on purpose. i can see if it was an accident but just like disabilaty checks people get preg. and fake sick just to get them, over half are not misfortain. soon when those people continue to fake these things and get preg. on purpose their will be no more Tax dollars for the ones that are in need. as is with disablilaty its like 10 supporting one person and with things that are like food stamps its the mothers with the offspring that can sometimes get 1500 a month when their are needy family of 4 and all that only get 100 and at the highest sometimes 500, from what i have seen that is. i promise the price of a abortion might be high though it saves the Tax payers and the mother money in the end to nip the problem on the head.

 

all churches and things like that take up lots of money a year though some more than most, normal Christain churches, no matter the type, are crawling everywhere and their are few things wrong with the original buildings, most of there money goes into furnishing as will as buying things like entertainments for their followers. even less goes to helping anyone that is not believes. Jehovah's Witnesses are the worst of them all, most will try and get you to let their church be able to make choices with your home. Atheism is probably one of the only ones that doesn't cost money for your beliefs.

 

though back on subject, Everyone Pushes a agenda though sometimes its to help others in need not what they and anothers it doesn't effect directly or will ever affect. people for abortions hopefully do it to help those in need as well as protect their wright to one if it ever happens to them. and i would not believe all sites on the nets, you would not go trusting one site if it said the world was flat would you? do research more with more sites.

 

please reread all info given by everyone hear defently the people that see it every day or go look at more than a few sites.

[Zephyrgirl]

I do not mean to hurt or offend any one, I simply wanted to state my opinion and the reasons I have to back it, so please don't take any of this extremely personally.

This is a quote from my first post. To repeat myself, I do not mean to offend any one, nor should you feel that I am jumping on your backs over and over as you say. Yes, I did read your arguments, no, that does not mean I have to agree with them. The only reason I post is to defend my opinions, which, in my view, it seems as though every one here is trying to attack. I know you may not realize this, but it has sort of come off this way.

Also, I find that I have been insulted several times with stereotypes and I really don't appreciate that. Not "every Christian place" will make a woman feel guilty and certainly not all Christian anti-abortionists look down on the women who are in these types of situations. How do I know this? I am a Christian and I would not belittle a woman who is pregnant no matter what the situation, nor would I think myself above any one who has had an abortion or performed one. As a Christian, I believe that God made and cares for every one and, therefore, we should love them no matter what. This does not mean that I have to approve of their actions, simply that I will not belittle the person or make them miserable with guilt-inflicting speeches. Likewise, I owe a sincere apology to any one who I have offended and made to feel as though I am trying to condemn them. I can assure you, these were not my intentions at all.

Though it is extremely off-topic, I do agree with you that some Churches might use the money on causes that seem frivolous and that no Church is perfect. However, most funds go towards good causes, and I have witnessed this through being sent on trips both within my city and around the states in order to help rebuild homes, love on children in impoverished areas, and various other things all thanks to the money the members contribute. Also, I might mention, that Christianity does not cost money. People are not required to give. When they do, it should be because they want to.

 

Now, here are a few facts and questions both of my own and from various sources. Take them or leave them, it doesn't matter to me:

1. Why do people who perform abortions and staunchly support them come around to being pro-life?

2. What about the children who survive abortions, but have physical and mental issues because of it?

3. In response to the argument of illegalizing abortions only worsening things, Speaking before the 93rd Congress of the US, Senator James Buckley stated: "Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalised abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalisation has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalisation. Legalised abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practised without fear of criminal prosecution."

Dr Christopher Tietze, an abortion advocate, concedes: "Although one of the major goals of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased."

4. Just because something can become a tumor or be absorbed back into the body does not mean that it was never alive.

Time Magazine and Rand McNally's Altlas of the Body states, "In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilised single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual."

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill", summarised the issue this way: "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

Here are some indications of when life begins:

*

The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days.

*

Electrical brainwaves have been recorded at 43 days on an EEG. If the absence of a brainwave indicates death, why will pro-abortionists not accept that the presence of a brainwave is a confirmation of life?

*

The brain and all body systems are present by 8 weeks and functioning a month later.

*

At 8 weeks, the baby will wake and sleep, make a fist, suck his thumb, and get hiccups.

*

At the end of 9 weeks, the baby has his own unique finger prints.

