[Minority Review]

Was this topic really brought up due to anything realting to Dunst at all, or was it simply an excuse for someone to preach about ethics and god?

Satan truly has fooled them. We all seek the good, the truth. Satan takes something that is good: freedom, choice ... and he has convinced men and women that it is a freedom, a right, a choice ... to torture and kill others.

All of this is speculation. Prove to me that Satan exists and I'll prove to you that he doesn't.

[Cassady]

Originally Posted by tshia

TappyTibbons
Your argument is trying to equate humans with animals, I have said it before and I will say it again, humans are better then animals. Humans are sentient, a word synonomus with self aware, animals are not. Want to know how I know? To be self aware means to be capable of introspection, it means being able to learn about your enviroment and learn about how you relate to it. Animals cannot do this.

A human in a cold area will soon learn that wearing heavy clothes helps keep him warm, an animal in a cold area will never learn that. Animals did not develop technology, most of them do not learn over time, and none of them are capable of teaching themselves anything. This is how I know that humans are better then animals. When I say this I don't express my opinion but only a simple fact.

"I think if you look around you it's pretty clear that we are sooo closely related to our animal neighbors that it's silly to have such an humanistic eliteist view of the world."

Animals are not humans, animals are not self aware, they are not sentient, and they certainly are not equal to humans. I can't believe anyone would stupid enough to write this, I mean just... how?

"it's a brutal world out there. Why have such double standards? We'll eat the flesh of a baby lamb... but we cringe when a pregnant mother decides not to deliver her baby."

Tell you what, tomorow I am going to come to your house and shoot you in the neck with a gun that has a retractable bullet. This bullet will probably knock you out or at least stun you, after that I am going to eviscirate you while you are still alive, then chain you by your feet to the roof of your shanty. After that I will cut your throat open with a knife, does that sound good to you? Oh well, thats too bad, I am sure cows don't want it to happen to them either but you eat steak and you say we shouldn't live by double standards so it wouldn't really be wrong for me to do that to you, even against your will.

The problem here is not equating humans with animals (though I do think it's rather presumptuous to think that we are the most superior; in intelligence probably, but who's to say otherwise?) The real question is what you believe as far as when that fetus stops being a potential life and becomes a human being. I think most people would agree that it happens at some point when the baby is still in the womb, but after that it's completely debatable and even though your religious beliefs may be fixed on this issue, this is a country that enjoys freedom of religion and you cannot legislate on the basis of religion. That leaves the problem of trying to find a moment that most people would agree on where life begins.

[johnsmith]

Originally Posted by Cassady

The problem here is not equating humans with animals (though I do think it's rather presumptuous to think that we are the most superior; in intelligence probably, but who's to say otherwise?) The real question is what you believe as far as when that fetus stops being a potential life and becomes a human being. I think most people would agree that it happens at some point when the baby is still in the womb, but after that it's completely debatable and even though your religious beliefs may be fixed on this issue, this is a country that enjoys freedom of religion and you cannot legislate on the basis of religion. That leaves the problem of trying to find a moment that most people would agree on where life begins.

Abortion has nothing to do with religion. This is just a lame attempt to silence others. Coming to an agreement about the humanity of a child? That sounds so arrogant. There is no discussion needed. At conception. It is a child then. The dna does not change. There will never be any physical, biological, scientific proof that there is a physiological difference in the child. All that comes from subjective attempts to defend a lifestyle that is more accomodating.

What is objective is very simple. Every child, stress the word every, is worthy of respect. Not some, or those of a particular age that you are comfortable with. No, every child is to be respected. Every is objective and scientific. Some is subjective, unscientific and baseless.


http://www.gynob.com/oath.htm


I will even link to a pro choice site http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/hippo.html


The Oath is commonly attributed to Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine, who lived in ancient Greece from about 460 to 370 BC. However, modern research has shown that the Oath was probably written between the third and fifth centuries BC by a Pythagorean temple cult that worshipped Apollo. The Oath actually begins by requiring allegiance to a series of pagan gods. Now the vast majority of anti-choice activists are committed Christians, so it's a bit surprising that the pagan origins of the Hippocratic Oath don't bother them. Nonetheless, we certainly welcome this refreshing and unprecedented level of religious tolerance on the part of conservative Christians.

