Home - List All Discussions

Abortion is about men AND women!

by: theamericancatholic

The more and more I see people giving reasons for abortion the more I think that the whole abortion question is about the breakdown of the family, failing sexual values and the lack of respect for women not only by women themselves and by men as well. Men and woman too often treat each other as sexual objects in this world. We live in a world where killing babies is legal by the way of court decisions. Courts decisions once claimed that human beings of another race were property. Women once had no right to vote in this country. America still grapples with men that physically abuse their wives and girlfriends. There are adults still that will exploit women and children in America. There are people that sexually abuse children in this country and are not even prosecuted to the fullest extant of the law. This is not a respect for life.

If a man went into his front law in America and started killing puppies he would be arrested for cruelty to animals, people would be shocked, appauled. In certain circles, animals are afforded more rights that that of unborn children. A woman can enter a so-called medical clinic and have the growing human being inside of her ripped out or take a pill to chemically induce an abortion and she thought to be excercising her rights as a woman to bodily control. And the excuses are many...

No woman should live in a country where she feels that an abortion is needed because she so fears a man and yet they do.

No person should be so loose in their sexual values that the wanting of more sex justifies the killing of her own unborn children in order to maintain that life of sexual gratification. Men and women need to view each other as more than opportunites for sex.

No woman should feel the need to kill an unborn child because men exist that would commit the most heinous crime of rape. Violence, even of this nature, should not result in death.

How can we expect to change the mindset about the killing of unborn children in a world that tolerates violence against women and children, and that exploits both women and children? Respect for women must take hold in the hearts of people, the family and the loving relationship must be the context for the expression of sexual love that creates children if we are to have respect for life. A society that will reject all forms of violence and exploitation of women and children will be a society that respects life.

http://acatholicforamerica.blogspot.com/

reply from: ProChoice

First off, I want to say I respect your views and I agree on some of the things you said, how "court decisions once claimed the human beings of another race were property. Women once had no right to vote in this country." Yes, some past court decisions are looked at now as appalling and justifibly right to be turned over. However, Roe V. Wade, in my opinion, was a monumental act in giving women rights they deserve. That right is the choice to do as they want with their own body.

reply from: danib

Text

Even if another person's body is destroyed huh?

reply from: Alina

Basically you're condemning human for acting well, human. Human beings have always acted in the way that you've just described

Women have been aborting babies for as long as they've been having them, it's not a recent invention and/or sign of impending apocolyspe. You seem to be assuming that there's been some sort of lost 'golden age' when in fact all these behaviors are intrinsically normal and intrinsically human. Human beings will never evolve out of their basic instincts.

Personally i believe that respect for women is letting her make up her own minds, not making the decision for her (ie, 'yes, i know you better than you know yourselfm this is what you really want blah blah blah') or coercing her in either direction.

reply from: ProChoice

Basically you're condemning human for acting well, human. Human beings have always acted in the way that you've just described

Women have been aborting babies for as long as they've been having them, it's not a recent invention and/or sign of impending apocolyspe. You seem to be assuming that there's been some sort of lost 'golden age' when in fact all these behaviors are intrinsically normal and intrinsically human. Human beings will never evolve out of their basic instincts.

Personally i believe that respect for women is letting her make up her own minds, not making the decision for her (ie, 'yes, i know you better than you know yourselfm this is what you really want blah blah blah') or coercing her in either direction.

Agreed.

Even if another person's body is destroyed huh?

Yes, even if the other so called "person" is destroyed. Then YES, I say let women have a CHOICE.

reply from: danib

Basically you're condemning human for acting well, human. Human beings have always acted in the way that you've just described

Women have been aborting babies for as long as they've been having them, it's not a recent invention and/or sign of impending apocolyspe. You seem to be assuming that there's been some sort of lost 'golden age' when in fact all these behaviors are intrinsically normal and intrinsically human. Human beings will never evolve out of their basic instincts.

It's intrinsically normal and human to kill one's young? That's a "basic instinct" of human beings?

reply from: MaleNurse

SOooooooooo, If I don't like someone is it okay if I shoot them? I mean, afterall, you wouldn't want to tell me how to make decisions for myself now would you. In fact, don't even coerce me in either direction. I'm not a woman, but hey now ! You believe I should make up my own mind correct?
I would suggest you take a look at the 100 abortion pictures link at the top of your screen.
Are you in healthcare? if so in what capacity?

reply from: theamericancatholic

To kill is not human behavior. To treat another human as an opportunity for sex is not humanity at its best. How long before we dismiss or excuse even the most heinous crimes as mere idiosyncracy?

