I am absolutely and unshakably against abortion for any reason. I might make an exception if a board of disinterested physicians says with absolute certainty that the mother will die if she tries to carry to term. My fiercest opposition though is reserved for the "pseudo-men" who support infanticide. These poor excuses for a male are nor real men. A real man takes responsibility for his children. Pseudo-men know that if she murders her baby then he is off the hook for child support and the commitment of raising the child. That's called selfishness and is the ultimate sin for a male. They disgust me. I know several of these creatures, some of who were friends of mine. I no longer deal with or speak to them. And they know why.

Well said, Mark.

On your evening news there will be scant mention of the Right to Life, though they will be marching in numbers unimagined by the Million Man/Woman/Whatever Marchers.

My vision of the judgement seat is God standing at His podium with the book of Life before Him and millions of babies in the jury box.

There IS no "sanctity of life." The idea is absurd. We have a very large army whose entire purpose (after diplomacy and threats have failed) is to KILL other humans. Does that sound like "sanctity of life?" We ROUTINELY turn our backs from poor nations (read: no oil) where militant leaders kill entire populations of minorities. Does that sound like we care about the "sanctity of life?" Religious "leaders" would gladly let a woman die in favor of a deformed fetus having a (small) chance at a horrendous and short life. Does that sound like they really appreciate the "sanctity of life?" In each case, and in every case, the correct answer is: NO! This entire deal is based on religious dogma and a burning desire to tell OTHER PEOPLE what they must do - pay for an entire lifetime for a genetic error, (or a moments personal error) or even die. Religion has no proper place in government or law. Look at the example of Muslim countries if you don't believe me. It is evil, and I identify it as such.

I'm for life, but I do absolutely not comprehend why pro-lifers never use an ideal agnostic tool to convince the progressives stuck in the 19th century science and ideology of the sanctity of life from the moment of conception, since it's the result of the intelligent design, based on coding not much different from the computer programing:

www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Lowell

Yours is not a new idea. There is an apocryphal book, I think it is Enoch or 4Enoch. I am not making this up. Enoch is taken by angels for a tour of hell. There are levels, not unlike those of Dante. But the lowest level is reserved for those who kill their own children. The document was produced before the common era and is quoted in the NT book of Jude. This is not to say that Enoch is an authority, but rather to show that 24 centuries ago, people recognized the horror of the execution of human life in the womb.

It is sad that those who vehemently advocate "choice" do so by defending the right to choice of some while denying choice to others. It is also sad that they have no clue what you mean when this fact is pointed out to them, very clearly. They say everyone has the right to choose, But for every woman who chooses to kill her child (conceived by her actions, but repudiated because she does not want to deal with the consequences,) the choice is denied to the child whose life is the one on the line, and who did nothing to deserve a death sentence.

From the language used by BHO in his support of the rights of our "daughter" regarding their health and reproductive freedom, "the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons", is he now giving a right to our sons to take the life of his child, freely, to have opportunities to fulfill his dreams, assuming his mate decides to give birth to "their" child against his wishes? Is it OK for the "mother" to take a life and it be called murder if the father does so?

It seems to me that Roe v. Wade gives the right to murder to the "daughter" but not to the son! The Government does not have that right nor does the Constitution give it.

I note how obama uses the U.S. Constitution to suit his needs; otherwise he has total disdain for it. He touts privacy and choice yet his obamacare allows neither; it's the government bureaucrats who will make the decisions, not the patient and his/her physician. The guy is a forked tongued liar and as deceitful as they come. The leftists are a party of death and destruction, not only for the unborn and the elderly but for our nation as a whole. The 2012 elections are the most important elections in this country's history. We will either fall into the abyss by re-electing obama or we will pull our country back to the right track by electing Gingrich, who is staunchly pro-life and pro-USA!

Roe vs. Wade was and is necessary for women to be treated as equals. No, I'm not pro abortion nor is anyone else I've ever met. We are pro choice. You make your choices and let me make mine. I won't mind your business and don't you go minding mine. Tough choices, yup, for sure, but at least we currently have the right to choose. To take that away is a death sentence for many more than what the hard line conservatives claim are dying now.

We must all come before God, and when He ask what we did to protect life, be able to say "I voted for life". Vote pro-life.

I'm for life, but I do absolutely not comprehend why pro-lifers never use an ideal agnostic tool to convince the progressives stuck in the 19th century science and ideology of the sanctity of life from the moment of conception, since it's the result of the intelligent design, based on coding not much different from the computer programing:

www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Ann, your choice should be not to use your body for sexual pleasure with people you don't care to be with, and not to get pregnant. If you get drunk and drive, you don't have a choice to avoid an accident anymore when it happens, your choice ended before you sat drunk in the car and started driving, after that everything is consequences, not choice, the only choice you have after that is to flee the scene, or to help the injured...