The pro - "choicers" give no proof of their modern research and they immediately imply that now the majority of pro-lifers are Christians ... in any event ... hundreds of years before Christ, in Greece, which had nothing to do with judeo-christian society as we know it ... was against abortion.


http://www.imagerynet.com/hippo.orig.html

The Oath of Hippocrates

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician and AEsculapius, and Hygiea, and Panacea, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation-- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further, from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times. But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot.

The Law of Hippocrates



1. Medicine is of all the arts the most noble; but, owing to the ignorance of those who practice it, and of those who, inconsiderately, form a judgment of them, it is at present far behind all the other arts. Their mistake appears to me to arise principally from this, that in the cities there is no punishment connected with the practice of medicine (and with it alone) except disgrace, and that does not hurt those who are familiar with it. Such persons are the figures which are introduced in tragedies, for as they have the shape, and dress, and personal appearance of an actor, but are not actors, so also physicians are many in title but very few in reality.

2. Whoever is to acquire a competent knowledge of medicine, ought to be possessed of the following advantages: a natural disposition; instruction; a favorable position for the study; early tuition; love of labor; leisure. First of all, a natural talent is required; for, when Nature leads the way to what is most excellent, instruction in the art takes place, which the student must try to appropriate to himself by reflection, becoming an early pupil in a place well adapted for instruction. He must also bring to the task a love of labor and perseverance, so that the instruction taking root may bring forth proper and abundant fruits.

3. Instruction in medicine is like the culture of the productions of the earth. For our natural disposition, is, as it were, the soil; the tenets of our teacher are, as it were, the seed; instruction in youth is like the planting of the seed in the ground at the proper season; the place where the instruction is communicated is like the food imparted to vegetables by the atmosphere; diligent study is like the cultivation of the fields; and it is time which imparts strength to all things and brings them to maturity.

4. Having brought all these requisites to the study of medicine, and having acquired a true knowledge of it, we shall thus, in traveling through the cities, be esteemed physicians not only in name but in reality. But inexperience is a bad treasure, and a bad fund to those who possess it, whether in opinion or reality, being devoid of self-reliance and contentedness, and the nurse both of timidity and audacity. For timidity betrays a want of powers, and audacity a lack of skill. They are, indeed, two things, knowledge and opinion, of which the one makes its possessor really to know, the other to be ignorant. 5. Those things which are sacred, are to be imparted only to sacred persons; and it is not lawful to impart them to the profane until they have been initiated into the mysteries of the science.



As for many of the other comments:

No religion needed. Simple logic.

If you are against rape and I am not ... and I say well you cannot force your religious beliefs on me because your religion teaches that rape is wrong ... my religion does not ... nonsense. Rape is wrong period.

We do not say, I am against rape but if others want to rape that is fine with me ... no because rape is wrong, period.

We do not say, I am against child abuse but if others want to beat their kids to death that is none of my business ... I can't force my religious beliefs on others ... no, child abuse is wrong, period.

Then according to some, all pro lifers are to adopt at least 10 kids in order to avoid hypocrisy ... to those I ask ... do you come to the aid of everyone in need that is suffering because of a war that you are against, those who are raped - do you help them ... if you are a vegetarian do you fly to the aid of all animals to save them from destruction ... I don't think so.


http://pages.preferred.com/~7ofus/al...vechoice2.html

http://www.michaelclancy.com/

Baby Photographed Reaching From Womb


DOUGLASVILLE, Ga. (AP) - Samuel Armas' parents love to show off photos of their baby boy, particularly one taken nearly four months before he was born.
The photo, shot during in-utero surgery to correct a birth defect, shows Samuel's penny-sized fist reaching outside Julie Armas' womb, grasping at a doctor's finger.