Abortion should never have been made legal.

I would not call pre-Roe v. Wade a golden age, but again I would prefer abortions illegal status to that of state sanctioned murder.

So you are saying that the evolving man does not evolve? We are created with a great capacity for good and evil. Humans will not change unless they choose to.

The choice to kill an unborn child is not the right of a man or a woman.

reply from: ProChoice

SOooooooooo, If I don't like someone is it okay if I shoot them? I mean, afterall, you wouldn't want to tell me how to make decisions for myself now would you. In fact, don't even coerce me in either direction. I'm not a woman, but hey now ! You believe I should make up my own mind correct?
I would suggest you take a look at the 100 abortion pictures link at the top of your screen.
Are you in healthcare? if so in what capacity?

You seemed to overlook the part of how I said it's a women's choice to make decisions for her own body, I did not once imply anything about a choice involving someone else.

And yes, I have looked at those pictures, and many other pictures and videos dipicting abortions. It's sad but my stance remains the same.

reply from: Alina

Actually, yes it is. It's quite prolific in the animal kingdom. The human race has a long, long history (book by Devereux, i recommend it) of abortion and infanticide. If it wasn't a human instinct then it wouldn't exist, considering that everything we do stems from instinct.

reply from: AshMarie88

I agree. But not that the expense of SOMEONE ELSE's LIFE!!!

reply from: MaleNurse

You didn't ? What choice did the baby have?

reply from: Alina

Actually, as i said before, everything we do stems from instinct, thus human behavior. There are certain things that are beneficial to society (legal abortion - keeps is legislated and keeps women off the backstreets), and certain behaviors that aren't - hence law.

I disagree, i seem to be repeating this quite a bit, but anywhoo - women have been aborting babies for as long as they've been having them, regardless of the political climate and regardless of the moral objections of pro lifers. Banning abortion won't stop it -it'll just kill and maim women. In the lesser of two evils scenario, legal abortion is what i would consider the pro life option.

It's killing, not murder (which is defined by law). There is a difference. So you'd rather women had dangerous, unsanctioned, illegal abortions? Because that's basically what did/will happen.

There are certain basic instincts that i don't believe we will escape, no.

Hate to be pedantic, but in many countries it is.

reply from: Alina

Didn't realise the fetus was capable of 'choice'.....

reply from: Alina

If someone is attached to you and sustaining themselves entirely off your bodily resources (such as the fetus to the woman) then you have every right to have them removed, regardless of whether or not said removal will result in the death of the dependent person.

When we say 'pro choice' we're referring to our position in the debate regarding reproductive rights.

reply from: ProChoice

You didn't ? What choice did the baby have?

Baby? Who said anything about a baby? I call something that is yet to be born a fetus. And I don't give choices to something that is not a ration being. And since you will probably say something like "but fetus's are beings!" NO. They are not. Fetus's are potential human beings. To be a human being requires physiological independence ouside it's host (ie the woman).

reply from: AshMarie88

You didn't ? What choice did the baby have?

No choice. Not even the choice to stay alive.

reply from: theamericancatholic

Manual Vacuum Aspiration: This type of abortion can be done up to 10 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period. In this procedure, a syringe is used to suction out the embryo. The actual procedure takes about 10 minutes plus prep and recovery time. Local anesthetic is usually given.

Dilation and Suction Curettage: This type of abortion is performed between six and 14 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period. Also known as a D&C, this type of abortion involves a mechanical suction device to remove the contents of the uterus, including the embryo or fetus. A curette is then used to scrape the walls of the uterus in order to make sure everything has been cleaned out. Local or general anesthetic may be administered and the procedure takes about 10 minutes plus prep and recovery time.

Dilation and Evacuation: Performed from the thirteenth week of pregnancy on, this type of abortion involves slowly opening the cervix to allow room for forceps, a suction device and curette. The procedure is very similar to a D&C but forceps are also used to remove the fetus. When an abortion is done late in pregnancy, it is usually for medical reasons.

