Abortion

[Obscure_Trash]

Abortion is used for 'convenience' reasons too often than it is used when necessary. Using it as a birth control is wrong because it's killing a potential human being for the irresponsible actions of the parent(s). Stand up and be an adult if you're going to act like one and have sex. There are other ways to avoid a pregnancy that are less expensive and complicated than an abortion. If you're too irresponsible to use them, you shouldn't be having sex at all.

I think people using abortion for the "wrong reasons" (for me, the only wrong reason is when it wasn't the mother's decision) is a lot less common than people think.

 

These are not complete stats, but to give an idea language in comments: http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/t...rom-an-abortion

 

Most of the women seeking early abortion are either very young or in the late part of their reproductive life. The youngsters are often coerced into unwanted pregnancies by their partners, or they didn’t think or know that they could get pregnant. Some of the older women think they couldn’t get pregnant because they were “too old.”

 

[...]

 

Did you know that half of the abortions done in this country are done because of birth control failure?

 

[...]

 

Did you know that 1/3 of women who have abortions had a partner who sabotaged their birth control method? This is true domestic violence.

 

[...]

 

The 1st trimester and early 2nd trimester abortions are most frequently done as elective abortions for unwanted pregnancies. I don’t like to do elective terminations after 22 weeks because of the viability issue. Late 2nd trimester pregnancies are very different.

 

Virtually all of the late 2nd trimester abortions I do are for fetal anomalies, fetal deaths, and for maternal health reasons.

[hazeh]

Abortion is used for 'convenience' reasons too often than it is used when necessary. Using it as a birth control is wrong because it's killing a potential human being for the irresponsible actions of the parent(s). Stand up and be an adult if you're going to act like one and have sex. There are other ways to avoid a pregnancy that are less expensive and complicated than an abortion. If you're too irresponsible to use them, you shouldn't be having sex at all.

 

Well, unlike you, I think girls who have abortions are responsible. That was their decision in how to deal with a situation they ended up in due to certain circumstances. I think it's far more responsible to abort a child that she couldn't support or provide for or care for properly than to have a baby and "hope" it all goes well either by raising it herself or by tossing it in the adoption system. You know, just like wild animals do.

 

And I don't know if you know this, but contraceptives fails too often to be considered fool-proof. But it isn't anyone's place to be telling another person what they should and shouldn't do with their body that is a natural part of our species anyway.

 

I was almost an abortion-case, and because of that my mother had a really hard life. She couldn't have finished school because my father was a dud and didn't want any part of it. She was alone and barely making it from paycheck to paycheck. She was incredibly lucky to have found my other mom when she did so that they could have a family together and eventually she was able to go back to school. If that hadn't ever happened, then my mother's life as well as my own could very well be quite terrible. It's all up to chance and what the mother feels is best for the potential child and herself in the long run. My mother happened to be a person who decided to take the risk, and was lucky enough to find someone within a few years that helped her out. Many other women, however, are not as lucky as my mother.

 

I had this talk with my mother yesterday, actually. And I know that if somehow I could have had a choice, I would have wanted her to abort me. Because I love my mom and I wanted her to have the life she wanted at my age, which is when she got pregnant.

[Chaman]

Well, unlike you, I think girls who have abortions are responsible. That was their decision in how to deal with a situation they ended up in due to certain circumstances. I think it's far more responsible to abort a child that she couldn't support or provide for or care for properly than to have a baby and "hope" it all goes well either by raising it herself or by tossing it in the adoption system. You know, just like wild animals do.

 

You've either misunderstood me or I wasn't being very clear (I apologize). I wasn't saying that people who choose to have an abortion are irresponsible, I was saying that sometimes people use abortion for the wrong things. People choose abortion for a better cause are responsible people. I'm saying that those who want to use it as a type of birth control are irresponsible (or somewhat irresponsible) because they didn't attempt the other ways to avoid a pregnancy.

 

I know and understand that not all of the methods work, but trying to avoid it when you know that you can't take care of a child is better than just killing the fetus because you don't want it (there's always adoption as well). I hope that I'm making more sense, if not then I apologize again. I don't feel like I'm giving my opinion in a manner in which people can understand what I mean.

[Rosedamai]

I know and understand that not all of the methods work, but trying to avoid it when you know that you can't take care of a child is better than just killing the fetus because you don't want it (there's always adoption as well). I hope that I'm making more sense, if not then I apologize again. I don't feel like I'm giving my opinion in a manner in which people can understand what I mean.

