i guess that's some sticky facts to get past...lol, pardon the pun...

WWW Link Best update your article to reflect the changing times.

All I can say is that there are a hell of a lot of shallow people out there.

I think there are several good reasons to abort. you named one of them, rape is another, Incest another.. Oops I got Preggers is not an excuse. OOps I see a girl/boy is not an excuse. Another reason is when the brain is outside the skull.

OOps I forgot my rubber/to take my pill is not an excuse.

I think a doctor and a patient should make the decision RE: abortion. And they should live with the consequences. As long as they foot the bill, not the taxpayer. If the taxpayer foots the bill, the taxpayer should set the restrictions. Its. That. Simple.

that's a valid view of course. but, i am really talking more about the shifting morality tho. and despite the recent advancements in technology that guy cited that can detect (only 87% of the time, compared with 95% accuracy when used withteh 2nd trimester test) the fact still remains that 90% of the people with a positive test (or tests) abort the baby. yet, 1/2 claim to be against abortion being legal or being restricted to the point where downs syndrome wouldn't be one of the exceptions.

for those wondering...the stat is not from the NYT.

it is from a study conducted in both the 80's and 90's and is reported by a university . the times actually puts the number a little low, like i did. the actual termination rate is 92%. below is a NIH site that reported the findings. there are other sources that report sim. information. the times is not the source however.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=DisplayFiltered&DB=pubmed

exerpt from site: Termination rates varied across conditions. They were highest following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome (92 per cent; CI: 91 per cent to 93 per cent)

another source...http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070121/ai_n17147583

People claim women have the right to make decisions about their body and then tell me I have to wear a seatbelt. If anything is hypocritical it is people who are all about cleaning up society and then claim in this one, narrow instance, no one can say anything about it. Evidently anyone is free to impose their moral standards on anyone else so long as it gets the NoW stamp of approval.

The subject is, after all, hypocrisy, right? A woman can kill an unborn baby unshackled, but how an oil company runs its business is the business of the individual voter? Am I allowed to sell my kidney? I can't grow pot in my backyard or ride a motorcycle without a helmet or friggin go fishing without a permit, but a woman can go and have a government regulated abortion?

Come on. People who don't see the hypocricy in the pro-choice stance of quasi-Liberals are blind. These are people who are all about legislating my life. They want to choose what kind of video games I can play, what kind of movies I can buy, what I can buy at McDonald's, whether or not I fly through my windshield when I wreck my car.

If they have the right to decide I am to stupid to decide whether or not I need a seatbelt, then I have the right to decide whether they can have an abortion. The day there are segments of my life that are "my choice" then I might believe that pro-abortion folks have any interest whatsoever in "freedom".

it is when the business is anti competitive and manipulates the market.



some states ya can.



in delaware you most certainly can.



fan of poaching are ya?

and when people not wearing seatbelts cause more injuries / deaths, it is my concern when my insurance rates and other expenses are being jacked to cover their negligence.

So, you admit that you are a hypocrite and can impose your social moral stance and refuse to admit people who feel that abortion is a social scourge have the same right? Admirable, in a backwards kind of a way. At least that you admit you want your thumbprint on society but not allow everyone else to put theirs there.



Business IS the market. Business doesn't have the right to manipulate the market, but people with no market experience and little economic knowledge DO have the right to impose THEIR will on it? You have the right to buy a friggin bycycle and butt out, right?

Odd sort of "liberty" you have there. Imposing your will on the oil industry subverts the economic system in the same way that telling people that they can't outlaw abortion subverts democracy. In both cases, people from outside step in and tell people that what they want to do isn't kosher, even though there is no constitutional reason.

Sounds a lot like people stepping in and telling women they can't have abortions. You tell me I can't vote for something I want to vote for, you tell the oil companies that they can't set their own prices unless you approve. Interesting idea of freedom. This article was about hypocrisy, right?




Some, sure. Propose that abortion be decided in such a way and pro-abortion folks toss their cookies. Evidently some people have a natural right to do what they want with their bodies, and I don't.



So people in states that don't allow such could just move their asses to states that more agree with their values. Sounds like a good system. Odd that pro-abortion folks don't have such a respect for democracy.



I'm not a fan of having ask permission to go catch a fish, no. Then I'm told that a woman can go kill an unborn child and no one can even question it legally. Odd sort of society that is more concerned with my seatbelt and fish than unborn children. Definitely not one focused on liberty.



Would you like to rethink that line in terms of abortion, lol. Not a road I would go down in a debate, given my tax money is going to be paying for them eventually, and my insurance payments already friggin do.

Your last line basically gives me veto power over abortion, doesn't it?

So you are willing to sell your rights for the right price? That is in essence what you are arguing with this comparison. If the cost is too high to you, then it is ok to give up your rights to it. Strange way for a libertarian to argue about keeping the government out of our lives.

It's hilarious, really. He has the right to say I have to wear a seatbelt because my going through the windshield might make his insurance go up. My insurance is paying for abortions, my tax money goes to regulate abortion, my tax dollars will almost surely eventually pay for them outright...

but...

I don't have the same right he has to have any say over the practice. So, my rights are subordinate to his, my liberty is subordinate to a woman who wants to kill a child. Yes, this article is most certainly about hypocrisy.

baker,,,you seem to think that i've made up my mind on abortion. that might serve yer lil rant here, but it's hardly the case. if you notice the title,,,this is a question. a question you haven't even come close to answering in between yer rhetoric.

but i can see the subject itself gets yer panties all up in a bundle...that's kinda funny. lighten up francis   

...



That was your question, right Sally? I was pointing out that it is a really a question you could answer yourself, right? After all, you do the same thing, as evidenced by the last line of reply #9.

This is supposedly about people who say one thing and do another. I was pointing out that perhaps you might be overlooking an expert on the subject. "uberalles" is an interesting way of framing a situation where democracy is being crushed in favor of imposed, hypocritical values, especially in an article supposedly pointing out hypocrisy.

Legalized abortions is the first step to mandatory abortions.