RateItAll: The Opinion Network

I am against the taking of a human life, whether it be murder, abortion, the death penalty, etc. Who are we to say who should live and who should die?

For those of you who would claim that all pro-life people support abortion clinic bombings and such, just stop the propaganda now. For every cause that's out there, there are always a few fanatics who get so caught up in that cause, that they are willing to do anything to achieve their goals, even if they do more harm than good in the process.

One example. Some people who want to protect the environment spike trees to intentionally injure loggers. Does this mean that everyone who wants to protect the environment is a violent hypocritical person? Of course not.

When a right becomes more important than a life, then we will soon have rights but no enough people to use and enjoy them. Abortion must be stopped by all means possible for the sake of what's left of humanity in us. Update: there you have it: saving an innocent, defenseless life is now equated to terrorism. what a pathetic nation have we become.

Update 2: When people talk about taking a human life, and call it a blob of cells, a tumor or an unwanted feature of their bodies, it's intrinsically sick, wicked and criminal. any adult who places a child in danger is criminally prosecuted and incarcerated. What is the difference with an unborn child? When is a human being called a human being? Life begins at conception, from that moment on, everything a human being will become is in those two cells that have come together. The stupidity and wickedness of it all is when destroying a bald eagle's egg is criminalized and the perpetrator is heavily fined and/or incarcerated. An eagle's embryo is more valuable to this society that a human embryo. Abortion is MURDER, no matter how you try to twist it and make is sound like a right.

The anti-choice movement has gotten so extreme that its adherents are willing to do anything to stop abortion. By and large their terrorist campaign has succeeded, driving out doctors from many rural areas that now lack medical providers for any and all of their needs. 97% of non-metropolitan counties in the U.S. now lack an abortion provider, in effect making choice meaningless. Even many of those who are moderately against abortion are colluding with the terrorists. Like Hamas, they benefit from the actions of extremists. Take Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry's recent response to an interviewer's question:

Q: What if that "social tension" is ratcheted up to violence?

A: We don't want that to happen, but no movement of any significance in human history did not have warts and inconsistencies.

Murdering abortion doctors? Well, those are just "warts and inconsistencies" in the grand story of social betterment. Such a cavalier attitude to the casualties of progress! In a stellar review, someone commented that the anti-choice crowd "would make great Communists. . . if they ever actually travelled anywhere. . ." No matter: Stalin would be proud.

Incidentally, this was what Terry was telling Playboy, a very liberal magazine, at least on reproductive matters. Can you imagine what incitements to violence he is providing his followers in private?

UPDATE: Hey, I have no problem with trying to convince women not to end their pregnancy. I, too, would like to see abortions done infrequently, though I think we've already reached that point in this country, as rates have gone down steeply over the last 20 years. If you want to stop individual abortions by moral suasion, more power to you. So why not give women the choice, and direct your energies toward convincing them not to take it? If conducted fairly and objectively, that activity can legitimately be called "pro-life."

However, most anti-abortion activists don't deserve that label. Many of these people would take away the choice: those who wish to end the very possibility of abortion, and whom we therefore have no alternative but to call the "anti-choice" crowd. Many of them stop at nothing to shut down clinics, taking away an essential choice, whether through explicit terror or various more subtle threats against doctors' livelihood. What I don't understand is the willingness of these anti-choice zealots to prevent women from having this free choice. They fail to call that the murder of doctors who provide abortion what it is: terrorism. Any law-enforcement agency calls it terrorism; why can't you call it terrorism, guys? Don't you have a blind spot here, guys? I hope my words aren't wasted on you ...

I am all for it.

I'm going to agree with Molfan here. I, personally, could never go through with an abortion, but I certainly can't force MY personal preferences onto another woman. It's her choice, and one she'll have to live with.

I could never have a abortion myself. but do not feel I have the right to stop someone else from having one. If someone really wants an abortion they will go back to the back alley type of abortions.

With over-population a real problem,I can't see any sanity in forcing women to have children they Do Not Want.Give them up for adoption,you say? Well,orphanages the world over are already over-crowded with unwanted kids.Kids who are likely to grow up in poverty and with little love or guidance.Not exactly a rosy future.If you really want to reduce abortions,you should SUPPORT birth control availability and sex education,and I'm not talking about the kind that tells lies to people that abstinance is the "only way".Most people are not about to abstain from sex until they're married,and most couples can not afford to raise fifteen kids.

A cause of the uneducated zealots who resent the legal rights of those over their own persons. . .keep trying, you'll keep losing. . .

Since W. has been in office the abortion rate has risen. There are more uninsured, abstainence only educated, & more in poverty. In the upcomming Congress, Pro-Choice & Pro-Life Democrats are comming up with a strategy that will reduce abortions. They all agree that the less need the better. Pro-Life Democrats aren't against better access to family planning if it results in less abortion.
Legal and Rare.

Depends on what you mean by stopping it. If by that you mean making it illegal, then I disagree. But if you mean making it unnecessary, though education, contraception and lifestyle choices, than I agree completely.

We can all agree that abortion nowadays isn't really necessary, considering new advances in contraception. The key is establishing better pre-natal and family planning services to make sure that abortion rates continue to drop.