Ann, please listen to this all the way through:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/wp-content/themes/cosmicfingerprints/mp3/if_you_can_read_this_god_exists.mp3

"...we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." Barack Obama

What about the unborn daughters? Obviously they have the same rights as our unborn sons when it comes to their dreams. Hypocrites! The very same people who advocate for animal abuse and environmental issues (like the extinction of weeds and flies, etc because they might provide the cure for diseases) are the same who advocate for the destruction of unborn humans. These idiots make me sick!

Let's finish Obama's statement for sake of clarity:

"ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities...to fulfill their dreams" by encouraging them to choose murdering innocent, unborn life.

There is no "right to choose" but, there is a mandated authority to honor and respect life in all its forms, especially those in a position to cause life to occur. How can anyone choose death for a new life; it makes no sense.

This may well be the ONLY point with which I agree with Obama.

And as much as I absolutely detest Obama's socialist politics, near-complete disregard for the Constitution, and disdain for the working American (and maybe ALL Americans - still not sure about this), having a hard-line anti-choice candidate in November will very likely ensure Obama's reelection.

We, the un-noticed majority in the middle, will not tolerate a candidate who thinks everything he or she needs to know to govern the greatest country the world has ever seen will be found between the covers of a book written more than 17 centuries ago and assembles by a committee who decided what should and should not go in it.

I absolutely respect the right of others to bring unloved and unwanted children into this world as long as I don't have to pay for them, but I will not actively support a candidate who intends to restrict the rights of others to not do so.

When did it become a constitutional right to kill babies? How many people have been murdered in the United states vs. Nazi Germany?

From the language used by BHO in his support of the rights of our "daughter" regarding their health and reproductive freedom, "the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons", is he now giving a right to our sons to take the life of his child, freely, to have opportunities to fulfill his dreams, assuming his mate decides to give birth to "their" child against his wishes? Is it OK for the "mother" to take a life and it be called murder if the father does so?

It seems to me that Roe v. Wade gives the right to murder to the "daughter" but not to the son! The Government does not have that right nor does the Constitution give it.

Obama states " ... As we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams."

Since when did our sons have the right to take life?

Where is it written in the Constitution that a Supreme Court decision is automoatically transfered to a Constititional Right? It seems the Constitutinal teacher needs a refreser course.

No one can believe in abortion. However, up until 3 mo. I believe it should be legal. Women will die if it's not. This is a decision between the woman and her God and it's not up to the government to tell her what to do in this situation.

Unless and until there is irrefutable scientific proof of precisely when actual life begins, this remains a matter of RELIGIOUS choice. Someone asked: When did it become a constitutional right to kill babies? Freedom of religion is most definitely a 'right' in this country. Those who do not agree with a pro-choice viewpoint are, in effect, trying to trample the religious rights of those who do. Those who use various biblical or religious justification for their anti-abortion stance should also remember that throughout history there are scattered many ancient cultures who also stoned crippled or imperfect babies to death! As far as candidates' positions on this topic, the Republicans would be very wise to leave it out of their rhettoric. The only way we will win this election is to gather in the independents and the disenchanted liberals to support our candidate. If abortion is made an issue yet again, we will--yet again--snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One final point...please remember that I am just as entitled to my opinions and beliefs as anyone else!

Since the vast majority of abortions occur in the black community, what if Obama were to call "reproductive freedom" - 'the freedom for young black girls to have unprotected sex with someone who has NO interest in raising a family'

NAH! For political expediency it's just better to keep killing babies.

For the record, when asked if I would have murdered Adolf Hitler in his mothers womb, I said NO! If you can make it through this video you will be surprised at the final outcome. Education is the key to winning the fight against murderous abortion. We cannot do it with force of law at this point because it is "BIG BUSINESS!" Please see this and be educated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

With 50 million deaths (of children not including mothers) from abortion you could put a cross every 100 yards along every Interstate and U.S. Highway and there would be crosses to spare. Imagine driving just about anywhere with a cross every 100 yards. It is unthinkable that this nation has committed such an abominable act as to allow the murder of unborn children.

Two questions I have never been able (and probably never will) to have answered by pro-abortionist are:

1) If the unborn isn't human what species is it?

2) if the unborn isn't alive why must it be killed?

It is murder plain and simple It destorys our freedom of right to Life. It is like the male lion killing all male cubs to protect His Pride. I was protected by my Country until Roe Vs Wade. No one has a right to take a defenseless Baby's life. It is also economic destruction, because only the selfish and educated are so evil to kill. It is a sad Nation that has no faith in its future and kills the greatest gift Nature gives it. We will be enslaved by this single deed by not cherishing the gift of Life. Roger Pippenger

When I lived in Idaho, a man was arrested after he ran down his pregnant wife with his car. He was charged with two murders--his wife and the unborn child. Unbelievably, the Boise newspaper, in the same story about the murder, cited state law that said even though the husband can be charged with two murders, it did not eliminate the wife's right to have an abortion if she so chose. You can't have it both ways, people!

