I heard this on the radio this morning and went to the website. It moved me. Some of you may not care, some may.

Click HERE (http://www.irlc.org) to hear Jenny's Story.

I started listening to it but that constant switching between jen and some american voice over guy just pissed me off.

I listened and it didn't change my views. I am anti-abortion and listening to the young woman only reinforced my opinion that abortion is wrong.

Originally posted by Frogger
I listened and it didn't change my views. I am anti-abortion and listening to the young woman only reinforced my opinion that abortion is wrong.

I agree. It did the same for me.

Is there a transcript somewhere?

Do you need one....

The basic message is save the babies.

Looking for a safe stance on abortion? Me neither.

I'm against abortion, for killing babies.

Regressive Party! (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive)

WhooHoo! Regressive Party!

I'm PRO-CHOICE and nothing will change that view. Sorry to those that aren't. :)

Regressive Party - LMFAO

Originally posted by saycricket
I'm PRO-CHOICE and nothing will change that view. Sorry to those that aren't.

And why are you Pro-Choice? What reasons do you believe justify abortions?

In the absence of logic, the ill informed turn to emotion.

My body, my fetus, my choice. Keep your laws out of my uterous. The party of more government intervention wants to tell woman what they can and can't do with their bodies. The world really needs more unwanted and unloved children living in poverty.

We should pass laws that tell men when and where they can ejaculate. Don't want to murder any of those potential babies by shooting sperm where it wont get fertilized.

So if its my body and I should be able to do anything I want with it. Can I swing my fists around and it doesn't matter who I hit, because I am entitled to the right of doing whatever I want with my body?

If you have to exagerate my point to argue it you have already lost.

In the absence of logic, the ill informed turn to emotion.

These are pictures that they don't show the girls who got the abortion. Do they not have a right to know what was removed from them? Should they not know all the facts of the precedure?

As for "informed" here is a little fact.

According to one study, women who have had abortions are nine times more likely to attempt suicide than women in the general population. (Ann Saltenberger, Every Woman Has a Right to Know the Dangers of Legal Abortion. p. 19, quoted in Reardon p.129)

NO ONE IS PRO-ABORTION…except, of course, those who gain politically or financially from claiming to oppose it.


Up to 5,000+ Americans died annually as a result of unsafe abortions prior to Roe v Wade…that’s a Pearl Harbor and a 9/11 every year. I remember those days.

It's great how you quote from anti choice sorces as if it is the truth. Consider your sources.

The pro-abortion crowd takes the position that no one is being harmed when an abortion is being performed. The pro-life crowd takes the view that the baby is being harmed.

The, my body, my decision, mantra, while emotionally pleasing to the pro-abortionists really is not true and never has been. None of us has total control of our body. There are laws against self mutilation and those who practice it can be placed in mental institutions against their will. There are laws against suicide. There are laws delineating many things we may and may not do with our bodies. We may not inject narcotics into them. We may not flaut them naked in public. We may have our bodies incarcerated for committing crimes. We may have them placed in mental institutions for treating them in ways not consistent with what society wants. Children don't have control of their bodies and may be taken away from their parents if the courts decide that is for the best.

The concept of my body, my decision is a red herring dragged across the trail by the pro-abortionists. One, you do not have complete autonomy where your body is concerned and two, it is not only your body but the body of an innocent baby that is involved.

Up to 5,000+ Americans died annually as a result of unsafe abortions prior to Roe v Wade…that’s a Pearl Harbor and a 9/11 every year. I remember those days.

I remember those days too, and it was sad, but the sadness pales when compared to the number of babies killed each year. Remember, too, those women did not have to have abortions. They chose to. Your statement is like saying 5,000 intravenous drug addicts die each year from dirty needles and blaming it on the government not providing everyone with clean needles. There are certain choices we make that might have certain unhoped for consequences. Going to a back alley abortionists is one of them.

It's great how you quote from anti choice sorces as if it is the truth. Consider your sources.


Why is it that people always find fault with the sources of those with whom they disagree but never with their own? Where did your 5,000 figure come from? I would be willing to bet from a pro-abortion source.

I am personally against abortion for one simple reason.

This action does not give the baby a single chance. In effect, the baby is being punished for nothing other than being unwanted.

Why doesn't the mother or father give up the baby for adoption if they don't want it?
Why do they kill it instead?

It seems terribly unfair to a defenseless little one.