You do know that the adoption system is highly flawed all across the world (child trafficking, abuse, and so on...) and that just being a pregnant unwed mother will result in negative feedback, right? Just wanted to check.

Edited March 29, 2012 by ylangylang

[Chaman]

You do know that the adoption system is highly flawed all across the world (child trafficking, abuse, and so on...) and that just being a pregnant unwed mother has consequences, right? Just wanted to check.

 

I knew this when I joined the debate. I never said that all of the methods were flawless, though.

[Rosedamai]

I knew this when I joined the debate. I never said that all of the methods were flawless, though.

Okay. Just wondered if you knew that people actually get flack for being young and pregnant.

[LascielsShadow]

You've either misunderstood me or I wasn't being very clear (I apologize). I wasn't saying that people who choose to have an abortion are irresponsible, I was saying that sometimes people use abortion for the wrong things. People choose abortion for a better cause are responsible people. I'm saying that those who want to use it as a type of birth control are irresponsible (or somewhat irresponsible) because they didn't attempt the other ways to avoid a pregnancy.

I'm curious, what do you consider "wrong things"? Pretty much every person who has an abortion does so because they don't want to be pregnant/have a child. I don't think how/why they became pregnant really matters. (Mostly because getting into that sort of thing can only lead people down bad, bad roads.)

Also, adoption is an alternative to parenting, not to pregnancy.

Edited March 29, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[Brite]

I knew this when I joined the debate. I never said that all of the methods were flawless, though.

 

Knowing how that over half of the kids kill themselves in the system, I would say that adoption is beyond an option anymore. It's a hell hole and pro-"lifers" call us irresponsible for not taking that alternative route

[philpot123]

You've either misunderstood me or I wasn't being very clear (I apologize). I wasn't saying that people who choose to have an abortion are irresponsible, I was saying that sometimes people use abortion for the wrong things. People choose abortion for a better cause are responsible people. I'm saying that those who want to use it as a type of birth control are irresponsible (or somewhat irresponsible) because they didn't attempt the other ways to avoid a pregnancy.

 

I know and understand that not all of the methods work, but trying to avoid it when you know that you can't take care of a child is better than just killing the fetus because you don't want it (there's always adoption as well). I hope that I'm making more sense, if not then I apologize again. I don't feel like I'm giving my opinion in a manner in which people can understand what I mean.

Why does it matter if you kill a fetus? Killing a fetus is killing a fetus no matter the reason. If it's okay, then it's okay. There's no "wrong" or "right" abortions if you believe abortion is a viable alternative. All must be considered perfectly reasonable, because in the end it's simply the mother's choice. In order for the pro-choice position to be internally consistent, they have to be fine with any abortions, whether it's for REAL health reasons (I will die if I don't have this abortion) or for birth control (this is the third I've had this year). To say otherwise is inconsistent, just like it's ridiculous for a pro-lifer to say "abortion is wrong, except for rape and incest." If abortion is wrong, it is wrong. There is no exception other than a pure medical reason, the mother's death as the only alternative, in which case procedures can be performed to attempt to save the fetuses life and remove the mother from danger. They are largely unsuccessful, but from the "abortion is wrong" standpoint it's better than setting out to kill the fetus.

[Brite]

Stand up and be an adult if you're going to act like one and have sex

 

What about the women who are afraid of pregnancy and kids? Also, by the way your post was, it seems like you're forcing the person to keep the child which can be cruel on both sides. Don't ever make someone do something they seriously don't want to. Nothing good comes out of it.

 

but trying to avoid it when you know that you can't take care of a child is better than just killing the fetus because you don't want it

 

"I don't want it" is hands down the best reason to get an abortion

[hazeh]

 

 

"I don't want it" is hands down the best reason to get an abortion

*cough* Besides serious medical need, of course.

[Rosedamai]

"I don't want it" is hands down the best reason to get an abortion

Exactly. Who knost best that the mother can succesfully raise this child or not? The mother. I don't know why other people's opinions have to come into this at all.

[Kelkelen]

Why does anyone want to place limits on what another person can do to or for themselves? .... If you don't like it, then distance yourself from it. But don't tell people not to do it.

I believe the counter-argument is that, if a fetus *is* an independent human life, and not just an extension of the mother's body, then people can certainly pass laws regulating the ending of that life.