The "choice" should be made long prior to conception. But in our weak society, with the current "Gimme Generation", where others are to pay for your choices - for your very existence, in some cases - the unborn child pays the price for their inability - actually, their conscious choice NOT to - to deny themselves a pleasurable moment. May God have mercy on this country.

Seems odd that the government cannot intrude into private family matters yet they tell us what we can eat, what we can drink,what we can smoke, and what we can view either at home or out in public. Seems to me this law could be turned back on liberals. We either have privacy in our home or we do not. Which is it? Huh?

I am frankly tired of the nonsense that "reproductive rights" and "a woman's right to choose" are the key factors in this issue. The more we learn about life (and it isn't much) and the more we learn about when individual life begins (and that is at conception), the more we must face the reality that abortion is murder...defined as the taking of innocent life for those who equate pro-life with the anti-death-penalty movement (innocence marks the unborn child, guilt and just punishment mark the death-penalty candidate). That murder is tolerated, supported, and even celebrated is a stain on the nation. That these murders are demanded by the unborn children's natural mothers is nothing less than monstrous. A civilized society would protect the innocent and correct the guilty. Fifty million dead innocent children attest to the size of the monstrosity.

There are 50 MILLION souls who would disagree with our politically minded President.

When Roe vs. Wade passed I suggested to all my friends that the eldery would be next. If a young woman can get an abortion because it is inconvenient someone in the Progressive Party will turn their attention to how inconvenient Grandma and Grandpa are with their medical conditions and how expensive it has become to give them life saving treatments. It would seem in the new Obamacare that after 70 these "Units" of our society will also be found to be inconvenient and expensive. Hospitals will be told to keep them as comfortable as possible, but deny them an treatment that would prolong their lives. Darwin would be very happy.

A little correction on my previous post. You could not only put a cross every hundred yards on every U.S. and Interstate Highway but every mile of paved highway in the U.S. including state highways and still have about 4 million crosses left over. Thinking about driving on all those roads with crosses every 100 yards really put in to perspective the magnitude of abomination called abortion.

Come on people - what would anyone really have you believe on either side of this debate? Though his statement applies to a topic altogether unrelated - I think Mr. Sowell puts each individuals reasoning (or lack thereof) on this, and any other controversial issue, into a very bright and critical light:

"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear." --economist Thomas Sowell

So ask yourself, which of these two approaches apply to you?

Except for criminal rape cases, I am not for abortion. And I don't give a rat spit about what those who disagree with me - think! My action on the topic is simple. If given the opportunity - I vote - against abortion in all cases except criminal rape or threat of life to the mother. And then I accept that either my vote, along with those of accord, outweigh those who agree it's destroy unborns.

My only argument is, that in all other cases about allowing or dis-allowing abortion, consenting adults, especially women, should first consider getting neutered (by whatever recoverable means modern medicine can provide) before having sexual intercourse that might unintentionally lead to pregnancy. As for any government funding of neutering, my guess it is far cheaper and sustainable as an ongoing program, with far less negative social impact than is - abortion.

Life begins at conception, and has a right to live. However, a woman has the right to determine what is done to her body, which is responsible for the embryo within. A woman electing abortion should not be prevented from aborting by government; federal, state or local. Whatever choice the woman makes is hers alone, and she alone is responsible and accountable for her decision. She lives and dies by that decision. It is not up to any person to judge her decision, but how she is treated by others is a direct result of her decision--it is not up to her how others may react to it. Is this perfectly clear? I think so...

I do not need a recognized religion to tell me that abortion is evil. That should be obvious to any intelligent human being. An unborn child is the most innocent life form on Earth and has every right to that life as you and I.

It is nothing but murder.

What a woman chooses is nobody elses business. The abortion issue is a personaal issue, not a political issue. Republicans are losing a lot of votes by placing the abortion issue on their platform.

Folks, the louder you beat this pro-life drum, the better Obama's chances become. The simple truth is that most Americans, and most especially most "undecided," "independent" voters, just don't care about this issue, and find the stridency of abortion opponents more offensive than the fact of abortions.

If we don't send Obama packing in November, we're doomed: our economy, our military, our civilization will all be gone. What will defeat him is opposing his insane spending, his stifling proliferation of regulations, his socialist economic policies, his craven and treasonous foreign policy, and his insufferable personal arrogance and narcissism.

Snarling over abortion will reelect Obama. It's a loser. You need to decide whether you'd rather be aggressively virtuous and see our country die, or concentrate on what will save the country. You can't have it both ways, people.