Oh yes, these seem like the most intrinsically normal and intrinsically human activities that I can imagine.

reply from: yoda

And kill that other little body in the process...... oooops! I wasn't supposed to mention that other little body, right?

reply from: AshMarie88

I didn't realize that a lot of lives were...

Newborns aren't capable of choice. Most small children aren't. And even some adults!

What's your point?

reply from: yoda

Seems to me that murder, robbery, kidnapping, and all sorts of things have been "normal" for the human race throughout all of recorded history.

Do you equally endorse all of those acts because of their long history?

reply from: ProChoice

And kill that other little body in the process...... oooops! I wasn't supposed to mention that other little body, right?

Regardless, it's a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. What part of that do you not understand?

reply from: yoda

Wow, how "liberal" of you! There was a time when certain other "persons" were not considered persons, and it was considered okay to kill them too.

So you're continuing a long tradition of dehumanizing and killing the less powerful segment of our society.

reply from: yoda

What an AWFUL LIE! Abortion always involves killing "SOMEONE ELSE".... even if you do IGNORE that someone else!

reply from: AshMarie88

Exactly! HER body! NOT someone else's body!

reply from: ProChoice

I didn't realize that a lot of lives were...

Newborns aren't capable of choice. Most small children aren't. And even some adults!

What's your point?

Children, unlike fetuses, do possess individual rights. A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult. However, the application of this right for a young child differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child's conceptual faculty is not fully developed. This is why a six year old girl does not have the right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship—and an adult does.

Big difference from a newborn/child/etc and a fetus. They may not be capable of making choices/being independent yet, but they are independent physiologically and therefore have no say in the woman's choice of pregnancy or not. And THAT, my friend, is the basis of this whole debate: deciding whether a fetus has a right to choose to live inside someone who doesn't want them there.

reply from: yoda

Yes.
You're very generous with the destruction of someone else's (a baby's) body! How would you feel about your own body being destroyed because someone didn't like you?

Would you say "yes, go ahead and destroy me"?

reply from: MaleNurse

So the mentally ill should be killed? Oh....that's right, they are "potential rationale beings"

Interesting definition.
So then you'd say that fetuses are not "human beings" and therefore have no right to live?

reply from: AshMarie88

An unborn child is just as deserving as a born child.

An unborn child can't choose to live somewhere. But a newborn cannot either. Killing them just destroys their chances of making their own choices in life! What about unborn women?

reply from: yoda

Ah, so since we're no different from lower animals it ought to be okay to act like them too? Maybe for you, but for me no thanks!

reply from: ProChoice

Exactly! HER body! NOT someone else's body!

What your not understanding is that that "someone else's body" is INSIDE her body. The woman has soverignty over her body and has the final say of what goes on inside/outside it. That is the basic, undeniable fact underlying Roe v Wade: Woman have soverignty over a fetus.

reply from: yoda

They would be if you didn't kill them ..........

reply from: yoda

Why, because you say so? Gestation is a completely unique experience for humans, and bears no resemblance to, nor should it ever be compared to any of your hypothetical scenarios.

reply from: AshMarie88

If I go into my friend's room, does she have the right to kill me just because I would happen to be in HER room? What about if someone went into a tent and slept there? Could the owner of that tent kill the person inside the tent just because he/she didn't want the person there?

It's not her body, therefore she should have no say in it dying. It's not her right to kill an innocent life. Or it shouldn't be... it's disgusting. "Choice" has extended to killing, even if the life that is being killed is helpess and innocent.

reply from: Alina

Seems to me that murder, robbery, kidnapping, and all sorts of things have been "normal" for the human race throughout all of recorded history.

Do you equally endorse all of those acts because of their long history?

Murder - entirely negative outcome.
Robbery -entirely negative outcome.
Kidnapping - entirely negative outcome.

Legal abortion - positive outcome. It keeps the practice legislated and it keeps women from being hurt and maimed through illegal abortions. Women are active members of society. Abortion is one of the biggest causes of maternal death. Dead and maimed women (and their dead fetii) are not beneficial to society. In weighing it up it's dead fetii vs. dead fetii AND women. The former is the lesser of two evils.

reply from: ProChoice

So the mentally ill should be killed? Oh....that's right, they are "potential rationale beings"

Rational being= Has physiological independence outside its host (in this case, the woman).

