1 Why not? They're just the American Taliban anyway, right?

2 Yet more evidence that the threat to free speech today is coming from the Left.

3 The liberals have no credibility at all. They decry hate yet they are the worst haters of all. They disgust me. And a.n.g.e.r. me!

4 The whole idea of abstinence scares the crap out of them. If people actually practice it, they become irrelevant. So they mock morality by equating it with religious fundamentalism and encourage hate and violence. Nice.

5 If anyone is an American Taliban, it would be the ridiculous right wing, who wants to force every woman to their way of thinking. They are ridiculous for believing that everyone will really proscribe to abstinence. I would guess that they only reason most (over 50%) teenage boys are abstinence is because they can’t find a girl to do it with. (Not counting high school teachers. ) Now I admit the cartoon from the link was a little stupid, but the message that PPH is sending is legit. “ “IF” you are going to engage in non marital sex, then protect yourself and your partner with condoms." As for the beheading and drowning of the Pro Lifer, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I have never heard of a Pro Choicer killing a Pro Lifer in real life. But the same can not be said for the reverse. It would be better for all if the Pro lifer would worry about themselves instead of butting into others people’s business.

6 Yes, we shouldn't force the thousands of years old belief that life is sacred on anyone. Let's just scuttle all laws, because you can't legislate morality. Dumbasses. As I've stated before, Joesph Mengeles would have heartily endorsed the evil that is Planned Parenthood.

7 The cognotive dissonance that comes from being anti-abortion yet pro-death panalty must be the reason peoples brains have become jelly.

8 The inability to differentiate between an earned death (penalty) and an unearned one (abortion) is too much for some I suppose. One of those instances where nuance goes out the window for the left I suppose. Great site update by the way. Looks good.

9 But in order to have a death, one must be born first. Abortions have never killed a "Living and Breathing being." And Pro Choices are not abandoning the "thousand year old beliefs" that life is sacred. We are just defining when life begins. Also, I believe that the PPH gives out better advice then the Papacy. With all the diseases going around now adays, it is much better to wrap up then go all natural. But if you do wrap up, then you wont have 6 or 8 kids, you will be most like poor and un educated, and can be more easily brained washed by one of Joesph Mengeles fellow Germans now sitting in Rome. YBP, shame shame, you down sliding into name calling.

10 We are just defining when life begins. Based on what exactly?

11 Aborting is a terrible terrible option. Personally it's a medical fact that fertilized eggs fail to implant all the time. Also I'm not sure that taking a skin cell and a donated egg to get stem cells is all that bad. But for sure abourting once a woman is pregnant is not a good thing. The only worse thing I can think of is some girl having made that descision which she will regret 20 years later is for her to have the procedure done by some butcher in a back alley. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's between he, Her and Her God. What the government should have to do with it I don't know. A fetus is vaible pretty early these days. Just becuase it has not breathed yet does not mean it's not alive and can not breath if it needed too. We should work to reduce not outlaw abortion. To outlaw it won't stop it. In India midwives do it with pressure applied to the outside of the body. It will exist anyway.

12 "With all the diseases going around now adays, it is much better to wrap up then go all natural." No, I'd say it's much better to be in a monogamous relationship with one person (i.e., one's spouse). Yes, Benedict XVI indeed espouses such Nazi-like concepts like respect for life. They were always going on about that, remember, you historians? Best to pledge allegiance to PPH and the Religion of Social Engeneering.

13 Howie: "To outlaw it won't stop it." True, but like any law, making an act illegal will greatly reduce its prevalence. Plus, it makes a statement the act is wrong.

14 "We are just defining when life begins." How noble of you. Bear in mind, Butch is the one who defines abortion as: "...abortion (the removing of a parasitic growth that has the "potential" of becoming a living breathing person.)" He has convinced himself that right up until the very moment a child takes a breath they are fair game and can be killed without compunction. Personally, I find that repugnant.