My opinion and it ain't changin.

Originally posted by rendova
I am personally against abortion for one simple reason.

This action does not give the baby a single chance. In effect, the baby is being punished for nothing other than being unwanted.

Why doesn't the mother or father give up the baby for adoption if they don't want it?
Why do they kill it instead?

It seems terribly unfair to a defenseless little one.
'Tis not a baby. 'Tis a fetus. There is a rather large difference.

Incidentally, against abortion? Good. Don't have one.

I actually listened to it.
*Falls on the floor laughing like a madman*

Oh, borg, here's a transcript:
http://www.irlc.org/pp/jennifer.htm
Though, it's nowhere near as hilarious if you can't hear her voice "breaking".
Certainly sounded like a bad ass actor to me.

A few things I learned
A) Everything is a horrible conspiracy
B) Idiocy is a good excuse
C) If something has hands and feet it's a baby(shouldn't have shot that monkey it seems)
D) If two things that are nigh on impossible to occur, occur to the same person, the story is still feasible
E) Probably something else


Personally, I think abortion is morally wrong for the sole reason that although it is not quite "alive" yet, the potential shouldn't be thwarted before it has a chance. Most pregnancies that end in abortion are due to stupidity or lack of care, some responsibility should be held accountable for your actions. However, almost any and all reasons that most of the anti-abortion crowd gives are downright retarded.
Another thing, I don't think abortions should be made illegal, just that more care taken before sex and trying harder to come up with a way to still have the child. I think that most pregnancies and abortions are due to poor education beforehand and for the most part ignorance of what can be done to prevent pregnancies. Abstinence only education will only perpetuate the problem.

I actually don't consider human existance as meaningful until birth occurs. But the pictures do look pretty scary and a bit sad, and it makes me want to resind this assertion and say that human existance increases in meaningfulness during pregnancy. It's a gradual thing to me. Something should not be considered a full fledge human when it obviously isn't (is a fetus), but nearing birth the fetus is so close to becoming human already its existance becomes meaningful more and more. So I take the moderate approach and think it's perfectly all right to have abortion before the 3rd months or so into pregnancy.

At what point exactly do pro-lifers consider an entity old enough and suitable to be called human? I hope it's not the point of conception.

Posted by BorgHunter

Incidentally, against abortion? Good. Don't have one.

That's sort of like saying, against murder? Good. Don't commit one.

If the abortion affected only the woman your suggestion would be good, but since it also involves an unborn child it isn't worth the effort you put in to type it.

Originally posted by Frogger
unborn child
Fetus. It's not a legal person.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Fetus. It's not a legal person.

And?

If the government did not recognize me as a citizen, much less even as a person, is that a free pass to disregard my life and future?

Once again, no one is pro abortion. I have never met anyone who is pro abortion. I have devoted much of my life and given thousands of dollors to the cause of maintaining womens rights over their own body and never have I ever worked with or known anyone to be pro abortion.

Those of us who want to keep abortion legal are people who feel that the rights of a living, breathing, self sustaining human being are more important than the rights of a fetus that is unable to servive on it's own and has no self awareness. It isn't about wanting to kill babies. It is about the right of the individual to have control over their reproductive system. The right of the individual to have the choice about whether their body is changed permanatly and put through the rigers and dangers of pregnancy. To have the right to not have to go through the pain of giving birth. To have the personal right to determin what happens to their body rather than letting the government decide. The government has no business legislating reproduction.

You have as much right to tell me what I can and can't do to my reproductive organs as I have to tyell you what you can and can't do to yours.

The AMA estimates that about 1/2 of all fetus's are aborted naturally within the forst 12 weeks of pregnancy. You guys better start protesting mother nature. She's killing fetus's by the thousands.

Keep your fucking laws out of my uterus. 60% of Americans are pro choice.

If the government did not recognize me as a citizen, much less even as a person, is that a free pass to disregard my life and future?
You're a human and you think. A fetus that young has absolutely no mental processes. It is not until around the third trimester that the brain even begins fire.

Originally posted by Echo2
Keep your fucking laws out of my uterus. 60% of Americans are pro choice.

You do not vote on truth of what is right and wrong, they can be distorted by man...but are nonetheless incorrect.

The AMA estimates that about 1/2 of all fetus's are aborted naturally within the forst 12 weeks of pregnancy. You guys better start protesting mother nature. She's killing fetus's by the thousands.

