What is Digg?9 Comments
- SheilaNoya, on 05/23/2008, -4/+7Pro-Choice is NOT Pro-Abortion.
Buried because you're too ignorant to know the difference. - inactive, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2"The alternative has been tried, and the result is not good f/women."
What about the female babies aborted . . . was it good f/them? - NoDrama, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3Neither does Obama support abortion - he simply wants the government out of the personal and religious decision a woman and/or family faces.
The alternative has been tried, and the result is not good for women. - Qong, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1What is the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion? You two are attempting to put political spin on killing baby's. That's hilarious, really: He's "Pro-choice" not "Pro-abortion", as if there were some difference between the two.
The bottom line is that no single person should have the power to choose whether another lives or dies. Under our laws such actions are deemed homicide and murder. - Qong, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Why should any person have the "right" to choose whether another lives or dies? Buried for ignorance.
IconoclastStill, I'm going to digg your comment as it's well thought out and intelligent. But I do have to disagree with it:
There's a third person involved in the whole abortion issue, that is the baby being aborted. Sadly the third person can't fight for its own rights, as women can fight for abortion "rights". The fact is that no single person should have the "right" to choose whether or not another person gets to live. I don't care if it's a woman and the other person is living inside of their body or not, it's still another person that in many cases can survive without the woman's body altogether. There are 100% factual stories about people surviving being born as early as 21 weeks gestation.
That isn't to say that I am completely pro-life, I think that if it's early enough and the parents -- Both parents: If both parents are supposed to be responsible for the child if the choice is to keep it, then both parents should have a say in abortion "rights" as well. It's only logical. -- absolutely decide that it isn't time for them to have children, then they should be able to take the steps necessary to relieve them of their responsibilities. Depending on how far along the pregnancy is, abortion would be an option early on, but if the baby has a chance to survive on its own, then abortion would be illegal, just as killing any person would be illegal, and adoption would be the only choice left.
The reality of the situation is that the "choice" was made well in advance of the baby showing up. People have to stand up and accept their responsibilities. That's the biggest problem with our country and our world today, and abortion is a prime example. - inactive, on 09/04/2008, -3/+3The Democrats claim that they are always fighting for the little guy (Except for the littlest of them all).
- NoDrama, on 05/23/2008, -3/+2In fact, he is anti-abortion, but doesn't think it's a matter the government should be controlling, so he's typically lableled pro-choice - which in Obama's case is unusually accurate, since he is NOT PRO ABORTION.
- inactive, on 05/23/2008, -4/+3And there, Ladies & Germs, is a primary difference betw/Right & Left—a thoughtful & logical reply vs shrill screeching. Altho I disagree slightly w/Ike, undoubtedly on acct of my born-again status, I believe one comment promotes thought & discussion while the other . . . well, the other speaks f/itself. Fair`n´balanced: You decide!
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is