That tiny fist has added fuel to an international abortion debate, appearing on anti-abortion billboards in Ireland and in newspapers in France, Germany, Norway, Singapore and the United States.
Abortion opponents say the image shows fetuses - even at only 21 weeks - are viable and aware.
Abortion-rights supporters say the parents' decision to have fetal surgery to correct spina bifida is a good example of how every woman should have the right to determine the course of her pregnancy

``It mushroomed beyond what we thought it would,'' said Mrs. Armas, 28. ``We wanted people to know that when we found out about our baby, it was not the end of the world. There are options to abortion and even to traditional treatment.''
She and her husband, Alex, 29, allowed USA Today in the operating room for an article on the surgical team at Nashville's Vanderbilt University.
Samuel was the youngest fetus to have the surgery. Doctors opened his mother's womb Aug. 19, 1999, and closed the opening in his spine caused by the spina bifida, a congenital disease that often leads to paralysis and other problems.
As Dr. Joseph Bruner prepared to close the womb, Samuel rolled over and thrust his fist through the surgical opening. Bruner gently tucked the tiny hand back inside and finished the procedure.
Free-lance photographer Michael Clancy's captured the moment. ``It shows a baby before when we would consider it to be viable. Clearly you have a tiny hand,'' said Laura Echevarria, spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee. ``With the notoriety the picture has garnered, we're seeing people becoming more educated about fetal development. With that knowledge comes a renewed respect for life.''
Abortion-rights supporters, however, say the photo doesn't hurt their cause.
``This is one of the prime examples of where it must be between the doctor and the family,'' said Patricia Ireland, President of the National Organization for Women. ``Just as the decision to have in-utero surgery was made in this case, it cannot be a political decision. It has to be a decision made by the woman that's carrying the fetus.''
The Armases had suffered through two miscarriages before learning Mrs. Armas was pregnant with Samuel. Even after an ultrasound revealed spina bifida and doctors told them the baby may never walk and could have serious brain damage, the hope of having a child overwhelmed their fears.
``When we had the first indication something was wrong, I didn't care,'' Mrs. Armas said. ``I was 14 weeks pregnant. We still had a heartbeat. I had a baby that was alive.''Mrs. Armas, a registered nurse, began researching spina bifida and read about a group of doctors in Nashville who were pioneering fetal surgery.
Samuel, now 14 1/2 pounds, is developing normally at the family's home in Douglasville, a suburb 35 miles west of Atlanta. It's still unclear whether he'll be able to walk; he sees a physical therapist weekly and doctors monitor his progress.
``For us, there's a lot we want for him,'' Mrs. Armas said. ``He will be computer literate, he'll speak Spanish. There are multitudes of possibilities he could do. He'll swim and play golf.''
Tears well up in her eyes as she considers the challenges overcome and those yet to be faced.
But the problems caused by spina bifida are a small part of the boy's life, added Aramas, an engineer for Delta Airlines.
``The details of his limitations become insignificant,'' he said, ``and that's the understatement of the year.''

[TappyTibbons]

If it's still attached to the mother... it's part of the Mother's flesh. If it's unattached and can survive on it's own... it's a human being.

Simple... problem solved.

What I don't really understand it why people care so much, it's not your kid... it doesn't concern you... it's none of your business. I think that as long as it's attached to the mother... it should be 100% up the mother whether to take it to full term or not. Everyone has different religious beliefs... if you don't believe in abortion... then don't have one. Else I would suggest that everyone keep thier noses out of other people's business.

I'm all for education and things like that... I think it's pretty clear that most people who have an abortion regret it at sometime in thier life. And that is thier burden to carry... not yours.

Next thing you know they will outlaw masturbation... because it's destroying a "potential life"... life begins when you take your first breath of air... before that it's just a potential for life...

[TappyTibbons]

Originally Posted by tshia

TappyTibbons
Your argument is trying to equate humans with animals, I have said it before and I will say it again, humans are better then animals. Humans are sentient, a word synonomus with self aware, animals are not. Want to know how I know? To be self aware means to be capable of introspection, it means being able to learn about your enviroment and learn about how you relate to it. Animals cannot do this.

A human in a cold area will soon learn that wearing heavy clothes helps keep him warm, an animal in a cold area will never learn that. Animals did not develop technology, most of them do not learn over time, and none of them are capable of teaching themselves anything. This is how I know that humans are better then animals. When I say this I don't express my opinion but only a simple fact.

"I think if you look around you it's pretty clear that we are sooo closely related to our animal neighbors that it's silly to have such an humanistic eliteist view of the world."

