Our choices have consequences

Wow, this guy has a direct line to God! I think he needs to lay off the heavy drugs...

There are many who believe they have a direct line to God. However, if you remove all the religion form Mr. Rosenthal's letter, his point is still valid.

grouse - you betcha this guy has a direct line to God. It's called the Bible.

Do some of you really believe that by using the word " Pro-Abortion " that it helps your cause? No, being "Pro-Choice ", does not mean that you are for abortion. It means that one believes that the CHOICE belongs to the ones directly involved> Not ever Johnny or Jill come lately.

TSL, I agree with one thing you said. Spinning the words does not help the cause, but both sides are guilty of that. I have heard "anti-choice" use just as often. It does not make someone "anti-choice" if you don't believe murder is a valid choice. The choice does belong to the ones directly involved (I guess that's 2 things I agree with you on,) so why is the choice of the child never taken into account? Why is the choice of the father never taken into account?

Egad. Why are we, the readers of this newspaper, inundated, day in and day out, with the rantings from these Christian loonies?

You know what? WE GET IT. You're against abortion. Fine. Hooray for you! Please, get on with your life, and leave the rest of us alone.

On a side note, the bible is a complete work of fiction. It's not a direct line to anything. And if you believe it is, then you're one of the loonies I'm referring to.

I believe the title of Mr. Rosenthal's letter is actually the whole point: our choices have consequences. What you believe about the goodness or evil of your choices may have very little to do with the actual consequences you may experience. If it's an evil choice, just thinking it's good won't make it so. Of course, there are plenty of people, even commenting on this blog, who believe good and evil are totally determined by a consensus of public opinion and not by any objective reality. (Good luck with that.)

As for you, DorkusHumongus, your assertion that the Bible is a complete work of fiction is obviously not true, a well-known fact even among the most illiterate of people, worldwide. With even the most cursory examination of archeological information readily available in popular magazine, even a great know-it-all as yourself would quickly admit that the history contained therein is pretty well supported by hard scientific evidence. Believing in God or not, of course, is optional-- but, again, choices have consequences.

DorkusHumongus - You're obviously not very educated regarding the Bible. It is not a work of fiction. And I am proud to be one of the 70% of Americans that believe in God. Call me a loonie if you want. Doesn't bother me. Seems to me that you're the one in the minority.

Paul-
I am strongly pro-choice, not pro-abortion. You might see that statement as a manipulation of our language, but it's not. It is impossible for any law - biblical or otherwise - to account for every situation in which a woman might wrestle with this solemn decision. Most of us who are pro-choice think abortions should be rare. In a perfect world, they would not happen at all.

However, I must take issue with your incendiary language. How dare you use "mother's choice" and "mass murderers" in the same paragraph? And, a "true conscience" would not demonize the woman who, for reasons unique to her, chooses to have an abortion. A "true conscience" would demand that abortions remain safe and legal - performed by "real" doctors - instead of the back alley variety that have claimed the lives of countless women. Finally, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

As in, if you don't believe in murder, don't kill anyone?

How is the killing of hundreds of thousands of children NOT mass murder? I never use religion in the argument, because I know that if your opponent doesn't believe as you do, then it's not helping your case. I just use common sense. No one has ever been able to tell me why it is ok to kill a baby, simply because it has not been exposed to air. Tell me when you think a child deserves the right to life. Then tell me why 5 minutes prior to that point, that the child did not deserve that same right.

I believe we would be infinitely better served if we addressed the issue of pregnancy prevention on both sides of the debate. i am fiercely pro-choice because of the dangers that appear when abortion is illegal. i am not a fan of abortion, but there are times when I believe it is necessary. in many situations it would not have been necessary, had the people in question used proper pregnancy prevention materials. let us remember the very same arguments used by gun enthusiasts: outlawing guns will not keep them from those who are willing to break the law. in the same way, preaching abstinence will not keep those who aren't listening celibate. we must ensure that those who are determined to have intercourse have proper prohphylactics and birth-control. it is true that actions have consequences, but should we really use children as punishment for the irresponsible?

You should not use children to punish the irresponsible...I agree. You should not kill the children because their parents are irresponsible either.

which is eactly why I am more concerned with stopping the progression that leads to unwanted pregnancy. abstinence -- desirable as it may be to those who believe in it -- is not practical to request from most in our society. but we've got to be able to mitigate the issue of unwanted pregnancy. i'm not quite sure what else we can do, but there must be something...as i said, i'm pro-choice, but abortion is not a healthy choice for anyone when it is unnecessary.

God Bless you, Mr. Rosenthal!

It certianly isn't healthy for the child!

I'm also pro-choice. Whenever I see a cottonmouth in my back yard, I choice it. It doesn't get a choice, only I do.

Should a 13 year old victim of rape be forced to carry and deliver the child of a rapist if said rape resulted in her pregnancy?

13 is old compared to the 9 yr old that this happened to in SC not too long ago. Carrying a child to term does no good to the body of a 9 yr old. It all comes down to the same question, really. Once you start discussing the issue, you're really discussing when life begins. Who can make the call? If other decisions can be made "for the greater good", why can't the decision on the beginning of life be made as well? Is the moment the sperm infiltrates the egg THE moment? what about before then? [eggs and sperm are both living as well] what about the differences in stages of development? a zygote is certainly not the same thing as a fetus. what about natural abortion [the correct term for miscarriages that take place after a certain point in pregnancy]? i'm glad that so many want to be advocates for the unborn, as long as they're willing to maintain advocacy after birth. but having more children born, without having more fit parents to raise them, hardly seems a fix.

Before the egg is fertilized, neither the egg nor the sperm has complete human DNA. After that momen, all the building blocks to make the child are there. There is on other moment in the developement that is so well defined. Had your father been a rapist, does that mean you should die? Carrying a child to term may not do the body of a 9 year old good, but extracting a premature child and killing it certianly does the child no good. There are plenty of people who are willing to adopt.

Why would anyone let a nine year old carry a child almost to term? Why not terminate the pregnancy immediately? Do you really think that the thousands of partial birth abortions every year are proformed to save nine year olds and thirteen year olds? Do you think the hundreds of thousands of abortions are all for rape victims? Why is all or nothing the only two possibilities? Why not on "very rare occasions"? Why does abortion have to be the most common medical operation? Doesn't that strike you as just a little odd that an entire group of people would decide their entire political point of view on the ability of a mother to kill her child legaly -- at will -- usually at taxpayer expense?

It bothers me as a female when men pass judgment on women having abortions. They do not have the capacity nor the equipment to judge us, especially those lunatics in Washington. Why do we as women allow men to bully us?

It bothers me as a human that so many that claim to be human are so cavalier about the death of the innocent and defenseless. Why does anyone allow that.

actually, the 9 yr old child here in SC delivered the baby and it was given up for adoption. i agree that the prenancy should have been terminated immediately, but i thought that you guys considered termination of a pregnancy to be abortion. as far as all the "building blocks" being there -- that's ridiculous, at least in my opinion. but then -- that's what it really comes down to -- our own separate beliefs about this issue. so i'm back to my original point -- pregnancy prevention is a better way to prevent abortions and in that cause we should join forces.