Really David? REALLY?

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/articles/article4.pdf

Headline: Without truth there are lies

Good work. We should also increase taxes because with all these lovely babies being born to parents (or parent) that can't afford them, it will certainly increase the welfare burden. As well, the direct connection between growing up in poverty and ending up in poverty (I know, I know, not every case...), there will be an exponential increase in the welfare burden, the prison burden, and the mental health burden. Because not only could the parent(s) not afford them, they didn't even want them!

I do think the father should be able to step in and have some say in keeping the child. But I say it's a personal choice, not the choice of some rich BS politician scum bag trying for the evangelical vote next term. You think the abortion decision comes easy to these girls? The decision only affects those involved, NOT society, and certainly not YOU. Stay the hell out of other peoples business.

You're a hoot you know that? I really hope the articles you write are intended mainly to get a rise out of people because if you actually believe what you write, you have a very twisted view of reality, in my opinion. Speaking of reality, if Row v Wade is overturned, how many unwanted children do you want to adopt? That's what I'd like to see--the pro-lifers putting their money and their hearts where their mouths are, because if they're not willing to do that, then they're part of the problem, not the solution.

"Ultimately, Roe v. Wade is little more than shoddy case law built on a bedrock of lies." Oh, you mean like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

I agree that "without truth, there is no choice," but the same goes for sex education. The christian-right who think abortions should be illegal are the same people who think abstinence-only programs are the way to go. Sex education needs to, first, be taught in schools. Second, all forms of protection, not just abstinence, need to be taught. Just remember that those who do not want Roe v. Wade overturned are not pro-abortion. They are pro-choice.

I'd like David to answer this simple question: if Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion becomes illegal in the United States, what should be the punishment for a woman who gets an illegal abortion? Death penalty? Life in prison? If in fact David does consider abortion to be murder, as so many in the "pro-life" community think, then shouldn't the punishment for murder be one of the two aforementioned?

Really? Who is to say these figures are not correct? Just because you print it doesn't mean its true either.

The anti-choice people are the same people that are against safe sex education in our schools, against giving out free contraceptives, are against welfare and aid to low income/single parent homes, and are pro death penalty.

Who are the true mis-informed here?

Obviously Mr. Morris has never read Roe v. Wade. While his argument may or may not be a fair criticism of the pro-choice movement, any mention of the Roe v. Wade decision is clearly inappropriate. The majority's opinion is based on 14th amendment's guarantees of equal protection and due process, American case law and constitutional interpretation that grants citizens a general right of privacy, as well as a common law tradition that has never considered a fetus to be a person with any rights. The majority never relies on the fact that illegal abortions are largely unsafe in order to justify its ruling. In fact, the majority only considers the safety of abortions when ruling on what stage of pregnancy the state can regulate or proscribe abortions without violating a woman's constitutional rights. Roe v. Wade is not "shoddy case law based on lies" rather the decision is based on a constructionist understanding of the 14th amendment and due process of law. Mr. Morris' column on the other hand, is based on a careless misunderstanding of the that law, which confuses the position of activists with that of the judiciary. I would encourage anyone who would criticize Roe v. Wade to actually read the case beforehand. You just might learn something about our constitution and your own rights.

That had to be said, Daniel. I understand that this is an opinion column, but when the columnist has no idea what they are talking about, shouldn't an editor or someone step in?

Wow, is this what TAMU has turned into.

Terry links to an article from the World Health Organization. While the article is interesting, it has absolutely nothing to do with the United States, and thus irrelevent to Morris' discussion. But it gets points in sensationalism. Terry, go look at the pictures of aborted babies. Go check out the full term babies with scissors rammed into their faces. How's that statistic?

BJ, ok, so you are saying we should kill babies because if we don't they will add to the welfare burden? Wow. You know, 80% if all taxes are paid by the wealthiest 20%. So maybe we should start genociding the bottom 80% of earners. Maybe that's going to far though. Instead how about we murder everybody with a felony conviction sentenced to more then 5 years? No offense BJ, but you are an idiot.