 

I don't see any consensus being reached so long as there are some people defining a fetus as no more than a tumor, others as a limb, others as a potential life, and others as an individual human being.

 

The definition of life makes a *huge* difference in how one approaches the issue of abortion. I have no desire to tell anyone what to do with their own body. Most people, however, believe that killing a born infant is not acceptable and ought to be illegal. What people disagree on is when life starts, and therefore, when the perspective ought to shift from the first point of view to the second.

[loudwhitenoise]

I also agree with above post.

 

Something that spins my head is my own illogic here is that I don't condone killing sapient beings but in infancy humans aren't sapient. They don't develop their sense of self immediately upon exiting the womb. Using pure heartless logic and no emotion, I can't figure it out. Knowing instictively something is wrong but I can't find the why - Obviously I dont call for killing babies but I say fine to kill embryo if there's a good reason (I say 'don't want it' IS a good reason) and this logical fallacy of mine confuses me. Offer your thought on this thought.

[Kelkelen]

Trying to definine LIFE is like trying to find the meaning of it : it's nearly impossible. Why should laws be based upon something that has its definitons varying among person to person, based upon their religion or morals? Answer : They shouldn't. It's highly unethical. Telling someone what is right for them based upon YOUR religion or morals is downright wrong. Period. That was the point that I was making.

 

Yes, but...

 

Laws DO have to be ethical. Those ethics should not endorse or enforce one specific religious faith, but any legal system will inherently reflect what is and isn't considered morally acceptable in a society.

 

Any society needs to consider what its laws will be in regards to when it is and isn't acceptable to take a human life. Therefore, it must consider how it defines a life, as tricky as that may be. These questions have always come into play, in various forms: is a woman's life equal to a man's? is a slave's equal to a free person's? is a child's equal to an adult's? A disabled person's, a lower class person's, a mentally unstable person's, etc. etc. Laws have also always considered if it is a worse crime to kill a pregnant woman than to kill one who is not pregnant, if it is acceptable to execute a female criminal who is pregnant, and so on.

 

The key question underlying abortion laws is the idea of an unborn child -- is it a human life? Is it *as much of* a life as the mother's or father's? Does it deserve any defense at all? Is it only considered an individual human once it leaves the womb? In that case, why? Is the difference breathing air? Viability? How much of it has left the womb? (For instance, one current Judaic teaching is that an infant is not truly born until the head has left the womb, therefore late-term, even partial-birth, abortions do not kill a living human.)

 

Simply put, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. Laws should not restrict anyone's rights where it involves only that person's life -- but must, of necessity, restrict people's rights when it would involve infringing on the life and rights of another individual. So, is an unborn child an individual?

 

I do think that viability becomes a tricky area, as well. Scientifically, we are becoming able to preserve life at earlier and earlier stages of development, in the case of premature delivery. Does viability mean that an infant *can* be kept alive, or that it can live without medical measures being taken? But then, is a full-term infant truly viable? It remains dependent on its parents for food, shelter, and even mobility for quite a long time, compared to other mammals. And sometimes, even full-term infants require medical intervention to survive, and then go on to live completely healthy lives.

 

A parent can't just say "I don't want it" about a living child and kill it.

 

So it seems to me that the dividing line is, when does a fetus "count as" a living child? When does it begin to inherit legal rights? Is it really inhuman and not in possession of any basic rights, up until the precise moment it takes its first breath?

[skinst]

You can't have one without the other. If the life of the fetus is given priority over the mother, the mother is the one who doesn't get any rights. You cannot have both. Ever.

 

That is why abortion is what you as an individual and (in the case of a woman's) their right to decide whether the thing growing inside them is more important than their own life.

 

Until it is born, it is inside that mother. It is essentially a part of her that is simply developing into its own self. When it's born, it is seperated from it's host, and becomes an individual.

 

That is why, to me, personhood begins at birth, and that should be reflected in the law. What I personally believe about when life begins is merely my perception and my emotional outlook.

 

Truth is? No one can truly define where life begins that will make everyone happy and protect everyone or everything that is living. One persons rights... in the end, will trump the other no matter how much we wish it didn't.

[Kelkelen]

If the life of the fetus is given priority over the mother, the mother is the one who doesn't get any rights. You cannot have both. Ever.

 

There's a difference between "giving the fetus priority," and treating it as a life -- either of equal or of lesser value than the mother's. I'm not sure what you mean by 'both,' but I do believe it would be possible for both mother and unborn child to have some form of legal recognition as lives, though with the mother's taking priority.