The Democrat position on Abortion is one of power over the people and central planning. How do you keep one group of people from becomming a majority(hint: reduce births in that group). Destroy the family unit(ie; absentee fathers),reduce or eliminate the single mothers exposure to negative social pressures, and keep the single mother on the gov dole to insure continued abberant behavior.

This is taken from a longer letter that I wrote to Congress a while back.

As far as Roe vs. Wade is concerned, I believe the whole idea of abortion (actually murdering an unborn child) should have never been brought before Congress. I believe that the decision to abort a baby should be left to the mother and the father, along with appropriate medical help and spiritual guidance.

In the case of danger to the mother's life, the process should remain the same.

In the special case of rape, the process should remain the same, with the exception that the father should be imprisoned for a very long time.

The government has no business interfering in the private lives of citizens!

According to our Constitution, the primary duty of the government is to defend the country against its enemies, doing whatever is necessary to ensure that defense. There are other important duties, but defense is first and foremost. Almost everything else should be left to the states, or to the people.

Our government has gotten too big for the good of the nation.

It employs too many people who would be better off in private-sector jobs.

It spends too much money on too many irrelevant things.

Rifleman; Your logic is absolute, and your language is exact.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as endowed by our Creator---for all! That life begins at conception is irrefutable. Those two facts are irrevocably connected. How can a Nation alter this reality, and permit the atrocity of murder of the unborn or near born, and still refer to its concepts as civilized? This legal atrocity of abortion on demand is but another page in the book of assault on this Republic, and the concepts of the Founders as expressed in the Preamble and the Constitution, which includes the Amendments. Military are tried, and sometimes executed for such acts. They should be, and that should apply to civilians as well.

Thanks to Alexander and the clear statements of fact he presents. Semper Fi!

On the day we legalized infanticide, we forfeited the moral authority to condemn the corruption and violence in Syria or any other such place, where human life holds less value than livestock. Abortion is an act of violence. It is wrong and we all know it is wrong. If we believed it to be moral, we would not have the need to substitute the word "choice" for the various words and phrases that accurately describe an abortion and the horrific process involved. It is a national disgrace comparable to the practice of slavery. Life must be maintained as our highest value. Once we accept anything less, it is the end. Welcome to Somalia.

Some freedoms are attained by self restraint.Choose to not get pregnant. Accept responsibility for your choices.

PLEASE, someone let President Obama know that IF abortion had been legal when his mother was carrying him in her womb, HE WOULD MOST LIKELY HAVE BEEN ABORTED!!! I wrote this to him when we could, during that very brief moment of "Transparancy" and "Open-ness" that the Obama White House had...

This nation has always been secular (1st Amendment) but was predominately Christian until the last half century or so. One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that "You shall not murder", and abortion is murder. We used to be aghast that Hitler's regime murdered six million Jews, but have become blasé about the murder of fifty million Americans. The problem is not Roe v. Wade, but that we Christians have dropped the ball by becoming a "silent majority" rather than obeying God's command to: Go and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them all that Jesus has taught us. We haven't been sharing the Gospel with our non-believing neighbors and we haven't been concentrating our votes on Christian believers. Perhaps the Tea Party minded among us can pull us back to this country's origins and make Roe v. Wade irrelevant. And then overturn it and a lot of other un-American court decisions.

let us for a moment posit that woman does have the unassailble right to abort a child if she chooses and the man can in no way compell a woman to carry his child to term, even if it were for him to raise soley without any claim upon the woman's time or treasure regardless of any changes in circumstance.

it would be then only symetrically fair that if a woman chooses to carry a child to term and the man is unwilling to participate in that, he should be able to relinquish all parental rights and attendant responsibilities. it would be like a kind of financial abortion.

that this is abhorent even to the most ardent proponents of abortion is to their credit, but it also exposes how schizophrenically flawed their reasoning is.

I am always amazed at the emotional charge this topic brings out. I believe life begins at conception. I belive a woman has an obligation to protect that unborn child. There are thousands of couples wanting to adopt a child...many going over seas to do it. This is going to seem somewhat cold but...how many tax payers have we flushed down the toilet since Roe V Wade? Who are we choosing not to let live? Maybe we flushed the next great scientist..or the cure for cancer or HIV? They have no idea what they do when they play God...It's reallly sad

let us for a moment posit that woman does have the unassailble right to abort a child if she chooses and the man can in no way compell a woman to carry his child to term, even if it were for him to raise soley without any claim upon the woman's time or treasure regardless of any changes in circumstance.

it would be then only symetrically fair that if a woman chooses to carry a child to term and the man is unwilling to participate in that, he should be able to relinquish all parental rights and attendant responsibilities. it would be like a kind of financial abortion.

that this is abhorent even to the most ardent proponents of abortion is to their credit, but it also exposes how schizophrenically flawed their reasoning is.