The mentally ill are human beings. Because they are fully developed in the physiological sense in how they don't depend on another human beings body to live.

reply from: AshMarie88

A "fetus" (or unborn child, because that's what a fetus is) is a human being.

And since when does development determine a person's right to life?

reply from: Alina

There are common instincts that all members of the animal instinct share. Self preservation is one of the stronger ones. If you don't like abortion you're fully entitled not to have one. That is of course your choice

And regardless of what you think the human race should do, the human race will carry on acting as it always has done.

reply from: danib

"Children, unlike fetuses, do possess individual rights. A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult. "

Out of the womb = child = rights
In the womb = fetus = no rights

I suppose that the few minutes (seconds) between these two events makes all the difference in the world?

Also, none of my newborn babies seemed to have the capability to reason.....

reply from: ProChoice

If I go into my friend's room, does she have the right to kill me just because I would happen to be in HER room? What about if someone went into a tent and slept there? Could the owner of that tent kill the person inside the tent just because he/she didn't want the person there?

It's not her body, therefore she should have no say in it dying. It's not her right to kill an innocent life. Or it shouldn't be... it's disgusting. "Choice" has extended to killing, even if the life that is being killed is helpess and innocent.

Wow, you don't seem to get the part about BODY, not room/car/building/etc.

No matter what, a person's OWN body is their's, and NO ONE else's. The fetus is inside living off HER body. Without HER body, it couldn't live on it's own, now could it? So it's pretty much up to her whether she wants a parasite (ie fetus, etc) living off her own body.

reply from: AshMarie88

Parasite isn't the proper definition for a defenseless little human life.

reply from: yoda

Why should we care what you call anything?

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html ) ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.
I see you believe in telling very large lies. Further, there is no such creature as a "potential human being"...

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species

MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

reply from: ProChoice

A "fetus" (or unborn child, because that's what a fetus is) is a human being.

And since when does development determine a person's right to life?

Out of the womb = child = rights
In the womb = fetus = no rights

I suppose that the few minutes (seconds) between these two events makes all the difference in the world?

Yes, those few minutes makes all the difference because it is now able to sustain itself withOUT the need of another body. That body made the choice to let that fetus live off of it and grow. At any time could that body choose NOT to let that fetus live off of it.

reply from: yoda

The part I don't understand is why you think we care about your penchant for killing babies. Why should that impress or influence us?

reply from: AshMarie88

Why should we care what you call anything?

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html ) ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.
I see you believe in telling very large lies. Further, there is no such creature as a "potential human being"...

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species

MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

Now yoda, you know the "feti" aren't humans! They're more like aliens or parasites! That's why only humans reproduce humans!

(I never get tired of sarcasm.)

reply from: yoda

What an absolutely idiotic thing to say. WHAT unborn BABY (fetus to you) EVER CHOSE TO BE WHERE IT IS?

reply from: ProChoice

Further, there is no such creature as a "potential human being"...

Are you kidding me? A HUMAN BEING is someone that can act independently and freely from another organism. A HUMAN BEING does NOT need another living thing (ie woman's womb) to live. A potential human being is an organism that is developing still but is not yet able to sustain itself alone.

reply from: yoda

Where is it written that location gives the right to kill?

What moral principle says that gestation confers the right to kill babies?

reply from: ProChoice

The part I don't understand is why you think we care about your penchant for killing babies. Why should that impress or influence us?

I personally don't care what you believe in, but abortions should be legal and made an option. Who cares that you don't believe in them? Maybe some people do. It should stay an option for those that want it. What if a minority of the population didn't believe that cars should be legal. Should we outlaw that too? Or that guns shouldn't be accessible. Should we ban those because a few think they are deadly? No.

I personally would think twice before having an abortion if I was put into the situation of an unwanted prenancy. But that doesnt change the fact that I think it should remain an OPTION.

reply from: yoda

Not for the helpless BABY it isn't positive!

You advocate shredding unborn babies into little pieces and call that "positive"?

Wow, did you think the Holocaust was "positive"?

reply from: AshMarie88

It's a human being.

human being
n.

A human.

hu·man Audio pronunciation of "human" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hymn)
n.