*

At 11-12 weeks, the baby is sensative to heat, touch, light and noise. All body systems are working. He weighs about 28g and is 6-7.5 cm long

The American Heritage Medical Dictionary: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."- the earliest human embryo fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life.

Perhaps, to some, the start of life might be seen as purely objective, but in my opinion, I would rather stay on the side of caution.

5. Unlike a tapeworm or other parasites, the Zygote produced in humans has human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species.

6. In his book "Exploding Population Myths" Jim Peron conclusively proves that the population is not the problem:

 

"In most of the world, food production is easily outstripping population growth, and on a world-wide basis the problem of overpopulation no longer exists. It is true, of course, that some nations still cannot feed themselves, but the reasons for this tend to be political...[for example] Zimbabwe has seen a massive decline in food production since independence, as have most of the emerging nations of Africa. But Africa is the last bastion of state planning and socialism, and it is no accident that it is also the last bastion of famine."15

 

"War and socialism are two great destroyers of the food supply in Africa, as they have been in other countries.".

 

in 1994, the United Nations Population Fund acknowledged that the world can feed itself in its report that concluded that "[food] production should be sufficient to meet all needs for the foreseeable future..."

7. While some mothers might hand their children over to the foster care system, there are those who choose open adoptions where the mother maintains contact with the family that has adopted her child and is able to see him/her grow via mail, pictures, and visits.

There are no national statistics that I could find on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate that it is somewhere between one and two million couples.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Zephyrgirl

[Kizzikins]

-snip-

I'm just going to pop in here and attempt to address a couple of the points you raised...

 

1. The only doctor I can find evidence of having converted to being anti-choice is Bernard Nathanson, producer of The SIlent Scream. )(Which is a highly suspect "documentary" that was rather thoroughly edited and is, as a general rule, tremendously misleading.) If you have sources showing other doctors who have switched over, I'd love to read about it, but I can only find the one. And we've all heard his reasons over, and over, and over...and over.

 

2. I cannot find a single objective source that discusses children who have survived abortion. Every single link that comes up on Google is an anti choice site in some way or another that does -not- provide sources for the "information" they claim to provide. Once again, if there are, somewhere, legitimate sources that showcase children who have survived abortion attempts, I'd love to see them.

 

3.

In response to the argument of illegalizing abortions only worsening things, Speaking before the 93rd Congress of the US, Senator James Buckley stated: "Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalised abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalisation has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalisation. Legalised abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practised without fear of criminal prosecution."

 

James Buckley (on top of having a proposed a Human Life amendment) does not provide a source here. At all. In fact, his statement is patently wrong. Abortion doctors require medical credentials in order to operate legally. Any "back alley abortionist" trying to pass off as a legal abortion doctor would be caught immediately for claiming to provide a medical procedure without having the proper credentials to do so. If anything, this is an argument for why abortion should be legal, and regulated: so that the only people providing abortions are medical professionals who are trained and are providing a safe medical environment. And to address Tietze's quote, the Swedish (for example) abortion rate has actually gone -down-, as evidenced in their annual report: clicky (it's in swedish unfortunately, but the stats are all there. wikipedia does a good job of breaking it down, but wiki is not a solid source in and of itself.)

 

4. There is no debate of whether a fetus is human, or even whether it's technically alive. The debate is over whether it's a sentient being, and whether a fetus, unable to live independently, make decisions for itself, or ultimately function as an independent being, has "rights" that supersede that of its fully alive, sentient, functioning member-of-society mother.

 

5. See above.

 

6. Jim Peron does not come anywhere close to proving that population growth is not the problem. He attacks a political system with relatively little regard for actual, yuhkno, facts.

Overpopulation in East Africa

VERY LARGE UN population report + projections

General summary of various population issues, all of which can be sourced

 

And finally, 7. You are neglecting the fact that the families waiting to adopt are waiting for, as a general rule, caucasian infants and want a closed adoption. That also does nothing for the 100,000+ children -in foster care!-

 

And ultimately, adoption does not prevent pregnancy and birth. Women do not have abortions just because they don't want a kid. They don't want to be pregnant, either. Adoption is -not- a viable option to abortion in many cases. Both carrying a pregnancy to term and childbirth are stressful, expensive, taxing, and dramatically more dangerous than an abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is more hazardous to a woman than a safe, regulated abortion ever will be.