When I was much younger (late teens to early 20's) I bought into the notion of the "woman's right to choose". I came to the realization (a Mitt Romney moment?) that abortion is murder of the unborn. However, having said that, I cannot stand in judgment of women who have become pregnant due to rape or incest. There is no way, unless one has been violated in that manner, that anyone can understand the experience and to insist that they go through a pregnancy seems to be the height of arrogance. Conversely, I don't think anyone who advocates for abortion in any situation can truthfully answer this question: "if your mother had chosen to abort you, would you be fine with that?" Clearly a rather obtuse question in that if you had not been born the question would not have been raised. At the same time, is it possible that Cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, or some other dreadful disease might have already been conquered except for the fact that someone who might have lived, didn't. What would the world be like if Alexander Fleming, Jonas Salk, or Vivian Thomas had not been born?

Abortion was illegal before the constitution was written, under English Common Law. It was illegal after the constitution was ratified. Ergo there can be no constitutional right to abortion. The several states could decide to make it legal but there can be no U.S. constitutional provision for it.

I am a strong advocate for abortion...fair abortion. Until the legal age of 18, all minors should be subject to, at their parent(s) "choice". Whether you have an infant that just won't stop crying, or a 15 year old that gets lippy, a parent should be able to exercise their "choice."

While I believe that abortion is wrong, and would never advise a woman to get an abortion except to save the mothers life or in cases of incestuous rape, I believe that the government has no right to legislate morality. We, as a people, cannot legislate God's Law. Every one of us who has broken God's Law in one way or another will have to answer to God come judgement day. And He is the ONLY one who can judge. If the conservative point of view is less government intrusion in our lives, then that is the way it should be for everything. I, personally, would rather see a pregnant woman give her baby up for adoption than kill it in the womb, but that is not my call to make. I also believe that God has granted us many things, among them the right to free will. But, as with everything God gives us, that also carries the Right to Reap the Consequences of those actions. That is one thing that most of the people of this country do not seem to get. We have the right to free speech, but wee also must take the consequences that come with that right. We have the right to choose, and, again, we alone must bear the consequences of that choice. We can debate the Abortion issue until we are dead and long buried, but it will not change anything. God still has the final word.

Excellent writing! Patriot readers would also be very interested in Ronald Reagan's article in your Historic Documents. This includes those who are in favor of the status quo destruction of life. The article is in the "Cold War, Cutural Upheaval, and the Reagan Era" 1945-1951" section. It's title is "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation."

Hey, Mr. President--

Thought No. 1--What if abortion had been legal in Hawaii in 1981? Your mom would have had the right to choose.

Thought No. 2--What if your daughter exercises her right to choose on your grandchild?

Have you looked at abortion from this side?

Only God knows how many cures for disease were not discovered because the child never survived the womb.

Abortions should not be financed by tax payers money.

Condoms whould not be furnished with tax payers money.

Adoptions should be subsidized by tax payers money.

Bottom line. The woman should decide. She should bear the cost if she decides to kill the fetus.

I believe I am correct in saying abortion has never passed a single legislative body in this country. That being the case, how can the Roe v Wade decision be construed to as a constitutional right? No amendment has been added to constitution. What this decision shows is rather than three equal branches of the federal government, one branch had been allowed to become more equal than the other two. This must change if our country is to survive. The liberals, of course, think this is just great. That is why it will take several election cycles to get people involved in government who have the political stones to take the supreme court on and pass bills that will return the equality to the three branches. So far, we are a long way from that achievement. There remains another way to reach this goal, but the collective stomach has yet to turn in that direction.

The Supreme Court notwithstanding, there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government's intrustion into medicine or a citizen's health and personal decisions.

Period. End of discussion!

The "mistake" of a Roe v. Wade decision results when the US Supreme Court effectively acts as a "superlegislature", something that those on the left would prefer prefer that it do. The right of privacy is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, yet the US Supreme Court initially "read" it into the Ninth Amendment. So, as a result, any compelling interest that some other party such as a father or the state would have in preserving potential life is outweighed by the "fundamental right" of a pregnant female to abort her fetus. And the Court went further by essentially writing its own model abortion statute for the states. Roe v. Wade needs to be re-visited, but I won't hold my breathe.

Setting aside policies, laws, philosophies and politics, why don't we just get down to the nitty-gritty? Why should a drunken one night stand for the fun of the moment, or neglecting to take one's birth control pills, or just the avoidance of unwanted individual inconvenience result in the taking of an innocent life? And not in just "taking" it, but ending it in such a gruesome violent way that the abortion mills are passionately resisting the suggestion that pre-abortion patients see a sonogram of the baby they are carrying? We know why. And, although we know the above examples, are not the only reasons people seek abortions, they are numbered in the thousands.