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
4. Having the form of a human.
5. Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

reply from: yoda

So ARE unborn babies:

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html ) ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.

reply from: ProChoice

What an absolutely idiotic thing to say. WHAT unborn BABY (fetus to you) EVER CHOSE TO BE WHERE IT IS?

It didn't. And I understand this. But what does that fetus thinks this? Do they have minds that are capable of intelligent thinking? Because I sure dont remember my mothers womb or what I thought about daily.

reply from: yoda

NO ONE here is debating against abortion when a mother's life is at stake. Drop the Drama Queen routine.

We men can't have them anyway. And if you're a woman, and you don't like illegal, back-alley abortions, take my advice and DON'T HAVE ONE!

reply from: ProChoice

Parasite isn't the proper definition for a defenseless little human life.

Parasite (from dictionary.com): An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Fetus's fall under that category and I did not mean anything demeening by using that term.

reply from: AshMarie88

Just because you don't remember, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It happens around 4 1/2 months.

Also, I don't remember being a newborn up to 3 years old. Does that mean my mother should have had the choice of killing me, because I wasn't aware I was alive, or, instead, now can't remember being that little?

reply from: ProChoice

Wow, did you think the Holocaust was "positive"?

Uh sorry but I don't see how that has anything to do with something that is living off another human being's body.

reply from: yoda

Then according to probabykilling dogma, HELPLESSNESS, WEAKNESS, VULNERABILITY, AND TOTAL DEPENDENCE are so disgusting as characteristics that humans who have them ought not to be given a moral right to life?

Wow, you're probably tough on handicapped people too, huh? Are you into eugenics?

reply from: ProChoice

We men can't have them anyway. And if you're a woman, and you don't like illegal, back-alley abortions, take my advice and DON'T HAVE ONE!

But did you ever consider that maybe, just mayber, that women does not WANT a child? That that child was unwanted in the first place? Sure there's adoption but what about all thsoe other kids out there waiting to be adopted? They grow up without a family. How nice. What a nice life to have. Being deprived.

reply from: yoda

You NEVER GET TIRED OF LYING, DO YOU?

I posted the appropriate, linked definitions, you continue to display your lying, ignorant opinion.

I'll let the readers decide who's the liar here.

reply from: ProChoice

Wow, you're probably tough on handicapped people too, huh? Are you into eugenics?

Handicapped people are independent of others. This has nothing to do with the topic.

reply from: yoda

Yes, I know, you advocate the killing of babies. You've made that perfectly clear.

reply from: yoda

And SO WHAT?

Why does a lack of memory equate to a lack of a right to stay alive?

You're satisfied with any old excuse to kill a baby, aren't you?

reply from: AshMarie88

Exactly, DIFFERENT ORGANISM! A HUMAN "fetus" isn't a different organism or species.

Why it is not a parasite:

"A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host)."

A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

"A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source."

A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

"A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite."

A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.

"A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)."

A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

"When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human)."

When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

"When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host."

New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

"A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce."

A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

"A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives)."

A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

"A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species)."

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive,healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

reply from: ProChoice

Yes, I know, you advocate the killing of babies. You've made that perfectly clear.

All I have to say is that everyone is allowed their opinion and I respect pro-life advocates opinions. But I'm entitled to mine to. And that opinion boils down to the fact that abortions should remain legal. NO ONE CARES whether some may find it cruel, wrong, and "murder". If someone else wants to do it, let them. Pregnancy is that woman's choice, no one elses. If you disagree with it, fine. Just don't do it yourself when you become pregnant. But this is America, where FREEDOM is meant to prevail. Freedome of your body and what you want to do with it is included in that.

reply from: yoda

That's the common, not the biological defnition of the word. Here's that one, please note that a true parasite is of a DIFFERENT SPECIES than it's host:

McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology Online: Dictionary Terms
parasite [BIOLOGY] An organism that lives in or on another organism of different species from which it derives nutrients and shelter.
http://www.accessscience.com/search/asearch?location=titlestext&newSearch=1&categories=encyclopediaarticle%23encyclopediaupdate%23biography%23dictionary%23news%23qa&categval=news&categval=qa&categval=encyclopediaarticle&categval=encyclopediaupdate&categval=biography&categval=dictionary&text=parasite

reply from: yoda

That's because you didn't read the posts leading up to it.

reply from: yoda

If not WANTING a child was a legitimate excuse to kill them, we'd lose a lot of born children.