Animals are not humans, animals are not self aware, they are not sentient, and they certainly are not equal to humans. I can't believe anyone would stupid enough to write this, I mean just... how?

"it's a brutal world out there. Why have such double standards? We'll eat the flesh of a baby lamb... but we cringe when a pregnant mother decides not to deliver her baby."

Tell you what, tomorow I am going to come to your house and shoot you in the neck with a gun that has a retractable bullet. This bullet will probably knock you out or at least stun you, after that I am going to eviscirate you while you are still alive, then chain you by your feet to the roof of your shanty. After that I will cut your throat open with a knife, does that sound good to you? Oh well, thats too bad, I am sure cows don't want it to happen to them either but you eat steak and you say we shouldn't live by double standards so it wouldn't really be wrong for me to do that to you, even against your will.

Your arguments are childish... NEWS FLASH: We are animals.

And I would disagree with your very naive view of animals... there are lots of animals that are very intellegent... and creating technology and tools is not the definitive definition of intellegence. I think you have a very narrow view of what intelligence is. Is intellegence only defined in your world by thinking like a human? We created tools so we could beat each other over the head... oh yeah, we're real smart ones.

And as for the bulk of our technological achievments...? I guess time will tell if we were smart or not. We've created lots of cool distractions, lots of toys, lots of very powerful weapons... but what has it really done for us as a species? Except allow us to explode our population to unhealthy levels and give us the ability to destory the entire world at a whim?

We're polluting our environment, raping the natural resources, forcing animals to extinction, destroying irreplaceable habitat, we're constantly at war with more and more efficient ways of killing each other, we're fatter and more unhealthy than ever before, etc... and at the same time we've become more and more distant from one another... so you tell me, are we really all that smart?

I think you should really look at how you use the term "better" what do you mean by that? We are "better" at what exactly? Are we better killers? Better at breeding? Better at harvesting food? Better at supporting a large population? Better at creating small little gadgets to entertain oursleves? Better at destroying our world around us? Better at complicating our lives? Better at what exactly... ?

Your view is clearly coming from a religous background... I assume you think God created man and that you have some grand purpose... and all of that silly stuff. Really doesn't make much sense if you look around you... tell me what your purpose is execpt to breed and die?

It's a nice comfy world you live in... too bad it's clearly totally contrived by someone else and you just never thought to think for yourself.

BTW, I think we've created a great life for ourselves... but I don't think it's neccessarily any "better" that the life... let's say... a bear chooses for itself. It's just different... and if I had to make a value judgement... a bear has much more harmonious lifestyle.

[KookerJuan]

Anyone who thinks that humans are better than animals should read Ishmael.

[razy]

@johnsmith
More innocent lives were dismembered, tortured and murdered in the name of your god and your belief system so enough with all that hypocrisy. Someone once said that if Men could get pregnant abortion would be holy.

[johnsmith]

Babies recognize mothers voice in the womb.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scite...ard030522.html

Tufts-New England Medical Center researchers suggest that a fetus may also be giving back a lifelong gift: cells that appear to act like stem cells, migrating to diseased organs in the mother and trying to fix them.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ls_study_says/

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ed...nG=Search+News


Just a bundle of cells to be disposed of at will?

[razy]

The article reffers to a 30 weeks old fetus at least, probably older since hearing just starts developing around that time. Almost no one aborts this far out a pregnancy unless it's due to a medical issue or other serious concern.

Women should and have a right to abort THEIR pregnancy at will. True I certainly hope it's done after serious consideration and thought but under no circumstance should this right be taken and left at the hands of a bunch of theological bureaucratsfrom the dark ages or any other group for that matter. Been there... done that... no good comes from it.

[Mr.Cynic]

johnsmith you missed a post. this one.

Originally Posted by razy

More innocent lives were dismembered, tortured and murdered in the name of your god and your belief system so enough with all that hypocrisy. Someone once said that if Men could get pregnant abortion would be holy.

[RipCurl]

Originally Posted by razy

The article reffers to a 30 weeks old fetus at least, probably older since hearing just starts developing around that time. Almost no one aborts this far out a pregnancy unless it's due to a medical issue or other serious concern.

exactly. Its been shown scientifically as well as medicaly that a fetus has no "consciousness" in the womb to well into the 2nd trimester of a pregnancy.