We build our own walls and run headlong into them. The right "to choose" should begin with deciding to use easily acquired birth control medications and devices, and end in the thoughtful conclusion that there are consequences for the decisions we make, and that others, particularly tiny babies, should not have to pay those consequences. The price is impossibly high.

How ironic is it that a black politician would celebrate a movement designed to reduce the population of blacks in America? LOL

Women do have a right to choose. I know this is trite, but the choice happens when she chooses to have unprotected sexual intercourse. There should be no "choosing" about whether a human being should live or die. That is murder, plain and simple. It is unconscionable that Obama celebrates the right to choose in this manner, namely choosing life over death, rather the basic choice to procreate at all.

Obama says he will "ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams"? There are now more than 60,000,000 daughters and sons, aborted, who will NEVER enjoy rights, freedoms, and opportunities. President Lincoln said, "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." While I agree to a woman's right to plan her family, murdering her offspring at any stage is never her right.

Obviously the president has half the equation correct.

The problem is the disastrous Constitional consequences which support this abomination on a federal level.

Anyone hearing a speech by Bernard Nathenson will realize the more vulnerable person has no say here.

Abortion is a States' Rights issue.

If California wishes to allow this "procedure," that's up to the people of that State to decide.

If Mississippi decides not to allow this "procedure," that's up to the people of that State to decide -- and so on to the other 55 States....

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized the Roe v. Wade decision as "intellectual dishonesty" - referring to the manipulation of the Constitution to satisfy a vocal minority of self-effacing Liberals.

The biggest issue of abortion is the complete abrogation of responsibility. So much so that the only religion of pro abortionists is anarchy.

People wish to do whatever they wish with absolutely no responsibility for their actions whatsoever regardless of who must suffer for their actions.

It is sad indeed that the ones who must suffer are those least able to defend themselves from the "pro-choice" crowd.

And it is still murder no matter how much it is sugar coated, abortion is murder.

Each time Obama speaks I shake my head. But this time, he sounds like the anti-Christ.

Some things to think about:

(1) You cannot legislate common sense.

(2) IGNORANCE can be cured, but STUPID is forever.

(3) Personal responsibility is what it's all about.

Every child should be welcomed into this world. Are we really revering human life by forcing the addition of unwanted children? I think not. If you feel abortion is wrong, don't have one. Government invading the most personal recesses of our lives is the antithses of governmental freedom.

What additional woes would the multitude of those unwanted have brought? Is the society to be made responsible for their rearing? The 50% who are now born illegitemately will be burden enough. Our resources should more properly be brought to bare to reduce the need for abortion and public care of those not in a family able to love and support them.

I agree with what President BHO said, "As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade," he said, "we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman's health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. ..."

Government should not intrude on private family matters. Wouldn't that include the goverment not providing the funds for an intrusion in private family matters? Or maybe the President believes that money is not an influencer. Wait, he can't belive this with all of his private meeting in the White House and billions handed out to foreign, and many times hostile, goverments to "buy" influence in their decisions.

Too bad BHO does not believe and act upon the words that come from his own mouth. By most definitions, this is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Obama loves that choice means the defenseless can be killed. Wait and see what happens when he takes away our guns!

It has always stuck me as odd how the Democrats think it is right to kill unborn children when they fight so hard to save the lives of serial killers. People like that are mentally and morally bankrupt.

From the language used by BHO in his support of the rights of our "daughter" regarding their health and reproductive freedom, "the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons", is he now giving a right to our sons to take the life of his child, freely, to have opportunities to fulfill his dreams, assuming his mate decides to give birth to "their" child against his wishes? Is it OK for the "mother" to take a life and it be called murder if the father does so?

It seems to me that Roe v. Wade gives the right to murder to the "daughter" but not to the son! The Government does not have that right nor does the Constitution give it.

SCOTUS was correct in Roe vs. Wade. Government has no business directing a woman's reproductive choices. I am opposed to late term abortions, with the exceptions of rape and incest.

Let parents and preachers take responsibility for educating their children and flocks and keep the government in the business of governing.

I am reading this and wondering how a lot of you can call yourselves conservatives or why you are even on this site. I can only hope that one day God will show you the truth. Abortion is murder, and murder is murder is murder. Doesn't matter how much people try to package it up...there is not a good reason EVER for abortion. If we were actually talking about the women's choice, I would agree, that it's a decison by her, however, it is NOT the women. It's a living, growing beating heart...and a totally separate entity from her,including a separate soul. She has no right to make a decision about whether that life should be terminated. Yes, I know the argument now...life wouldn't be sustained outside the uterus.... but I say to you....one fact remains...only one person has the right to choose who lives and who dies, and it's not us. We MUST stand up for life...at all costs...all life. If we accept abortion as choice by sititng by and doing nothing, then you may as well be holding the knife, because YOU are allowing it to happen, and everyone that does that, will answer to God one day. I pray that God will convict this world's heart, and open their eyes and see the miracle that God gives us. Hold every life sacred...why...because that is what we are told to do by God. Believe it or don't believe it, it will not change the end...we will all be judged for what we have done and what we have failed to do. Turn your back and do nothing and you too will answer to God. God bless!