But I see the idea of killing children is not terribly troubling to you.

reply from: Alina

Nope. It is for the woman though (who actually has the capacity to care, unlike the fetus).

Yes. Legal or illegal the shredding will continue. When it's illegal women have a far higher chance of dying along with their fetii. Legal abortion saves more lives than it ends. That's positive.

I'm sure the victims of the Holocause love being compared with non sentient, non viable fetii. Sarcasm aside i don't see how this is at all relevent. Again you're ignoring the crux of the pro choice position - the woman.

reply from: ProChoice

Exactly, DIFFERENT ORGANISM! A HUMAN "fetus" isn't a different organism or species.

Who said it was a different species? It's still a human. But its not fully developed yet in how it can act completely independently. You took how I said "parasite" a little too far. Ever heard of more than one meaning for a word? I was using it as what I had listed. A fetus DOES grow, feed, and is sheltered in a woman's womb. There. End of that "parasite" discussion.

reply from: yoda

A quadraplegic on life support is "independent" of others?

What planet are you from?

reply from: MaleNurse

I've taken care of a few mentally ill AND handicap patients in my career. So these qualify under
1. Not rationale beings and
2. Fully dependent on someone else for physiologic needs. (feeding tubes, ventilator, catheters, IV's ...the whole nine yards)
So lets just keep it consistant here. You say "kill the mentally ill handicap" correct?

reply from: ProChoice

If not WANTING a child was a legitimate excuse to kill them, we'd lose a lot of born children.

But I see the idea of killing children is not terribly troubling to you.

That's funny how your trying to make me sound like a "murderer". I'm terribly sorry if I advocate woman's rights to the object that holds most value to them, their body.

Why would we lose a lot of born children? Some people, such as yourself I see, don't condone abortion so therefore would not participate. But for those that DO want to abort their unborn child, they have the choice. That doens't necesarily mean they will.

And not wanting a child IS a legit excuse to oh, say 58% of the American people.

reply from: Alina

If someone doesn't want a born child they can give them up for adoption straight away. A pregnant woman doesn't have that luxury - hence abortion.

As i've said before - i'd rather see an aborted fetus than a woman forced to gestate.

reply from: yoda

OH YES THEY DO........ lots of us care about the babies being killed. Why do you think this forum is here for you to come and advocate babykilling? BECAUSE SOMEONE CARES!

By your reasoning, the fact that people find child molestation cruel and wrong should not be used to make it illegal.

That's DISGUSTING! There is NO "FREEDOM TO KILL YOUR BABY" in our constitution.

reply from: ProChoice

A quadraplegic on life support is "independent" of others?

What planet are you from

Which part did you miss about me saying independent of ANOTHER HUMAN BEINGS BODY. They are independent in the fact that they need physical help to live but not from that volunteers own personal body. Do you see them living inside them? no

reply from: Alina

Difference in perspective. I look at it from the point of view of the woman, you look at it from the point of view of the fetus. You think abortion is a terrible crime against the fetus, i think illegal abortion/forced gestation is a terrible crime against women.

Do you really think we're going to be able to reconcile this?

reply from: ProChoice

That's DISGUSTING! There is NO "FREEDOM TO KILL YOUR BABY" in our constitution.

Yes, but there IS the freedom to freedom of CHOICE.

reply from: danib

Nope. It is for the woman though (who actually has the capacity to care, unlike the fetus).

Yes. Legal or illegal the shredding will continue. When it's illegal women have a far higher chance of dying along with their fetii. Legal abortion saves more lives than it ends. That's positive.

Groan I guess anyone who can make the comment "legal or illegal the shredding will continue" will never be capable of compassion for the unborn.

reply from: yoda

Your reasoning would lead to the repeal of all laws against murder, since it's known that it has continued even though it's illegal.

It's easy, in both cases human beings are involved.

reply from: ProChoice

Your reasoning would lead to the repeal of all laws against murder, since it's known that it has continued even though it's illegal.