Mothers are urged to read to their unborn children once they are close to their third trimester since that;/s when they can start recognizing voices (proven via medical studies). All test prior to the middle of the 2nd or during the first trimester, never provided any results (reactions from the fetus).

Women should and have a right to abort THEIR pregnancy at will. True I certainly hope it's done after serious consideration and thought but under no circumstance should this right be taken and left at the hands of a bunch of theological bureaucratsfrom the dark ages or any other group for that matter. Been there... done that... no good comes from it.

agreed.

[RipCurl]

Originally Posted by Mr.Cynic

johnsmith you missed a post. this one.

Dont you just love how the regligious fanatics overlook this simple fact?

[Unity Kincaid]

Originally Posted by johnsmith

.

We do not say, I am against child abuse but if others want to beat their kids to death that is none of my business ... I can't force my religious beliefs on others ... no, child abuse is wrong, period.

Then according to some, all pro lifers are to adopt at least 10 kids in order to avoid hypocrisy ... to those I ask ... do you come to the aid of everyone in need that is suffering because of a war that you are against, those who are raped - do you help them ... if you are a vegetarian do you fly to the aid of all animals to save them from destruction ... I don't think so.

John, you insist that abortion is wrong because an unborn human has the right to life, yet you go on to say it's not your business what happens to said person, later in life. Do you fail to see anything wrong with this?

[greekwolf]

Originally Posted by razy

@johnsmith

More innocent lives were dismembered, tortured and murdered in the name of your god and your belief system so enough with all that hypocrisy. Someone once said that if Men could get pregnant abortion would be holy.

Terrible example.

If you examine the atrocities perpetrated by atheists, you find that they have killed more people in the last century than all of the crimes of 2000 years of "church" history combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. Should atheism be blamed for the atrocities of a few prominent atheists?

[johnsmith]

Here are some sites that deal with fetal development with images. Not only "religious fanatics who are trying to impose a theocracy" are proving that the child should be respected.

As for helping others after they are born ... I volunteer every week with a boys club ... sure we could all do more but I am personally making an effort.

http://www.parentsplace.com/first9months/main.html

http://www.standupgirl.com/inside/index.html

http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal.html

http://www.baby-insight.com/

http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/weekbyweek/3d/

Here as well is a link for the Atheist and Agnostic pro-life page

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

[TappyTibbons]

I don't anyone here is saying they "support" abortion... it should be avioded at all costs. But I think the woman's choice supercedes the babies right to life... it's still part of the mother, thus her choice.

Originally Posted by johnsmith

Here are some sites that deal with fetal development with images. Not only "religious fanatics who are trying to impose a theocracy" are proving that the child should be respected.

As for helping others after they are born ... I volunteer every week with a boys club ... sure we could all do more but I am personally making an effort.

http://www.parentsplace.com/first9months/main.html

http://www.standupgirl.com/inside/index.html

http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal.html

http://www.baby-insight.com/

http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/weekbyweek/3d/

[johnsmith]

Originally Posted by TappyTibbons

I don't anyone here is saying they "support" abortion... it should be avioded at all costs. But I think the woman's choice supercedes the babies right to life... it's still part of the mother, thus her choice.

If the child has its own DNA totally unique and different from the mother it is not a "part" of the mother. The child is their own person. That is objective science.

If it should be avoided at all costs then why is Planned Parenthood making over $776 million dollars a year.

I started this post because Dunst put her name on the death march list supporting the march to kill children.

You can't have it both ways ... I can't say I was exercising my sexual freedom by raping a woman ... no it is rape, plain and simple. Same here, you can't say, oh it is my body and then kill someone else.

If we let our mothers kill their own children how do we expect to ever live in a safe society?

At the very least ... Planned parenthood should be spending the $776 million to help women, help them cope with the trauma of waking up every morning for the rest of their lives knowing they dismembered their own child ... how do you think they feel on mother's day?

And for all that PP makes $776 million? Have them do it for free and use the money to help money instead of just dismembering and torturng children.

But no PP keeps feeding everyone this rhetoric of freedom, women's rights ... why? They don't want to lose their $776 million bucks. To them it is $ plain and simple and the more women abort the more $ they make.