A miscarriage and the conscience decision to terminate the life are very different situations.

You have as much right to tell me what I can and can't do to my reproductive organs as I have to tyell you what you can and can't do to yours.

Which is true. A prominent factor I could point to would be the outlaw of rape, court-ordered vasectomies, and so on.

Originally posted by Blibblob
You're a human and you think.

In my scenario the government did not recognize me as such, and so my life was null and void. I don't care if the baby is thinking or not, it is a premature human that needs to be protected until it can be born into the world, a human's right to life is far more important than a woman's right to control when she has a baby or not.

A fetus that young has absolutely no mental processes.

Your point? That means absolutely nothing to me, a baby that will soon be born into the world to grow into a person does not think because it cannot at that point in life.

Originally posted by Evakian
In my scenario the government did not recognize me as such, and so my life was null and void. I don't care if the baby is thinking or not, it is a premature human that needs to be protected until it can be born into the world, a human's right to life is far more important than a woman's right to control when she has a baby or not.

Your point? That means absolutely nothing to me, a baby that will soon be born into the world to grow into a person does not think because it cannot at that point in life.
So where does life begin for you? Is every sperm sacred? Every sperm can fertilize an egg which becomes a zygote, then blastula, then fetus...where is the line drawn? What is human and deserves protecting, and what is not? If I wear underwear a couple sizes too small for me, am I a murderer?

President Clinton looks up from his desk in the Oval Office to see one of his aides nervously approach him. "What is it?" exclaims the President.

"It's the Abortion Bill, Mr. President - what do you want to do about it?"

"Just go ahead and pay it."

Originally posted by Borghunter
If I wear underwear a couple sizes too small for me, am I a murderer?

Please enlighten me as to where i so much as hinted that wearing a condom is equivalent of murder, please.

So where does life begin for you?

The moment of conception.

Is every sperm sacred?

From the above statement, you can conclude no.

Every sperm can fertilize an egg which becomes a zygote, then blastula, then fetus...where is the line drawn?

When the fertilization begins.

What is human and deserves protecting, and what is not?

Life is worth protecting, a premature human who will soon be out and about in the world and be a person needs protection until that time. It is not the mother's, or anybody else's choice whether that premature human shall live or die. The right to life of the human far outweighs the right of "privacy" or "control" for a woman and her reproductive organs.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Is every sperm sacred?

If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Originally posted by Evakian
When the fertilization begins.
Why?
Originally posted by LionelHutz
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Let the heathens spill them on the dusty ground...

Originally posted by Borghunter
Why?

Because that is the time when the growth and formation begins.

Originally posted by Evakian
Because that is the time when the growth and formation begins.
The sperm and egg grow and form in the testicles and ovaries, respectively.

The pro-abortion crowd has decided that life doesn't begin until a certain point and demands that the pro-life crowd agree with their decision. There is no agreement on when life begins so doesn't it make more sense to err on the side of life than of abortion.

No, it doesn't, particularly when state control of individual bodies is involved and the beneficiaries of the protection of law are bundles of cells, particularly when we are going through a world population problem. Pro-lifers do not support social programs to benefit the children after they are born, and their entire platform can be reduced to forcing women to take responsibility for having sex, regardless of the social problems that causes, nor the benefits that could come from having fewer children born to mothers that cannot afford to raise them adequately.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
No, it doesn't, particularly when state control of individual bodies is involved and the beneficiaries of the protection of law are bundles of cells, particularly when we are going through a world population problem. Pro-lifers do not support social programs to benefit the children after they are born, and their entire platform can be reduced to forcing women to take responsibility for having sex, regardless of the social problems that causes, nor the benefits that could come from having fewer children born to mothers that cannot afford to raise them adequately.

You view the beneficiaries as mere bundles of cells. Those in the pro-life camp view them as unborn children.

Is your solution to overpopulation abortion? Why not go further then and use Euthenasia. That would even further reduce the population. Then there is genocide. Just look at how the population of Rwanda decreased a few years ago.

Pro-lifers do support social programs to benefit the children after they are born. Which social programs that benefit the children are you referring to when you say they don't support them.

Since you seem to think it is okay to abort children if the mother can't take care of them adequately are you against abortions of convenience, i.e., I wanted a boy not a girl, I want to advance in my career first, I want to save money for a new house, etc.?