Until it is born, it is inside that mother. It is essentially a part of her that is simply developing into its own self. When it's born, it is seperated from it's host, and becomes an individual.

 

By that logic, it is completely fine to kill a full-term fetus, provided it has not been delivered. It is not yet a human life, so long as the umbilical cord is attached? Or so long as it has not completely exited the vaginal canal? Does being inside the mother make it not human, and outside the mother, human?

[skinst]

There's a difference between "giving the fetus priority," and treating it as a life -- either of equal or of lesser value than the mother's.  I'm not sure what you mean by 'both,' but I do believe it would be possible for both mother and unborn child to have some form of legal recognition as lives, though with the mother's taking priority.

People have tried and the same old arguements pop up. It isn't. Its one or the other, and I for one choose the mother.

 

By that logic, it is completely fine to kill a full-term fetus, provided it has not been delivered.  It is not yet a human life, so long as the umbilical cord is attached?  Or so long as it has not completely exited the vaginal canal?  Does being inside the mother make it not human, and outside the mother, human?

 

To some people, yes it is, just as it's perfectly logical to some people to slaughter newborns below two years of age, because they are not 'individuals' yet. But as I said in my previous post, personal perception dictates how one views a life, when it is a life, when it should be saved and when it should be valued.

 

I, personally, do not think it is right to abort a full term fetus. But that is my personal perception. It is not logical because if I believe that life begins at birth, then why should I defend the rights of fetus's in the third trimester?

 

Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

Logic is logic is logic. That is why the dictionary defines life as 'the period between the birth and death of a living thing, esp. a human being', and not, 'the period between a fetus being viable and death', because no one truly knows when life begins before birth.

Edited April 3, 2012 by skinst

[Kelkelen]

Why and how do rights only apply to "one or the other," without the possibility of both? I'm not trying to aggravate, just to listen and reason it out. Even links to previous posts that explained the situation clearly would be appreciated. (I know that internet lacks tone of voice, so I apologize if I come off as confrontational or aggressive, instead of just wanting to discuss and understand!)

 

To some people, yes it is, just as it's perfectly logical to some people to slaughter newborns below two years of age, because they are not 'individuals' yet. But as I said in my previous post, personal perception dictates how one views a life, when it is a life, when it should be saved and when it should be valued.

 

Right... but as I said in my previous post, the law has to declare its own perception, the one that seems most logical and fair and in defense of individual freedoms. It can't just say it's fine for everyone to define "life" or "an individual" however they want. The law has to protect liberty: "the freedom to do everything which injures no one else." (Declaration of the Rights of Man & of the Citizen) So what needs to be determined is if abortion is the injury of a human being, or the removal of an unwanted appendage; and if the first, what type of human being, an equal or an inferior, and in what ways; if the second, if people are being given every possible freedom to alter their own bodies (because another individual's is not involved) in whatever way they see fit.

 

To me, it seems odd and perhaps counter-intuitive to say that life only begins at birth. It feels like a person can 'trick themselves into thinking' that a fetus isn't alive until it's fully delivered out of the birth canal, but on a gut level, and perhaps a logical one as well, we know that it's a living human being -- that it is thoroughly capable of living and breathing on its own, and how can five minutes, or even ten seconds, make a difference between it being only a part of the mother's body and legal to dispose of, and being a human life with all the value and rights that that entails?

 

Another POV is that "birth" means from the beginning of the birth process; that is, as soon as contractions and/or dilation have begun, life has begun, as defined as the span "between birth and death."

 

To me, it feels like yet another mental trick -- because, again, does that mean that it is simply not a life at all until the minute the contractions start? At what moment does a fetus become a human life? Are all pregnant mothers delusional for perceiving their fetuses as separate lives growing inside of them, rather than as only pieces of their own bodies? Does the existence of its own brain, heart, sex, blood type, DNA, etc. not determine it as an individual?

 

Whenever I try to think about this issue, these are the questions that eat at me.

[skinst]

Why and how do rights only apply to "one or the other," without the possibility of both?  I'm not trying to aggravate, just to listen and reason it out.  Even links to previous posts that explained the situation clearly would be appreciated.  (I know that internet lacks tone of voice, so I apologize if I come off as confrontational or aggressive, instead of just wanting to discuss and understand!)

Because once it's pushed either way it eventually gets pushed all the way. All you need to do is look at abortion laws across the planet.