Mark, I was unaware, until now, that the Hippocratic Oath calls for doctors to NOT proscribe abortion for their patients.

Does President Obama thank his mother for choosing life? He should, as should all those who support abortion on demand.

I am against all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. Why should we punish the child for the sins of the father? Using that logic, if a man kills soemone and the police can't find him, can we execute one of his kids for the crime the father committed?

I'm amazed at how you folks will fight for "gun rights" so folks can kill whatever they want, including their neighbors and folks that aren't like them. But when a woman wants to choose what to do with her "unborn" fetus you're all in her uterus trying to make a decision. (I'm saying this as a multiple gun owner!)

Didn't your parents do their job and tell you to mind your own business!?!

Funny thing is, the state doesn't even recognize these fetuses as human yet else ladies all over the country would be issued birth certificates after they did the proverbial deed. And frankly, as long as that umbilical cord is connected from the mom to the baby, the future of that fetus is up to the mother. It would do you all good to get a dictionary and look up the term, born. You can't even argue that this is a human rights issue because, technically, you're not even talking about a human that has rights.

The irony is that you guys would restrict a mom-to-be from making that tough decision that some have to make, but you'd be the first to say that you won't provide any assistance to help that woman care for her child once it's brought into this world if they needed it. That's absolutely ridiculous and trifling! I say if you don't approve abortions, you should all be willing to take a recently born unwanted child into your home. Unless that's the case, I'd recommend you guys mind your own business.

Also, it may benefit you all to get a science book and read it for a change! There are many micro-organisms produced by the human body at the cellular level that get discarded or shed by us. When this process takes place we don't consider it murder, but just a part of life. If you guys are so concerned about creatures at the cellular level, then you need to keep your skin out of the sun and bank all of your sperm and eggs...else you're a murderer!

You guys need to reevaluate the balance of your values and put them in context regarding your own lives and stay out of others' business. I thought this was a core premise of you so-called Tea Party types: keep government out of our business telling us what to do. Case closed!

The problem here is there is NO Constitutional right to murder your unborn baby. There is the right to life, even in the womb.

I always enjoy reading stuff from folks like Tom (Jan 25, 9:19 above).

According to Tom anyone who wants a gun is just a murderer. My favorite retort is that "when you need a policeman right now, he's only a few minutes away." The guns in my house are for defense.

Tom also lambastes us, telling us to look up the word "born". Perhaps he should look up the word "life".

Tom says that "as long as that umbilical cord is connected from the mom to the baby, the future of that fetus is up to the mother." I could argue that the future of the baby is up to taxpayers, since many single mothers are dependent for their survival upon a multitude of welfare programs paid for by tax payers. If they could not survive, the baby on the other end of the umbilical cord also could not survive. Many others, who are not single mothers, are dependent upon their husbands. Working mothers are dependent upon their employers giving them paid maternity leave.

Perhaps Tom will read his science books a bit more closely. It is true that the human body regularly consumes or "sheds" cellular level entities within their bodies. What Tom fails to realize is that all these other cellular things will not (if left unmolested) eventually grow into a human being. They will forever be a cellular thing until they are consumed or "shed". A single celled zygote will develop over the nine months that it gestates in the protection of the mother's womb into a human being...just like Tom did.

Unless you are the one that is pregnant you only have an opinion.

The problem is that everyone thinks their opinion is the one that should be made the law. It doesn't matter if that opinion is based on religious upbringing or other societal development or if a large group of people share your opinion, you are entitled to it.

What you aren't entitled to is forcing your opinion onto anyone that doesn't share it. If you think that abortion is wrong, good for you.

If you think that abortion is the right thing for you based on your circumstances then I feel sorry for you but understand that I am not the one faced with your decision and have no right to interfere, just an opinion.

We are being divided on issues that do not belong in the court and are devolving into a mob rule of public opinion.

It's sad that babies are aborted but it isn't something that is new to this century or only happening in this country.

If you want to do your part as an American to reduce the number of abortions then establish an adoption agency, set up a free counseling clinic, teach your children about responsibility, become a foster parent, raise you children to understand the value of life and consequences of sexual activity, or any other number of things that support your opinion.

Just stop trying to force it upon anyone else. They may make bad decisions that they regret later in life, but they aren't yours to make.