You don't think they are interested in supporting it?

Think about that ... $776 million bucks to dismember and torture babies and you get half the country fighting for them just by using the word freedom.

Do you realize that many of you are advertisers for PP? I hope they are paying you all good money, you deserve it. Hey they are making plenty of it, you should ask them for a few pennies! Rememer- the more you preach and defend their business practice - the more $ PP makes.

[chest burster]

My lord, you are taking this issue to a level it never needs to be taken to. Stop depicting doctors performing a service for people who want it as sinister murderers and see them as the servants of society they are. What kind of car do you drive JohnSmith? I bet it's brutally murdering the atmosphere the dismembered babies could be breathing. How much meat do you eat in a year? I'm sure the cows love being hacked to bits for you to eat them while the blood drips down your chin. Get some perspective. "Baby Reaches From Womb?" Oh, get off it! Do you really believe this? The nervous system isn't fully developed at this stage, it's not possible.

I don't mean to sound preachy and hostile (LIKE YOU) but it's hard not to when confronted with abject ignorance and lack of understanding. YOUR FRIEND WAS RAPED!!! I'm sure you'd love spending your whole life with a reminder of the most painful and terrifying experience possible. Drop the self-righteous gusto and stop preaching. If you're pro-choice, you'll pretty much always be pro-choice. If you're pro-life, you're pretty much missing a chromosome. No, sorry, just kidding, I respect your viewpoint but respect people's rights to do as they see fit on an overcrowded planet. Oh, and that Walmart you shop at? I'm sure the 6-year-old kids working 18 hour days in the sweatshops in Saipan to bring you low prices everyday wouldn't have minded abortion so much. Peace be with you, you twisted, demented man. My brothers and sisters in the armed forces are being shot at every day and you are worried about the rights of unborn babies. Get some perspective.

[johnsmith]

http://www.lifenews.com/nat644.html

Forced and Coercive Abortions an "Epidemic" for U.S. Women


by Maria Gallagher
LifeNews.com Staff Writer
July 5, 2004

Springfield, IL (LifeNews.com) -- Forced abortions in the U.S. have reached epidemic proportions, according to a special report issued by an organization that studies the impact of abortion on the lives of women.


"The epidemic of coerced, unwanted abortions is rarely reported. Yet every week, thousands of girls and women face threats and abuse from people who want them to abort without regard for their own feelings or desires," the Elliot Institute said in a written statement promoting its 21-page report entitled, "Forced Abortion in America."


While the abortion lobby refers to abortion as a "woman’s choice," in many instances, women feel as if they have no choice but to abort.


The Elliot Institute cites some alarming cases.


In some of these instances, parents coerced their daughters into aborting. In one incident, a young woman was pushed into an abortion facility at gunpoint by her mother. In another case, three sisters raped repeatedly by their father were forced into abortions for nearly a decade. The girls were reportedly required to undergo a total of ten abortions by their
sexually abusive father.


In other cases, women are coerced by their husbands or boyfriends. One husband jumped on a woman’s stomach to force an abortion. In another, a girlfriend was injected with an abortifacient outside a parking garage.


According to the special report, pregnant women are sometimes denied shelter or are threatened with loss of income in order to be blackmailed into aborting.


A homeless woman, for instance, was denied a place to live until she underwent an unwanted abortion, while a basketball coach was fired from her job after refusing to have an abortion.


"Abortion is not about a woman’s freedom to choose according to her conscience--studies show that most women decide against their consciences. Their ‘decision’ is often based on the demands or threats of others--even when it violates their own moral beliefs and desire to
keep the baby," the report notes.


In some cases, the coercion takes the form of manipulation.


A worker at a Pensacola, Florida funeral home reported that a supervisor had badgered her into having an abortion because her child was biracial. In another instance, an aspiring model was forced into an abortion by John Casablancas, founder of the Elite modeling agency, which has represented supermodels such as Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell.


And, in a particularly ironic case of job discrimination, a maternity clothing retailer, Mother’s Work, fired employees after finding out they were pregnant.


In other cases, the coercion involves violence and abuse.


In fact, there appears to be a clear connection between abortion and domestic violence. Pregnant women who refuse to abort face the prospect of an escalation in abuse -- violence which can lead to miscarriages.


