As has been pointed out, in the civilized world there is such a miniscule risk to the mother as to be negligible. And nobody (well, I'm not at least) is suggesting that if there is a serious risk to the mother, she can't abort. We are talking about healthy normal pregnancies. Now I accept that you believe one person's convenience and happiness outweighs another person's right to life. I just don't believe that is ever true. My moral code so the right to life of the unborn child outweighs the inconvenience to the mom once the child has reached the point of being qualified as "human".

700 deaths a year, 34,000 near death is "negligible". Let it never be said that pro-life fucks give a shit about women. 700 dead women and 34,000 near dead is a price they're willing to pay, and the number will only increase as the pro-lifers implement their disgusting, agenda.

Let it also never be said these fucks care about babies. They want to force women to give birth to non-viables who breathe for 5 seconds and then suffocate to death. They want to force millions of women to have to go through that trauma, and they want to force babies to suffer torturous deaths like this.

They're absolute scum. They don't care about anything. They're terrorists ,pure and simple.

Fine point taken, but in my opinion they both pale in comparison to a good bottle of French burgundy

"And nobody (well, I'm not at least) is suggesting that if there is a serious risk to the mother, she can't abort. We are talking about healthy normal pregnancies."

That's not true at all. You're trying to shut down all clinics period, and I was just told by Cyrus he wants to force non-viables to term, he wants to force babies with no lungs or no brain to be born, and the pro-life has been quite insistent that they don't want any abortion period. The GOP doesn't include any exceptions in their platform whatsoever.

Meh. Wine is for wimps. Wine is fine but liquor is quicker or so they say. But really, wine is horrendous on my diabetes. Scotch and vodka are much less damaging. And I've never had a glass of wine that warmed me up on a cold day like a nice tumbler of Glenfiddich 18.

then you have never had the fruit of the gods

the sweet nectar,oh so supple ,delicately balance with its fruit and tannins

it might be bad for you, but for the rest of us oh sooooo gooood

the far right and the far left SHOULD BE SHOT, we all need to come to the middle

Have you tried Japanese whisky, Draugnar? I've recently been introduced to it and they have some surprisingly excellent offerings.

Shame boy,how dare you call their rice anything whiskey,although their sake can be awesome

@Putin, yeah, 700 dead women. It is terrible. It really is. So tragic. But how many dead babies? How many "viables"? If that is the only argument you have to abortion, would you accept making abortions illegal except when the woman was threatened?

And we don't care about babies? Have you ever seen a surgical abortion? I suggest "The Silent Scream". Yes, I would rather have a "non-viable" suffer for 5 seconds and die then be *ripped* to shreds by a doctor. Which death would you prefer? Suffocation or dismemberment?

pro abortion, why should you fucks get to choose anything for any women?

It's true. I still can't get over the irony of a bunch of dudes sitting around yammering about an issue that isn't our own to decide.

YJ+1

How many male babies are killed in abortion again? And last time I checked, women can serve as lawyers or jury members, or judges if a man is on trial. Guess what? Even if he killed another man! We are all one big ball of humanity, and whether we like it or not, we are in this together. Not letting men comment on a moral and legal issue is just as sexist as repressing women's votes.

Japanese whisky is not made from rice, ssorenn, you ignorant cretin.

jamie, have you found a way to win with rosie yet..........no/

not surprised

" Not letting men comment on a moral and legal issue is just as sexist as repressing women's votes."

commenting and have an actual say in the matter are different things

"commenting and have an actual say in the matter are different things"

Very good point.

That being said, should women be allowed on juries trying men? Or allowed to be judges in such cases?

you are talking about a grown and mature women on a jury, or being a judge,and then comparing it to something that only has to do with her body.....thats not even apples-oranges, its more like apples-shrimp poo....

sorry jamie i know the analogy to shrimp poo is you but it worked here too, how about that....lol

Well it certainly affects the unborn child inside of her, I think you will agree. Also you could apply the "Wonderful Life" idea. Because you will never know what that child was going to do.

thats why the future is what it is,UNKNOWN, every variable in the universe is taken into account as each seconds passes, creating our future, some are in it and some are not

survival of the fittest

I want a clique of women to tell Cyrus & all pro-life men that they can't get any medical treatment, or at the very least have to travel 200 miles to a clinic four different times and go through a throng of shrieking, hysterical, venemous banshees who stalk you, photograph you, and follow you home if he does want to get it.

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but just in case:

Isn't it telling how the same people who are against abortions are often also the same people against: sex ed, accessible birth control, single parents, and pretty much anything else that would prevent the need for abortion or is a direct result of disallowing abortion.

Truly fascinating.

abge+1

Indeed, they also oppose food stamps, WIC, and any assistance in providing food or basic needs to children, obviously making raising children all the more appealing to poor people who are pregnant. But we're not allowed to raise finances as an issue for abortion, nope. Poor people and their children are just supposed to starve, because the pro-life movement cares about life and especially children so much.

Also there's this hilarity, who exposes the total farce that is the pro-life movement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/david-sater-missouri-abortion-bill_n_4920816.html

@cyrus oh you can comment all you like. But there's a reason that women are relatively far more pro-choice: believe it or not, they actually want to control what goes on in their own bodies! Imagine that!

The gender of the fetus is irrelevant. What's relevant is our society has a system set up where the women bear a hugely disproportionate amount of the time and financial burden, career sacrifices, personal sacrifices, and risks of bearing/raising a child, so it's somewhat amusing to me that men disproportionately want to keep them from having the freedom to make that decision for themselves.

Men are incapable of childbirth - we aren't "peers" of women in this circumstance, so your "jury" parallel is not a good one.