slavery = pain, lack of choice, lack of freedom, bodily destruction, discomfort, threat to life.

forced pregnancy = pain, lack of choice, lack of freedom, bodily destruction, discomfort, threat to life.

well spoken.

Because of course, we can't expect rational adult women to recognize that sex sometimes leads to pregnancy and choose a course of action based on that knowledge. No, we need to enable the poor dears to delude themselves that an absolutely natural consequence of an absolutely natural voluntary action was somehow "forced" upon them.

We are either free mistresses of our own destinies,or we are mindless automatons incapable of choosing for ourselves--that applies to all our choices and actions. When we freely and knowingly choose to engage in behavior that causes babies, that consequence cannot possibly be "forced". You can't have it both ways.

That definition of slavery could just as easily be applied to Obama's tax policy. Stop being ridiculous. slavery <> pregnancy

aborted baby = pain, lack of choice, lack of freedom, bodily destruction, discomfort, threat to life.

interesting how you missed that. The only thing that is 'forced' is the delusion that this is a debate about a woman's choice. This is a debate about life and dignity that is due to it. There is no defense for killing an innocent human being. The pro-choice side must divert the argument to the woman's body as though there is only one body in question. If a woman's body belongs to herself then the preborn child's life belongs to itself. We have no right to say another's person's life is not worth living. In a civilized society that repects freedoms, it must respect life first because it is the first and primary freedom. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; they must stay in that order. A person's pursit of happiness can be limited if it imposes on anothers liberties and freedoms. A persons freedoms can be limited if those freedoms threaten the life of another. Life trumps choice, period.

Think if we had the technology to make every preborn child viable regardless of the stage of development, would abortion still make sense to pro-choicers? Their only argument then would be if the preborn child's life is worth living. How can anyone make that decision about another person's life? This is a diversion also, its not about if the child's life is worth living or if they are wanted or not, its about whether the child's life is worth sacrificing for. If life isn't worth sacrificing for, what is?

Three cheers for rational thought on this site. I love you Anonymous.

Anonymous,

While "forced" pregnancy may restrict a woman's freedoms to an extent, that gives her no right to destroy her child, denying him not only freedom of action, but the very right to life. Whether or not her child was conceived because of her own choices, a mother has certain responsibilities toward him, both before and after his birth. Children restrict their parents' freedoms to a degree. We all know this. But we also have laws against infanticide and child abuse, which shows that even when one person's existence is an imposition on another person, their rights are not diminished.

I don't understand why people are so surprised by these nominations and clear policy communicated by the new administration on this issue and many others. Elections have consequences. These are the consequences. Hopefully not so much will happen that cannot be fixed after the next election....and hopefully next time voters will take more time to learn about records and votes.

New laws soon to be enacted will force good doctors to do extreem evil unless they rebel. Real slavery has been reenacted and forced upon the most innocent of life without any form of emancipation. I hope these good doctors stand against this tyrrany and not bow to this foreign god, BHO (Moloch incarnate), and his murder of innocents.