The leading cause of death among pregnant women today is homicide.


The Elliot Institute cites dozens of cases in which women have been shot, stabbed, choked, burned, or bombed for refusing to abort.


Perhaps the nation’s most famous case of violence directed against a pregnant woman is the Laci Peterson case. Laci was eight months pregnant with her son Conner when she was murdered in California. Her husband, Scott Peterson, is standing trial for the crime.


Laci’s mother, Sharon Rocha, successfully lobbied for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which ensures that unborn children are recognized as victims when federal acts of violence are committed against their mothers.


"Our grandson did live. He had a name, he was loved, and his life was violently taken from him .. there were two bodies that washed up in San Francisco Bay, and the law should recognize that reality," Rocha said.


The Elliot Institute report is part of a series of materials... showing the ways in which women have been subjected to unwanted, unnecessary, and dangerous abortions. An estimated 30 to 60 percent of the women who have abortions feel as if they are being pressured to do so.


In fact, eight out of every ten post-abortive women say they would have given birth, if there had been someone around to support their decision.


Experts in the field note that, while the statistics included in the report are startling, some of the comments made my women who have been forced into abortion are absolutely heart-wrenching.


"When I told him (the father of the child) he was furious and insisted that the child be aborted as soon as possible," said Cynthia Greenwood, one of the women quoted in the report.


"I did not want to kill this baby, but my co-dependence and addiction to this man won out. I finally made an appointment with the abortion clinic," Greenwood said.


Another woman, Jane Crawford, said, "My mother arranged my abortion. She didn’t like my boyfriend and wanted to protect my ‘reputation’ ... our pastor had assured her that having an abortion was fine. No one helped me."


Related web sites:


"Forced Abortions in America" can be downloaded from
http://www.afterabortion.info/petition

[chest burster]

[quote=johnsmith]http://www.lifenews.com/nat644.html

An important part of journalism is objectivity. If you get your news from a site called "lifenews" somehow I doubt they don't have a vested interest in furthering your message. America is a wonderful land not without its flaws, but it does NOT force woman to have abortions. You're thinking of CHINA, where this REALLY HAPPENS TO EVERY WOMAN. That is sad. Not models or employees being asked to have them. Is it messed up? YES, if it's true. But that doesn't mean you should assume this is the truth. How many woman have you met that were legally forced not to keep their children? That's what I thought.

[MrBaseman]

Another thread destined for the Guiness World Book of Who Gives a Crap.

In other words, I could care less what Kirsten Dunst, or pretty much any other celebrity, thinks.

[johnsmith]

A testimony from a young lady who aborted her 15 week old child. Thw worst decision she ever made and she forever regrets it. This "option" should not exist.

http://www.thinkaboutitonline.com/Us/a0000065.html


Abortion Survivor testimonies


Gianna Jessen; Aborted but Alive Read the story of a young woman who has been aborted and lived to tell about it. Gianna's testimony was given before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.

My Mom tried to abort me three times Amy Charlton survived three saline abortion attempts by her mom. Here's her story.

[RipCurl]

Mr smit, if you dont have permission to repost entire articles on this forum from the original site, I suggest that you stop doing it.

There is a thing called copyright, of which you have blatantly violated by reposting entire articles.

This is a freaking forum for discussion about movies, NOT your vehicle to preach to others about your belief.

If you continue this without addressing what this has to do with Spider-Man or Kiersten, you will continue to be reported to The moderators/admins here.

So as they say
STFU already. We get your freaking point. YOU aint changing our minds on our position. If yo uwant to make a difference, Lobby congress or yoru local politicians.

IM lucky to live in a state that allows women to make a choice. You can go and live nicely in the 18th century hell-hole you've built for yourself and leave US the hell alone.

[TappyTibbons]

Hey, it was her choice... she should live with it instead of bitching about it. And why would I really care what her opinion is? Espscially since she's trying to punish others because of her mistakes.

And as far as "Abortion Survivors" that really has no real point in the argument does it... except that if done correctly they shouldn't have survived.