15 Your are correct Oyster, that is my definition about abortion. But you are wrong about "until the very moment a child takes a breath" because I don't see a child, but "a parasitic growth that has the "potential" of becoming a living breathing person". And it is perfectly okay for you to feel repugnant. That is your choice. But how would you feel if the government came down and told you that to feel repugnant is against the law. If they catch you, off you go to the slammer. Not so good, hum. I do feel that Howie has the right of it all. That the decision of abortion is really between God, the woman, (and my opinion) the doctor performing it. If a woman gets abortion in Texas, is this going to effect anyone in NY, or CA. No. What about even in her same city. No. Will it bring about the down fall of Civilization, I don't think so. Defense guy, what I am basing life on is the lowest common denominator. I believe, (and this is my opinion), that everyone in the world would consider a breathing entity, (person, cat, dog, ect) as alive. I think I can say no one will debate that point. But pre birth, there has been much debate. Is it alive at conception, or 1st trimester, 2nd, or 3rd?

16 Yes Butch, and to answer that question, whether or not it is a "life" by giving it an arbitrary definition yourself with absolutely no empirical evidence, could very well mean that a crime is being committed if you're wrong. So those who rely on such decisions in such a manner only wish to clear their conscience. Nothing more. Our laws are not infallible. No one knows when "life" begins. When one becomes a human worthy of the right to live. All I've ever wanted to hear is for one pro-choice person to admit they could be wrong and that erring on the side of caution would be the most prudent approach, but that would be inconvenient, wouldn't it? Your question of how I would feel if the government told me my repugnance is against the law has absolutely no bearing on the argument at hand. You gave your opinion and I gave mine. That's it. The government came down on your side of the argument so your statement is moot anyway. The current argument, however, is not about abortion, but it's what we teach our kids about sex. The argument so many are simply trying to make is that abstinence MUST be part of the education. It is not - and Planned Parenthood fights that all the way even though religion has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with it. Some, even me, are very cautious supporters of abortion, in cases of health risks for mother or child. Discussing abstinence should be part of the program. To eliminate it from education is irresponsible. Planned Parenthood is engaging in the worst form of misinformation with that cartoon video. And that is the ommission of the only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy or disease and demonizing those who who advocate it. To equate the common sense of abstinence to religious fundamentalism is ridiculous. It's a lame excuse to say that one is pushing their morals or religious beliefs on others. They certainly aren't being taught ALL the options in school amidst all the bananas and diagrams. They're being taught safe sex, they're even being encouraged, but not being taught consequence when that fails.

17 Simple Max: One group deserves it and the other doesn't.

18 The law has already defined this issue. The Lacy Peterson case is an example of a person begin charged and convicted of murdering a child still in the womb. Not breathing. Not human? I quess all people on a mechanical lung are not really human. Just parasites. Parasite. Something that lives off another. I suspect American society has more parasites outside the womb than inside.

19 Oyster, I agree, that abstinence should be taught along side safe sex. That both should be taught together. And for those who want to live a life of abstinence, that is all good. But for those who don't, then lets educated them as much as possible in order for them to have safe sex. And part of the education would be to point out the consequence. Also as I stated, the cartoon was stupid in my opinion, but the pro lifer have committed worst crimes then this, (blowing up clinics). And just to make your day, I, a pro choicer, will admit that I could be wrong about when life begins. But since we do not have 100% or even 51% proof positive that life begins pre birth, I choose to err on the side of the life that is currently in no doubt, the woman. And Rooster, I stated that life begins when one takes a breath. That does not mean they stop living if placed on a machine. They are already alive. As for the Peterson case, I believe, (my opinion), that Scott is a murderer, but not a serial killer. The only thing I am trying to get across is abortion should not be outlawed, and that every woman will need to make her own choice on having one or not. And every doctor will have to make the choice to perform one or not. As for sex education, I feel both abstinence and safe sex should be taught together. And that neither should be promoted more then the other. But I believe that each individual should have a choice in which they want to follow.