Steve, lol, who is part of what problem? First of all, there are huge waiting lists for children. Plenty of accepting parents. But regardless, what is that you said? Pro-lifers are part of the problem? What problem? You take no responsibility for your behavior and want to use murder as a backup solution. We point out that what you're doing is wrong, and somehow it then becomes a pro-life problem? We bear part of the responsibility? Wow Steve, not very intelligent. Last time I checked your bad behavior is still your responsibility. Grow up.

Amy, no offense, but very naive. What world do you live in? Please tell me Amy, what is a 100% guaranteed way to not get pregnant or get an STD? There is only one, it is called not fooling around until you're prepared to be responsible for the consequences, a.k.a. abstinence. Pro-lifers are pro-choice too. How about the rights of the baby? Have you ever heard of the Declaration of Independence? It says something about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What is the very first thing - LIFE. How about the child's rights? If the mother (or father) doesn't want the child, there is a thing called adoption. She has lots of choices. And this also raises the issue of the father. What if the father wants the child? If a mother can abort a child without regard to the father's permission, then shouldn't he likewise have the right to refuse child-support responsibilities? He can elect for abortion, and if she refuses, he shouldn't have to pay child support.

And let's see, what does Jon have to say... The penalty he asks? Death, life in prison? More sensational arguments. We should make something legal because we don't have the stomach to enforce the law? Is that what you're arguing for? That makes a lot of sense. Well, Jon, in answer to your question, what was the penalty before Roe vs. Wade? I doubt it would be any different. If all these inflated statisics are true, it sure doesn't make sense, does it? Why would a woman murder her child if she was risking a death penalty or life sentence in prison? Talk about twisted. The penalty would be about the same as before, which amounts to little more than natural guilt, which is well deserved in my opinion.

Jane, wow... so tell us, are you going to vote for Hillary? Well, first of all, not all pro-life people fit in that nice emotional stereotype. But going down the list. Safe-sex education. You're right Jane, many of us do not support government schools encouraging children to have sex. Government schools are supposed to teach reading, writing, math, and science. But it would seem you are one of those people who things it's the schools responsibility to raise children instead of the parents. Perhaps that's why the USA is scoring near-last in all the placement exams. We spend how much on education? More than almost any other country. And what do we get? Kids that don't know how to read or do math, but they sure know how to use a condom and pop morning-after pills. Against welfare? Jane, let me ask you a question. So, you support the military going to people's houses and taking their money at gunpoint? Because that's what you're defending. And last time I checked welfare dependents weren't good for the ecomomy. As far as I'm concerned, you're a theif. If you want to live in a welfare state move to the east. And about the dealth penalty, well, I shouldn't have to point out how absolutely ridiculous it is for you to bring up something like that in a discussion about abortion.

Daniel, bravo! You are correct about the legal justifications for Roe vs. Wade. I commend you for pointing them out. And I agree that Morris' remarks didn't at all address this, but I think his intent was to sort of set the stage of what led to Roe vs. Wade. While the court legalized abortion through the analysis you described, the pressures that led them to do so were completely different. Women weren't protesting for the lack of fetus rights. Their reasoning has always been based on emotional imagery of abused women and whatnot, statistics like what Morris discussed.

Alex, who are you to say he doesn't know what he's talking about? Your comment suggests that the people who commented before have proven this to be the case. That couldn't be further from the truth. Perhaps you would like to enlighten all of us. Show us how Daniel (Morris) doesn't know what he's talking about?

Y'all's responses are typical. The only defense of abortion is a selfish one.

Ok andrew, here it goes:

First of all the Declaration of Independence is not a law. Second it was written during a time period where slaves and WOMEN had no rights, obviously babies didn't.