 

If it's illegal, some people want it legal because it's done anyway, or they believe the mother should have a right to decide. When it's legal, people want it illegal because they believe the fetus come's first or should 'have a voice'.

 

And when the scale gets tipped up more towards the equal, you get more and more and more restrictions on abortions that makes it harder and harder to get one.

 

And then, it's illegal again. Then the cycle is repeated.

 

It is one way or another. Mother or fetus. It is the only fair way to do it.

 

Right... but as I said in my previous post, the law has to declare its own perception, the one that seems most logical and fair and in defense of individual freedoms.  It can't just say it's fine for everyone to define "life" or "an individual" however they want.  The law has to protect liberty: "the freedom to do everything which injures no one else."  (Declaration of the Rights of Man & of the Citizen)

 

Which is why being Pro-Choice is being logical. It allows people to choose what they want to do with their own body. If you're against abortion, don't have one. If you're cool with it, get one.

 

The law just needs to be simple. "Abortion is legal up to -insert weeks- based off -insert medical evidence of NATURAL viability". Human babies if born after 26 weeks generally have a pretty high survival rate. Anything before that, not so much.

 

As for the rest of your post, of course you're going to work yourself into pieces if you think too hard about it. The truth is we simply do not know enough about life in general to be able to make a completely sound, logical analysis, and that is why I think that the law should allow it everywhere, safely and securely, and let the general populus make up their own damn minds about what they think until sound medical evidence is produced to answer the questions that we can't yet.

Edited April 3, 2012 by skinst

[Obscure_Trash]

Two things to share. First is not happy, second is.

 

Planned Parenthood Clinic in Wisconsin Fire Bombed

 

On Sunday, a Planned Parenthood office in Grand Chute, Wisc. was damaged when a small homemade explosive device was placed on a building windowsill, the Associated Press reports. Planned Parenthood told BlogPost in a statement that there was minimal damage to one of the facility’s exam rooms, and told the AP the clinic will reopen Tuesday.

 

Not only is this kind of thing terrifying, but this kind of thing is common. =\

 

~

 

Some language in comments: A Message to Planned Parenthood Supporters from President Obama

 

Thank you for saying what needs to be said! I've been worried about the silence on these issues, so it's good to know that Obama does at least know what's going on with it and does still support us.

[Kelkelen]

Which is why being Pro-Choice is being logical. It allows people to choose what they want to do with their own body. If you're against abortion, don't have one. If you're cool with it, get one.

 

Which is perfectly fine if you believe that there is only one body and one person involved. But to what extent do people have the legal right to choose what to do with another person's body, namely their child's? At what point is the fetus that mother's child and not solely a body part of the mother?

 

I don't want to restrict anything that an individual can do with their own body, or between two consenting adults, or how they want to practice their faith, or anything like that... but it's the difference between "what they want to do with their own body" and "they can legally kill another individual." Hence, the debate over when a fetus or an infant is an individual.

 

The law just needs to be simple. "Abortion is legal up to -insert weeks- based off -insert medical evidence of NATURAL viability". Human babies if born after 26 weeks generally have a pretty high survival rate. Anything before that, not so much.

 

But this isn't logical -- if you believe people should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies, and that birth should be the official legal start of human life, then there's no grounds on which to outlaw abortion at any stage of pregnancy, up to the time of delivery. It contradicts your earlier statement, about "why would I defend the rights of the fetus in the third trimester?"

 

@ Kelkelen - Didn't read through all the way, but, from what I read, just because something appears human does not mean it is human. Humans are sapient or sentient. Fetuses are neither.

 

Hm... well, I'd really prefer it if you read my posts before replying to them. This doesn't exactly address anything I was saying; I wasn't discussing basing anything on the physical appearance of the fetus.

 

I understand the logic of potential versus actuality. However, is it fair to say the fetus' rights will never equal the mother's, not even right before term? The logical extension of that train of thought is that a child's life will never have as much worth as it's parent's. After all, a parent will always have lived longer, have more ties and a more permanently established lifestyle, have more to lose. But we still recognize children as legal individuals with their own rights to be protected.

 

As for birth... Contractions are not birth. Contractions are contractions. Birth is birth. Simple.