Why do you keep mentioning murder? What does this have to do with an unborn being such as a fetus? Stick to the topic of woman and pregnancy.

reply from: yoda

Not really, but I'm sure you'll say that whatever the majority wants to do is okay by your moral standards, right? I mean you do set your moral standards by the polls, right?

reply from: ProChoice

Not really, but I'm sure you'll say that whatever the majority wants to do is okay by your moral standards, right? I mean you do set your moral standards by the polls, right?

Who said anything about me setting my moral standards by polls? I was using it to prove my point that most Americans are Pro-Choice.

reply from: yoda

Now you're depriving them of their "freedom to kill".... why shouldn't they be allowed the same freedom as the mother of an unborn child? You're discriminating!

Would you really? Then take a look at the link at the top of the page that says "100 Abortion Pictures". There you can look at all the aborted babies you want to!

Get your jollies looking at those shredded feti!

reply from: Alina

Fair enough. I reserve my compassion for the woman.

reply from: ProChoice

Get your jollies looking at those shredded feti!

I'm sure most pro-choicers have seen pictures of aborted babies. It doesn't change my opinion, nonetheless. I'm still all for advocating woman's right to their body, cut up feti or not.

reply from: Alina

Now you're reaching. Abortion is a unique situation and should be treated on its own merits, rather than the merits of a bad analogy. But i'll do this one last time:

Murder - entirely negative outcome.
Legal abortion - Saves more lives than it ends. Positive outcome.

reply from: yoda

MANY other human "bodies" are required to care for a quadraplegic. The fact that an unborn baby must have the care of one single body is not it's fault, and it's extrodinarily coldhearted to use that to justify it's demise.

Like I said, you're just looking for any old excuse, and old rationale to justify killing babies.

reply from: ProChoice

Fair enough. I reserve my compassion for the woman.

Agreed. The person who is ALIVE and independent and HAS a life comes before an unborn fetus in my mind. They get the soverignty of choice.

reply from: yoda

In the constitution? No, I don't think so. In what article do you think it is?

reply from: yoda

Murder and abortion both involve the killing of human beings. If you can't see that similiarity, why are you even here?

BTW, you can take your "orders" and put them where the sun don't shine.

reply from: yoda

No one here cares what you think that most Americans think. If you can't make your own arguments, why are you here?

reply from: yoda

I seriously doubt it. They go ballistic whenever they see a poster with such a photo, and try to hide it from view.

reply from: yoda

Well at least we agree that this whole subject is about a unique situation. So you agree that the "one human hooked up to another analogy" is a crock, right?

Well there are about 1.2 million abortions every year in the US, how do they save more than 1.2 million lives?

reply from: danib

Funny, the people at the clinic that killed my child showed absolutely no compassion for me. They took my money and shooed me out of there in 1/2 hr. Couldn't care less about the amount of pain I was in.

reply from: ProChoice

Murder and abortion both involve the killing of human beings. If you can't see that similiarity, why are you even here?

I agree with Alina said: Now you're reaching. Abortion is a unique situation and should be treated on its own merits, rather than the merits of a bad analogy. But i'll do this one last time:

Murder - entirely negative outcome.
Legal abortion - Saves more lives than it ends. Positive outcome.

Apparantly our Supreme Court agreed with Abortion being a completely separate thing than murder. Are you saying our Supreme Court is unconstitutional?

reply from: ProChoice

No one here cares what you think that most Americans think. If you can't make your own arguments, why are you here?

Uh ever heard of supporting facts? Wow.

reply from: yoda

Still pimping your lies? Still hawking your euphemisms? Unborn babies ARE alive!

And "soverignty of choice" is a euphemism for KILLING BABIES, right?

reply from: ProChoice

Well there are about 1.2 million abortions every year in the US, how do they save more than 1.2 million lives?

They save lives by letting those woman live by having a safe abortion and not resorting to other methods and they save children that are not wanted from being born into a world where no one wants them.

reply from: yoda

Then why do you make that stupid analogy of one adult hooked up to another?

reply from: yoda

So you're sure that all 1.2 million of them would've had a back-alley abortion and died from it?

reply from: Alina

Actually the 'one human hooked up to another' analogy is perfectly valid. The fetus IS hooked up to another, and is entirely dependent on the bodily resources of another for survival. No person on this planet has the right to utilise the bodily resources of another for survival, regardless of situation or circumstance. I personally fail to see why pregnant women should be the exception.