 

Some good sites that source their information are:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/

 

I'm sure there are major issues with this post somewhere but it's 5 AM and I've been working on it since 3 AM so I'm going to go pass out and come back to it later. Out.

[CatCreature]

And to address Tietze's quote, the Swedish (for example) abortion rate has actually gone -down-, as evidenced in their annual report: clicky (it's in swedish unfortunately, but the stats are all there. wikipedia does a good job of breaking it down, but wiki is not a solid source in and of itself.)

Ooh, I need to read that once I'm back home. I can translate some numbers too if you like.

[Brite]

The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days.

 

A heart is just a muscle. There's a reason why abortions are only allowed in first trimester I believe.

[Kestra15]

Here are some indications of when life begins:

*

The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days.

*

Electrical brainwaves have been recorded at 43 days on an EEG. If the absence of a brainwave indicates death, why will pro-abortionists not accept that the presence of a brainwave is a confirmation of life?

*

The brain and all body systems are present by 8 weeks and functioning a month later.

*

At 8 weeks, the baby will wake and sleep, make a fist, suck his thumb, and get hiccups.

*

At the end of 9 weeks, the baby has his own unique finger prints.

*

At 11-12 weeks, the baby is sensative to heat, touch, light and noise. All body systems are working. He weighs about 28g and is 6-7.5 cm long

The American Heritage Medical Dictionary: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."- the earliest human embryo fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life.

However, human death has to follow as a minimum these criteria:

 

- Pupils fixed and dilated.

 

- No heartbeat detected for one minute.

 

- No breathing detected for three minutes.

 

So logically, for a human to be defined as 'alive' it needs to be able to contravene those criteria. When does a baby start to breathe? I can tell you for free that at 12 weeks that baby cannot breathe - generally a baby is self-ventilating in the mid-30s. Certainly no medical intervention on a premature birth occurs before 21 weeks.

[prairiecrow]

If the absence of a brainwave indicates death, why will pro-abortionists not accept that the presence of a brainwave is a confirmation of life?

The term "pro-abortionist" is inflammatory and inaccurate because it implies that we're all cheerleaders for the procedure. We are NOT (or at least I'm certainly not) pro-abortion in that sense -- I don't believe that abortion is the best solution in all cases, nor do I treat it casually. It's a medical procedure and should be regarded as such IMO, which means that it entails a certain amount of risk.

 

What I (and many others) AM is pro-choice, meaning I support a woman's ability to choose her reproductive options -- giving birth and keeping the child, giving birth and putting the child up for adoption, or having an abortion. THAT is the heart of the pro-choice position, not "OMG GAIZ U SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION!"

[Shienvien]

However, human death has to follow as a minimum these criteria:

- Pupils fixed and dilated.

- No heartbeat detected for one minute.

- No breathing detected for three minutes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are those not the symptoms of clinical death more precisely?

Biological death, as far as I've read into it, is still defined after the brain-cells only.

 

 

As for the rest of the facts listed (not quoting here)... I personally still maintain that whether or not someone has fingerprints or working heart-muscle does not determine the said as an individual. What, for me, defines an individual, is the cognitive capability - and higher brain-functions do not develop out before well after the first trimester.

[Kestra15]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are those not the symptoms of clinical death more precisely?

Yup. If someone fits those three, they are dead. 'Brain-dead' does not make someone actually dead, especially given brain-dead can be a bit of a woolly term.

[Brite]

The term "pro-abortionist" is inflammatory and inaccurate because it implies that we're all cheerleaders for the procedure. We are NOT (or at least I'm certainly not) pro-abortion in that sense -- I don't believe that abortion is the best solution in all cases, nor do I treat it casually. It's a medical procedure and should be regarded as such IMO, which means that it entails a certain amount of risk.

 

What I (and many others) AM is pro-choice, meaning I support a woman's ability to choose her reproductive options -- giving birth and keeping the child, giving birth and putting the child up for adoption, or having an abortion. THAT is the heart of the pro-choice position, not "OMG GAIZ U SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION!"

 

Good point since a lot of pro-birthers think that pro-choice is a cover-up for "pro-slaughter babies or you hate kids" That's what they seem to make you feel like.