You keep making sweeping statements without anything to back them up. Just once in awhile it would be nice to see support for your accusations.

Originally posted by Frogger
You keep making sweeping statements without anything to back them up. Just once in awhile it would be nice to see support for your accusations.
I would like to see some support for "Life begins at conception." Some objective, unbiased support.

Is your solution to overpopulation abortion? Why not go further then and use Euthenasia. That would even further reduce the population.

I view an individuals life as sovereign. If he wants to end his own life, let him do it. As far as babies are concerned, I would hate to see someone have an abortion, but I will not tell her she cannot do it.

Which social programs that benefit the children are you referring to when you say they don't support them.

Any of them.

Since you seem to think it is okay to abort children if the mother can't take care of them adequately are you against abortions of convenience, i.e., I wanted a boy not a girl, I want to advance in my career first, I want to save money for a new house, etc.?

A person's reasons are their own. I do not think a person should sacrifice the life they want to live in order to have a child she doesn't want. That is unfair to the child. Let its soul be born into another body.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I would like to see some support for "Life begins at conception." Some objective, unbiased support.

I have already stated that this is simply my opinion. There is no quantitative or qualitiative way to define when life begins with any surity. Since it is impossilble to define when life begins I prefer erring on the side of life beginning earlier rather than later.

Why is a bunch of cells that may become a child more important than a living, breathing human being? What posible logic could one use to deny rights to a living, breathing human being in order to protect the rights of a bunch of cells that may posibly become a human in the future? You anti choicers are so hypocritical. It is all about punishing the woman for having sex. If you truly cared about human rights you would consider that the mother is a human and already living and breathing and her rights to her own body are being denied.

But then, we shouldn't expect too much from the christian right. Logic and empathy are not atributes of they hold. Punishment and vilifying sex are more in line with their thinking.

Originally posted by Echo2
Why is a bunch of cells that may become a child more important than a living, breathing human being? What posible logic could one use to deny rights to a living, breathing human being in order to protect the rights of a bunch of cells that may posibly become a human in the future?

The right to life for that growing human trumps any right of the woman to have say in the processes of nature.

You anti choicers are so hypocritical.

:rolleyes:

It is all about punishing the woman for having sex.

Ummm, no...no it isn't..........

If you truly cared about human rights you would consider that the mother is a human and already living and breathing and her rights to her own body are being denied.

And if you truly cared about human rights you would not allow the ability for people to choose whether the innocent unborn live or die. It is not your place to choose, ever.

But then, we shouldn't expect too much from the christian right. Logic and empathy are not atributes of they hold. Punishment and vilifying sex are more in line with their thinking.

Yes because assuming that they are punishing women for having sex and no other reason is so logical and empathetic. Killing an unborn human is so compassionate, legitimate and bright. :rolleyes:

Why is a bunch of cells that may become a child more important than a living, breathing human being? Echo2


Because in one instance it is a matter of convenience and in the other of life and death.

I was holding back from posting because this is a no-win arguement. But I just want to state my opinion.
Abortion is not great. Morally, it is sad and depressing. There are better options.
BUT
It shouldn't be illegal. Women have the right to choose. (and I think is about punishing sex)
I shall say no more on the subject...hopefully...

Originally posted by MotherKali
I was holding back from posting because this is a no-win arguement. But I just want to state my opinion.
Abortion is not great. Morally, it is sad and depressing. There are better options.
BUT
It shouldn't be illegal. Women have the right to choose. (and I think is about punishing sex)
I shall say no more on the subject...hopefully...


Women, as well as men have the right to choose vanilla over chocolate, grey over navy blue, Toyota over Ford. They should not have the right to choose life over death for an unborn child.

They should not have the right to choose life over death for an unborn child.

So, you would oppose a woman's choice to get pregnant? That is the logic you are pushing here.

I wonder how many pontificating in one direction or another have ever been faced with a truly unwanted pregnancy?

Case in point: Soldier is overseas for 13 months. Upon his return he learns that dear spouse has been majorly unfaithful, and is pregnant by any one of a number of one night stands. Add to this situation that the spouse has admitted to experiencing alcohol / pharmacutical drug induced blackouts and has no clue who the father might be. The soldier opts to pay for an abortion that the spouse wants, primarily to smooth the way for an easy, uncontested, divorce.

They both walk away -- turn the page.

True story, with details left out.