Originally Posted by johnsmith

A testimony from a young lady who aborted her 15 week old child. Thw worst decision she ever made and she forever regrets it. This "option" should not exist.

http://www.thinkaboutitonline.com/Us/a0000065.html


Abortion Survivor testimonies




Gianna Jessen; Aborted but Alive Read the story of a young woman who has been aborted and lived to tell about it. Gianna's testimony was given before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.

My Mom tried to abort me three times Amy Charlton survived three saline abortion attempts by her mom. Here's her story.

[greekwolf]

Originally Posted by TappyTibbons

And as far as "Abortion Survivors" that really has no real point in the argument does it... except that if done correctly they shouldn't have survived.

Ouch. You're gonna take some bruises for that.

[TappyTibbons]

Originally Posted by greekwolf

Ouch. You're gonna take some bruises for that.

Hey, don't blame me, or society, or the laws... blame her mom. It's as simple as that. That was her choice... and if the "survivor" doesn't like it, then I would take it up with the person who tried to abort her. I will say again that if the abortion was done right this problem wouldn't exist. Failed abortions in my mind are 100x worse than successful ones, epecially if the fetus suffers any kind of damage. There's another good reason why abortion should be legal...

It's kind of a silly argument anyway... if my parents decided to have an abortion then I wouldn't have been born... but if they decided NOT to have sex I wouldn't have been born either. Or even if they had sex 10-min after they did... chaos theory will say that I probably would be a totally different person... aka not me. So many ways for me not to be born... why worry about them. And if you're not born... you got nothing to worry about.

So, life is precious... but let's not get all carried away about it. It's funny how life is only precious in certain circumstances... so much hipocracy in the world.

[Mr.Cynic]

Originally Posted by greekwolf

If you examine the atrocities perpetrated by atheists, you find that they have killed more people in the last century than all of the crimes of 2000 years of "church" history combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. Should atheism be blamed for the atrocities of a few prominent atheists?

there is a difference between some madman killing his countrymen for whatever crackpot reason he has cooked up and armies massing and obliterating others IN THE NAME OF RELIGION AND GOD. big, big difference.

[TappyTibbons]

Originally Posted by Mr.Cynic

there is a difference between some madman killing his countrymen for whatever crackpot reason he has cooked up and armies massing and obliterating others IN THE NAME OF RELIGION AND GOD. big, big difference.

I think also though... when you just got too many people... you just got to do what you got to do.

I mean, that's why Kissinger and Merk corporation designed AIDS... to curb third-world populations. Thier evil plan is working pretty good so far I would say...

It's kinda funny... I don't really believe that of course. But I did read an interesting book on the subject... there's a lot of documentation about Kissinger and Merk wanting to develop a similar virus... then all of a sudden a few year later one pops up.. hmm, strange world we live in. And I think if you do some research you'll find that Kissenger's graduate thesis was basically about how third-world population growth was the largest threat to the US and the rest of the world. And one of the solutions he poses is curbing the population growth through biological means. Hmmm...

[greekwolf]

Originally Posted by Mr.Cynic

there is a difference between some madman killing his countrymen for whatever crackpot reason he has cooked up and armies massing and obliterating others IN THE NAME OF RELIGION AND GOD. big, big difference.

Not really. It all falls back towards the ideaology behind the intent. While I'm no bible expert, I'm almost positive that Jesus Christ didn't instruct his followers to go forth and slaughter thousands of innocent men, women and children in his name. Therefore, it makes sense to assume that anyone who committed murder in the name of God, did so according to his own twisted ideaology.. and not that of the teachings of Christ.

The crusades and the inquisition were led by a group of crackpots, hoping to achieve their own twisted form of utopia here on earth.. and are no different than Stalin and Pot trying to achieve theirs. Evil is evil.. pure and simple.

[chest burster]

i think perhaps we need to adhere to the quote from ripcurl: we're in a spiderman 2 forum, and although this issue is one that obviously polarizes many people, perhaps we should stop flogging the rotting donkey at this point.

oh, and by the way, armies killing millions in the name of GOD IS IN FACT WAY different than armies killing people in the name of no god, sorry, but thems the facts.

and america is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the free unless you don't want to have a kid. i bet you also don't think gay men should be allowed to marry one another because it violates "god's natural law." well, my partner and i are great! (j/k, my wife is beautiful and also female, born that way to boot).