garyfreedman's Blog

To both of you: I find it interesting that both of you are males and cannot become pregnant. Pregnancy is NOT legislated...abortion should not be legislated either. As a woman, if I become pregnant due to whatever reason, the choice for an abortion rests with me, my physician, and my feelings about my God. You, as a male should not be involved in my decision unless I involve you. Whether or not you like it, the birth of a child, if you are a responsible individual, completely consumes and changes one's life. If I am not prepared emotionally and financially, to commit the next 21 years to a child, it must be the woman's decision to have an abortion. Often, men like to whip out the testosterone and demand a say in the woman's fate and any child's fate. In those cases I've noted that some grandmother ends up raising a child and bearing a burden not her own. The child ends up at the bottom of the economic ladder who struggling without a good mother OR a good father. Without love, and a lifetime commitment from both parents, it is better to lose it when it is the size of a pea and try later when both are prepared for parenthood. Human right gives me the right to control my body. I don't need to change the Constitution to do that for me. Abortion has been made into a political football and I cannot understand that. Pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, is simply a personal issue. It's none of you boys business.

Moral issues do not belong in the hands of our Government. The last time I checked, we are a free country and no one is going to tell me that if I get raped that I have to keep the child. I would not want to be constantly reminded every time that I looked at my child of that terrible time when a man forced himself on me.

...now it's a love fest of the alternative moral authority...lovely, warm personalities ladies...thanks for reminding us of your heartfelt thoughts...you share with us the comparative practice of 'puttin down' a dog cause it doesn;t fit your lifestyle...your disposition on the subject relys on the 'me' factor to validate it...

…no, you be discounting my point of view "gary" to secure a safe middle of the road specifically unspecific role

...I don't support abortion ...somethin' basically tasteless and revolting killing a child for 'convenience sake'... That comes from a person that’s not of the ranks of a believer with devout, conventional religious convictions however I do have values that accept the existence of a higher power, so to speak…

...wanted/unwanted were the clinically, coldly calculated buzz words that were used in support of unrestrained abortion practice that illustrates the contrast of views ...it's my responsibility to voice my values on the subject and leave it up to others to consider... I believe the public at large's position has been established to be similar to mine but in an earlier decision the court disagrees with the collective wisdom of those people... over the years it seems the will of the majority has been compromised by the values of a minority...

...the pro abortion faction has become unhinged over the prospect the court, if called upon to revisit the issue again, may be composed now of judiciary that embraces respect for innocent life and has the capacity to distinguish between abortion practices for convenience - and - abortion that arises over a life threatening physical medical problem (not a subjective question of inconvenience to personal lifestyle under the cloak of saying it’s the BS argument of preserving the delicate stability of one’s mental state of mind) ...

I think you people are all simpletons, morons, idiots, or imbeciles. Take your pick.

Abortion is murder. DNA proves the baby is a different person than the mother. No one has the right to kill another person.

Ava; lose it when it is the size of a pea?
Is "it" a pea in your mind? I guess so. I can assure it is not in God's Word. Another blog where you associate the subjects discussed with "boys"reference in your answer. What is up with you?

garyfreedman; How can these responses be reasons for your name calling? Take your pick!

not tryin' to tell anyone how / what to do with there lives "goober" ...but I am concerned about the child ...are you then of the position a baby doesn't deserve someone defending their life should the mother choose to decide it's inconvenient so lets deny that life, denying that life the same protection yours and my mother gave us??? ...denying a life conceived from the act of rape is then by your convictions a price the child has to pay because they're fathered by a detestable, despised act that contributed to it’s life ...that's deciding someone's life isn't it??? ...you're doomin' a life not because of what that life did to offend you but because of what the fathering party did that offends you ...no argument from me that a child carried to full term involves significant expense and temporary physical discomfort but is that reason for us to cooperate in condoning denial of life to that child??? ...

Well “Gary” you get out all over the board in tryin’ to create an opinion and a thought for discussion so this may or may not be a response that meets with your approval of how you imagined your blog would go but I‘ll give it a final try…first I’m curious what’s your view of the term “symbolism” means ??? …a position that an abortion is an overly sensitive attitude toward taking a baby’s life found largely among conservatives?? …like that‘s some unsophisticated thing to be …and that it instead should deal only with supporting a female citizen’s attraction to the choice of denying a baby’s right to life for what ever reason… in that attitude there’s something base and tasteless…

While my expectation lies in the faith of the state to protect my constitutional rights, I rely on the federal government to reexamine whether a state decision conforms to constitutional protections each state in the republic has agreed to provide…just as in life, I’ve seen over the years our courts view of what we agree the constitution says we have a right to do and be protected in doing can vary according to the political / social values of those sittin’ behind the bench at a given time and place …the constitution is a unique document but it seems, in my view, the court, over the years, has leaned to protecting an individual attitude at the expense of the values of the majority …my view of the Constitution is that it’s a bridge for people to find legal support of majority values …there’s an organization I understand that embraces pedophilia as a normal sexual orientation ( not aberration) and

(continued) justness …the responsibility to give the child’s life a chance is denied cause when, on second thought, the female decides it’s an inconvenience to continue to provide protection of that child’s life, irregardless of the male’s cooperation to fulfill hopes and expectations they both planned before the female had a change of heart - I don‘t see any “symbolism“ there, just basic human concern for justice toward all involved …the occasion arises where the attraction to an abortion is nothing short of a vengeful attitude taken by the female for some perceived ill will of the male and a way to get even - how is prevention of that viewed as “symbolism“…

It goes on and other issues of life could be legitimately factored into the argument to defend protection of life …in combat taking a life goes contrary to values that protection of life is fundamental but I see it as defensible because of the threat that exists to one’s life - a case of theirs or mine …much in the same thought a threat to a woman’s life is the regrettable decision to preserve one life and compromise the other …that‘s what for lack of another expression is society‘s definition of an acceptale abortion procedure …otherwise a child has committed no crime, yet it has to pay with it’s life, is not an acceptable human quality - tell me it‘s not something to stop and think about …

and not tryin' to project my views on someone else either ...I assumed the blog was posted to open a discussion and entertain learnin' the range of views there is on the issue "goober"...