Saying a father should be able to request an abortion (in the case that abortions are legal) and not have to pay child support if he doesn't get one, is completely another issue. I will say you are right the day when men can physically carry a child in their bodies, and at that moment understand what it means to make that decision and have that on your conscience. The truth is no one knows for sure when a baby is living or not, its based on personal beliefs. No one would believe that the child was "killed" by the father if the mother could have stopped it. A father can't physically stop a mother, so the blame would be on the mother herself for what she does with the baby. That does not mean a father should not be held responsible for putting her in that position in anyway. They both made the decision to have sex in the first place and they will both be paying for it.

On the issue of a father requesting that a mother not have an abortion, that might be plausible. I haven't decided my stance on this issue yet. But if i did decide I was in favor of this issue, i would be fully supportive of the woman paying child support.

I think a lot pro-choicers are misunderstood. There are a lot of people out there that think abortion is a bad choice but don't support the government's ability to ban it. I personally think that while the government cannot prove that a fetus is alive and conscious, they have no authority to prohibit an abortion on it. Above all I do support Amy and Terri's claims. Birth control should be made more readily available and safe sex practices taught without encouraging sex.

Andrew I think you are the one that is ignorant, for this reason: You need to realize that whether you like it or not, people are not brought up with the same beliefs about sex. People to have the right to choose what they believe and many, Teenagers mostly, are ignorant of the maturity level needed for this sort of thing. Pre teens are even having sex now and thats horrible but SOME OF US hope that EDUCATING them will keep them from having sex as well as when they do make the decision to have sex do it with protection and PREVENT THE VERY SITUATION YOU HATE SO MUCH. YOUR VIEWS DO NOTHING TO HELP THE SITUATION PRIMARILY BECAUSE TEEN PREGNACIES HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY AREN'T WISE ENOUGH TO HAVE YOUR VIEWS OR LISTEN TO THEM. It is too often the case that your way does not work and therefore we need to evolve. Wake up and realize that preteens and teenagers are ignorant and sometimes thats a really bad thing.

Great article. It brings up some interesting points.

It is so fascinating to me that people always bring up the deffense that nobody knows when life actually begins for the fetus, but women who do not want to be pregnant, but magically become so, are very quick to end a life they are not even sure exists yet. Prior to becoming a mother I was pro-life. Now that I am a mother of two beautiful children, I am still pro-life and understand that those of you who are pro-choice have missed the fact that there is always a choice - to have sex or not to have sex. The problem in America is that an increasing portion of the population does not want to take responsibility for their choices, and look for the quick fix to a problem, when they have made a poor one. I am aware that there are circumstances where women are raped and their pregnancy is not their choice, but where one stands on this issue goes so much deeper than "when does life begin" or "should abortion be illegal or not"- this goes all the way to the core of who you are as a preson and what you believe and who you believe in. My life was not an accident, your life was not an accident, and according to God, none of those babies conceived, in terrible or concentual situations, are accidents. We cannot argue this issue based on legalities. This issue is about who you live your life for and why we are here. I know people who have had abortions, and their choice has haunted them from the momtent the baby ceased to exist. There is not a difference between picking up a gun and killing a human being than there is in killing an innocent, unborn child. Those of you who are pro-choice need to take a visit to your local hospital and just look into the eyes of the precious lives God created. Take a visit to the ICU where pre-mature babies fight and struggle to stay alive. Then come back and tell me how you could ever justify killing something so pure and beautiful; something so miraculous, that no matter how hard science tries to explain it, babies are the miracles that exist all around us everyday. I look at my kids each day and see that there is good in this world; there is peace and true joy, and it lies within the hearts and souls of our children. Who would want to destroy that.

Sex is a natural part of being human. To not teach it in school is to make it something bigger than it is. More humans engage in sex than they engage in calculus, so why should it not be taught in schools? To teach it is not to encourage it. Teaching can actually discourage it if students are fully informed on all the diseases and accidents that can happen. People need to stop pretending that if you don't talk about it, it won't happen. Yes, abstinence is 100% guaranteed, but there is a 100% guarantee that most teenagers will not be abstinent. Because of this, sex education (sexual health) should definitely be taught in schools.

Here's an idea:

Against abortion?

DON'T HAVE ONE!