 

It's not that simple. There's the question of when birth begins, when it ends, or if it can be defined as a single moment -- i.e., when the full body has emerged, when the first breath has been taken, when the head has crowned, when the mother is first able to push, etc. If birth is seen as a process and not as an event occurring in one second, then we have to account for the beginning of the process. Also, if birth is seen as the full emergence of the infant/fetus, then that leaves the door open for issues like the one above -- is it all right to "eradicate" that life so long as some part of it remains inside the mother while the procedure is carried out?

[xhunter]

Two things to share. First is not happy, second is.

 

Planned Parenthood Clinic in Wisconsin Fire Bombed

 

 

 

Not only is this kind of thing terrifying, but this kind of thing is common. =\

 

~

 

Some language in comments: A Message to Planned Parenthood Supporters from President Obama

 

Thank you for saying what needs to be said! I've been worried about the silence on these issues, so it's good to know that Obama does at least know what's going on with it and does still support us.

never understood the motive of those people. they kill to make a point. the first thing people don't understand that you 'should' not have to kill if their beliefs are merited. that's just someone figuring that if they kill these people its for a greater good, though its only to satisfy themselves. bombing places like that is never good when over half of those people are poor that need those services, damaging something that helps another is never good and its not like they have to use their services.

 

not the biggest Obama fan, defiantly after the soon to be healthcare law, but i do agree with him on this. hopfuly this video will discourage some of the violence but i doubt it.

[xhunter]

not the biggest Obama fan, defiantly after the soon to be healthcare law, but i do agree with him on this. hopfuly this video will discourage some of the violence but i doubt it.

 

I'm not, either. Trust me on that. But, I'm still going to vote for him. I'd rather have Obama than someone like Santorum in office. Obama doesn't disgust me. At least he tries to help. Santorum... Disgust is too lax of a word for the feelings I have when it comes to that man...

agree i would rather chose the lesser evil, just to say not that i'm calling either evil. its just Obama has a lot more to learn though unlike most he is willing to take into account by trial by error though he better have a backup plan encase things become ugly. when your willing to take chances you need a back up to help those that you rep.

 

but at the lest he understands that the need of sum. is not the need of all and need to work on all to make it even. i like that he seems to side with gay, women, and abortion rights though i guess abortion rights falls back to womens right.

[Kelkelen]

It is, imo. If a mother doesn't want it, she doesn't want it, point-blank. I dislike the fact, simply because the 1st and 2nd term gives a mother plenty of time to decide if she does or does not want the child, but I'm still going to stand by pro-choice.

 

So, since its life never has as much worth as its mother's, that means it's all right to end that life? How is that different before and after the baby has been delivered? If the infant is delivered and the mother doesn't want it, is it all right for her to kill it then? If not, why not? What makes that scenario so different from, say, the day before, when the child was still in utero?

 

As for the child never being worth as much as its parents... It's true, to an extent. Once a child can contribute to society, and not just possess the potential to, then it somehow becomes worth more than its parents, simply because it possesses ability and potential.

 

Dangerous logic to follow. Now you're starting to rank people's individual worth based on their abilities and potential; so what about people with less ability or potential than the mainstream? What about people with Down's syndrome, paraplegics, people with very low IQs, people who are sterile, etc? Shouldn't they all be treated as equals under the law, regardless of potential? Or are their lives going to be worth less in a comparative situation, such as when a crime is committed against one of them?

 

In specifics that you generally don't get from definitions, I believe birth starts when the baby has dropped into the birth canal and its head has passed through the cervix. This is what I (jokingly) refer to as the point of no return. Birth has started then. It can't be stopped, and it only has one way to go, up and out.

 

And what if an abortion induces that exact situation? Or if a baby is being delivered feet first?

 

On Sunday, a Planned Parenthood office in Grand Chute, Wisc. was damaged when a small homemade explosive device was placed on a building windowsill, the Associated Press reports. Planned Parenthood told BlogPost in a statement that there was minimal damage to one of the facility’s exam rooms, and told the AP the clinic will reopen Tuesday.

 

Very frightening, and very sad. I don't understand how random acts of terrorism are supposed to convince anyone of anything, other than that the people committing those acts are unreasonable and violent and don't deserve to be listened to. I'm glad that no one was hurt.

 

I'm not, either. Trust me on that. But, I'm still going to vote for him. I'd rather have Obama than someone like Santorum in office. Obama doesn't disgust me. At least he tries to help. Santorum... Disgust is too lax of a word for the feelings I have when it comes to that man...

 

Hear, hear. I feel like, above all, Santorum is just plain a self-serving liar. He's proven that time and again. I have utterly no trust in anything he says.