Originally posted by es347fan
I wonder how many pontificating in one direction or another have ever been faced with a truly unwanted pregnancy?

Case in point: Soldier is overseas for 13 months. Upon his return he learns that dear spouse has been majorly unfaithful, and is pregnant by any one of a number of one night stands. Add to this situation that the spouse has admitted to experiencing alcohol / pharmacutical drug induced blackouts and has no clue who the father might be. The soldier opts to pay for an abortion that the spouse wants, primarily to smooth the way for an easy, uncontested, divorce.

They both walk away -- turn the page.

True story, with details left out.

So the soldier feels better, the wife is made repentent and the unborn baby is killed. Which of the three is most innocent and which of the three receives the greatest punishment?

Which of the three is most innocent and which of the three receives the greatest punishment?

Which of the two, you mean.

Originally posted by Frogger
So the soldier feels better, the wife is made repentent and the unborn baby is killed. Which of the three is most innocent and which of the three receives the greatest punishment?
Punishment? Uh, fetuses cannot feel pain...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Punishment? Uh, fetuses cannot feel pain...

The halting of any possibility for them to live a life is a pretty big punishment, if not the biggest possible.

Originally posted by Frogger
Women, as well as men have the right to choose vanilla over chocolate, grey over navy blue, Toyota over Ford. They should not have the right to choose life over death for an unborn child.

Once again for the truly stupid that can't grasp the concept....a fetus is not a living breathing human being. It relies completely on the mothers body for life. Draining the mother of nutrition, energy and health. It cannot sustain it's life without living parasitically off of the mother. Therefore the mother has the right to determin whether she will allow this fetus to feed off of her bodyor not. No one should be forced to have something feeding off of their body.

You will never convince me it is about anything more than keeping women in their place and punishing poor women for having sex. Wealthy and middle class women can simply go across the border to Canada or Mexico if it is made illegal here, and poor women will resort to coat hangers and butchers.

You will never be able to control what women do with their own bodies. No matter how hard you try or how many laws you pass. Women are no longer the chatel of men and government. Our years of being controled by people with small minds are over.

Originally posted by Evakian
The halting of any possibility for them to live a life is a pretty big punishment, if not the biggest possible.
You're halting any possibility for your sperm to live a life by not having sex right now.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
You're halting any possibility for your sperm to live a life by not having sex right now.

That would require a female to provide the egg.

Originally posted by Evakian
That would require a female to provide the egg.
Having the fetus grow into a human would require the female to provide nutrients to the fetus. Your point?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Your point?

I didn't find a point in your statement-

You're halting any possibility for your sperm to live a life by not having sex right now.

-either.

Originally posted by Evakian
I didn't find a point in your statement-



-either.
My point is that the line between a sperm and fetus is just as ambiguous as the line between a fetus and human. Both have the potential to become human.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
My point is that the line between a sperm and fetus is just as ambiguous as the line between a fetus and human. Both have the potential to become human.

The sperm and the egg sit around in the separate entities doing nothing but having the potential to mix and begin fertilization of a human. A fetus is the active growth of the potential person. There is a difference because at one stage you've nothing but the potential, at the other you've got much more...an entity is forming.

Originally posted by Evakian
The sperm and the egg sit around in the separate entities doing nothing but having the potential to mix and begin fertilization of a human. A fetus is the active growth of the potential person. There is a difference because at one stage you've nothing but the potential, at the other you've got much more...an entity is forming.
Is forming. There's a difference between a bundle of non-differentiated cells and a human. And incidentally, that bundle of cells also only has "potential"; it has no humanoid qualities about it.

The sperm and the egg sit around in the separate entities doing nothing but having the potential to mix and begin fertilization of a human. A fetus is the active growth of the potential person. There is a difference because at one stage you've nothing but the potential, at the other you've got much more...an entity is forming.
A sperm has the potential to become a fetus. A fetus has the potential to become a human.
S = Psubf
F = Psubh
H = H

You state that Psubh = H (thusly should be treated as one)
Therefore, by the same logic Psubf = F (thusly should be treated as one)
We find that S = F
and that F = H
By simple substitution, S = H.
QED
Thusly, a sperm should be treated as though it was human.

Not every sperm deserves a name!

Originally posted by es347fan
Not every sperm deserves a name!
::jacks off into Kleenex:: Farewell, Jimmy! Have fun, Bob! Take care, Dennis! Bye, Alex! I love you all!