Well I am a republican and I am a candidate, but my pro life position isn't a platform I have jumped on in hopes to get elected. Many of us conservative republicans do form our own conclusions. We learned to do that before the public schools were overtaken with the lefties.

I am pro life because I've seen an aborted baby for myself. Held one in fact! It is heartbreaking. Of course than there is the fact that I was born in 1964 (almost a decade before woe vs wade) to a young 15 year old girl. My dad was in prison. A decade later my mother did have an abortion. She would have had one to end my existence too if they were available in our small rural town. Interesting to note, that she is grateful that wasn't her option. The years were difficult, there is no denying that, but 44 years later, she is proud of my accomplishments and it is not my life that causes her grief.

Abortions hurt the women, those stats. are never discussed by the liberals. Often the circumstances surrounding pregnancy are heartbreaking. Unfortunately making a bad choice just makes thos circumstances worse, for years to come.

Glad to have my say, glad have been given life and glad to be running for the State Senate!

(1) Your mother made a "choice", and she is happy with it. Wonderful. That does not mean that other women should be denied their right to choose. What was right for her may not be right for other women. The choice is what matters.

(2) Please don't pretend that your position derives from a concern for women. If abortion cured cancer and depression, would you support it? I'm guessing no. Besides, where exactly are these stats? You know, for a fact, that having an abortion is a worse option - for every woman - than having a pregnancy she doesn't want and possibly raising a baby she doesn't want, or putting it into an overcrowded and borderline criminal foster care and adoption system?

Despite what you imply with your anecdote about your mother, not every woman/girl can and will love an unwanted baby. Not every woman/girl can be a good mother. I've seen too many lives ruined by unwanted pregnancies to be convinced by your one example.

It's sad really.
Save a tree, don't kill animals, the death penalty is wrong, but don't dare take away a woman's ability to legally kill an unborn child. Anyone who thinks this way is a JACKASS

So by your argument a woman should be able to kill her five year old son instead of giving him up for adoption? One person's rights only extend so far as another's. A person's right to choose what happens to their body is trumped by a child's right to live. You don't have the right to execute someone simply because they inconvenience you.

JACKASS isn't an argument. Besides, you - despite what you claim - don't really see it as an "unborn child", with equal rights. Imagine the following scenario (yes, I know it'll never happen, but play along): There is a fire in a fertility clinic. You can EITHER rescue a child OR you can rescue a box of one hundred human embryos. Which do you choose? Unless you're a psychopath, and I don't think you are, you choose the one child over the one hundred of what you claim to consider human.

Where exactly am I advocating murdering the already born? (I'm curious as to why you specifically used the term "son", but that's another issue.)

Your use of the word "inconvenience" is insulting. Raising a child is unbelievably hard work; it is not simply an inconvenience. It should not be foisted on those who do not want it. Too many lives have been ruined by unwanted pregnancies and children. The lives of the people who already exist must come first.

Is she now regretful that ahe *did* have the option of an abortion 34 years ago, I wonder? Very few mothers would ever tell their child 'Oh, it's really too bad abortions weren't available when I was pregnent with you' (even if they may have thought it once or twice during the kids mid-teens).

Making a bad chioce will often make any circumstances worse, but why do you think you are more qualified to make those choices than the woman living through them?

__________________
"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

If they didn't want to have a child they shouldn't of gotten pregnant. The point remains. You don't have the right to kill someone simply because you don't want to raise them.

Generally one does not get pregnant deliberately if one does not want a baby, so I have to assume that you're saying that if you don't want to raise a baby, you shouldn't have penetrative sex, yes? Because no other birth control is perfect.

I rather think that using a baby to punish a woman for having sex is not good for anyone involved.

__________________
"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

I think that punishing a child (by murdering it) because it's mother had sex is reprehensible. Furthermore I think it takes a pretty twisted person to think that allowing a child to be born has anything to do with "punishing" a parent. It's not about punishment. It's about ensuring the right of that child to live.

Sorry, I was hearing what sounded like a strong anti-sex sentiment in your previous post. Perhaps it wasn't intended that way. FOrcing a woman to bear a baby she dosen't want could certainly look a whole lot like punishment, though, in the sense of 'you made your bed, now lie in it'.

The issue here really is at what point during the pregnancy does an embryo become a person? It isn't a clear line, although it would make things much easier if it were. Before you have a person there, it can't be 'punished', or harmed; you can't murder someone who does not yet exist.

__________________
"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

No it isn't an argument it is a truth.

To your example I would pose the following example.

A deadly virus hits sweeps the nation. Hospitals have to make a decision on who to save and who to let die. Who do you think wins out the elderly or children? The children because: 1. they have not yet lived their lives, and 2. they are more likely to survive. In your example I would obviously save the child because, as he is already born, he stands a greater chance for survival. That being said the two are nowhere near the same (abortion and your example).

Abortion isn't (usually) about having to choose who to save. Abortion, except in certain cases, is about killing one for the convenience of another.

If it is ok to kill a child in the womb because it will grant some undeterimed level of inconvenience upon a parent then why isn't it ok for a parent to "terminate" a child they already have?

Of course thinking it is ok to kill a child for no better reason than that it is "hard work" is insulting. There isn't any logical way that I could characterize it that would make it less offensive.

See previous responses. All you are doing here is reiterrating your belief that a parent's convenience, and comfort should come before the life of their child.

A simple post, but SO very moving.

The partial birth procedure is particularly cruel because it is a viable fetus. Previous cases have turned on the viability of the fetus.