How can we, on one hand, chastise the President for shoving too much government down our throats while, at the same time, chastise him for saying that government should not be involved? I think it's important to remember that the legal concept of Roe v Wade is/was our RIGHT TO PRIVACY which means that the government should not get involved in the private affairs of its citizen and that citizens are given certain rights to privacy that should not be violated by the government. That's an expected RIGHT TO PRIVACY for all matters, not JUST abortion. We can't have our cake and eat it too. While I hold my own opinions as to abortion I don't think that government should be involved and I remind you to "judge not lest ye be judged". Each person will one day be held accountable for their actions in the presence of our ALMIGHTY GOD! If there is intervention to save a child then it should be done within the church or within the home and not by government. Let the states decide if, when teaching sex ed, they choose to teach about the detrimental health affects of abortion on the mother.

AMEN XCpt!!

@ Lisa

It's actually a pretty simple issue.

You either 1) believe that abortion is the intentional killing of a human being, and thus existing laws that pertain to murder apply, or 2) you believe that an abortion is nothing more than a medical procedure to remove a “mass of cells” or some foreign body, like a tape worm or a tumor.

Why can't I kill my 1 month old baby in the privacy of my own home? Why is anyone sticking their nose in my private business about my right to choose? Obviously that's an absurd question. To do so is clearly murder. So how it is any different if I kill that same baby 1 month sooner, while it's still in the womb? The only difference between the two babies is that one is ensconced inside the womb and getting nutrition via an umbilical cord while the other is swathed in a diaper and baby blanket and getting nutrition from a breast or bottle. The other difference is that one action is protected by law while the other action is prosecuted by law.

Roe v Wade is not about a right to privacy, or a reproductive choice, or women's health. It's about being legally allowed to kill a life form (which I and many other people would call a human being) because that life form happens to be an inconvenience. Roe v Wade is about not accepting responsibility for personal actions (i.e., the predictable results of having sex...the biological purpose of which is creating babies, regardless of how fun it is or how good it feels).

Unfortunately our society today is all about not accepting responsibility for our own actions and then finding someone else to blame and send the bill to.

I continue to wonder if there are any real people creating these comments. It is as if they have been scripted and displayed for consumption. It really bugs me when I see these things. I feel as if I am participating in someone else's illusion and haven't been included in the joke.

We can't even find homes for the children already born! I have adopted a child. Have you or any other PROLIFERS? You want to add how many million children to the population? Who will support and feed them? When all adoptable children are given homes then come talk to me about reversing R v W. I worked as nurse before R v W, our surgical ward usually on any given day had 1-4 young women with botched abortions. They were dying. If they survived they could not have children. Is this what you want us to go back to?

I consider Needless, Frivolous, Unneccessary & For Fun Abortions, ... "AMERICA'S HOLOCAUST!" 22 Million people died at the hands of the Nazi's in the Death Camps. How many tiny human beings have died at the hands of other sadistic butchers since Roe vs. Wade???

If the Mother's life is at stake, (she maybe able to conceive again) if that collection of cells is shown to have a physical or mental deformation (this world is tough enough, don't put that little one through more of it) or if the Mother was a victim of rape or incest, then abort that "collection of cells!" A.S.A.P! Don't wait until that "collection of cells" becomes a formed human being with lungs that function, a heart that pumps blood through veins and arteries, arms and legs that move, a brain that begins to process information, ears that hear sounds and a nervous system that feels temperature changes, and... God Damn You,...Feels PAIN!!!

The world still reels under the specter of the Holocaust of the Second World War which has been over since 1945. 66 years ago. How will the future world (if it ever wakes up to this Horrific modern Holocaust) feel about the Millions of unborn and BORN ALIVE babies(refer to Obama's "Present Vote" on allowing live babies to die after a "Failed Abortion") that have been sacrificed for no other reason then, the INCONVENIENCE!"

21 DECEMBER 2012. "The End of Days!" And we'll All deserve it when it comes! See You In Hell!!!

J.J.B.Jr.(USN.RET.)

Maryland.

Take it back to basics. The sole purpose of sexual intercourse (though enjoyable)is to procreate. Stay with me here.... so if you don't want to get pregnant, DON'T HAVE SEX. Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

And you can throw at me all you want about cases of rape and incest but statistics show that a vast majority use abortion for birth control, like these from 2008: Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.

You have the choice to keep it in your pants. Murdering a child so you can have your cake and eat it, too, takes away THEIR choice to live life.

Well stated, Mark. And I completely agree. My only point of contention was your choice of using Obama's middle name. The only time his middle name is used, for obvious reason, is when a conservative is harping on him. I would guess that it doesn't help the left warm up to us or to our viewpoints. I know it's an aside, but it's become cringe worthy to some of us.

Let's see. The POTUS believes that abortion should be provided by the Roman Catholic hospitals directly contradicting their beliefs. If abortions are a good idea for mothers that don't really want a child, is it too late to abort Obama?