When abortion is illegal women stand a good chance of dying along with their fetii. Hence 'more lives (lives of women) saved'.

reply from: ProChoice

Still pimping your lies? Still hawking your euphemisms? Unborn babies ARE alive!

And "soverignty of choice" is a euphemism for KILLING BABIES, right?



Abortion will remain legal. No matter what you, or other anti-abortionists say, abortion is a woman's choice and a woman's choice only. Get over that and stop using your "unborn babies are alive" thing because when it comes down to it, no one cares about a fetus.

reply from: AshMarie88

There is nothing "safe" about having something stuck up there and potentially having your uterus or another body part punctured.

You can't kill a child to "save" it. Also, death is worse than anything.

reply from: ProChoice

Funny, the people at the clinic that killed my child showed absolutely no compassion for me. They took my money and shooed me out of there in 1/2 hr. Couldn't care less about the amount of pain I was in.

Ok? Well what did you expect. By compassion I meant compassion for the woman's body over her fetus. That's all I said.

reply from: danib

"No one cares about a fetus"?????? I'm pregnant and don't use that term for my baby, but I certainly DO care.

reply from: Alina

A sizeable chunk would have, yes. Why wouldn't they? Women have illegal abortions, and thousands of them die because of it.

reply from: AshMarie88

1. Abortion will remain legal? Obviously you haven't heard of South Dakota's new law that may pass. As well as a few other states may do the same thing if possible...

2. No one cares about an unborn child? Um, why do you think we are pro-life?! And what about the dad that wanted his child, and the other family members that care?!

reply from: ProChoice

You can't kill a child to "save" it. Also, death is worse than anything.

Oh really? Does that unborn fetus comprehend that if it is born into a world that doesn't care what happens to it, what makes you think that it would of rather not been brought into it? There is also the chance that that fetus brought into an unwanted world, once grown, will resort to drugs, violence, and stealing? Who's to say.

reply from: AshMarie88

A sizeable chunk would have, yes. Why wouldn't they? Women have illegal abortions, and thousands of them die because of it.

Women have legal abortions, and MILLIONS have died because of them.

reply from: Alina

Using that logic there's also nothing safe about having your tonsils removed. Or giving birth. Every surgery carries a risk yes, but the risk of death and injury that accompanies illegal abortion is far, far greater than the risks associated with its legal counterpart.

reply from: AshMarie88

Exactly, who is to say? And who is to pick and choose which babies live and die? For all we know, the cure for a disease or a future hero has been aborted since Roe.

Yes, potential murderers and druggies have probably been aborted, but it is still not right. EVERYONE is conceived and born innocent. It's later in life they change. but like I said as well, potential great people have been aborted as well!

reply from: danib

I don't know what I expected, I was a kid. What I was trying to convey, was there is NO compassion for the woman or the BABY.

reply from: ProChoice

Exactly, who is to say? And who is to pick and choose which babies live and die? For all we know, the cure for a disease or a future hero has been aborted since Roe.

Yes, potential murderers and druggies have probably been aborted, but it is still not right. EVERYONE is conceived and born innocent. It's later in life they change. but like I said as well, potential great people have been aborted as well!

But it's up to the pregnant woman whether she wants to carry that child in her or not. Thats what it all comes down to and it is CRAZY to say that the govt decides what a woman can do with her body and whether she must have a birth or not when she doesn't want it. You apparantly don't understand how many woman are out there that can not afford to take care of it or have no choice or who are not ready and all the other many reasons why people get abortiosn. Its not always just because they say "I just don't feel like having a baby" or something as such.

reply from: ProChoice

I don't know what I expected, I was a kid. What I was trying to convey, was there is NO compassion for the woman or the BABY.

My compassion lies in the fact that I want every woman to HAVE a choice. You were allowed that choice I see, so what makes YOU think you can just take that away from everyone else out there and for future generations? All I'm saying is that abortion needs to remain an option for woman.

reply from: Skippy

Interesting. So tell me, at the medical school you attended, do they discourage D&C after miscarriage as well, because it's dangerous to stick sharp objects "up there"? What's their position on c-sections, where the uterus is actually, like OMG, cut wide open?

Actually, as non-surgical abortion continues to gain popularity, the infrequent complications of surgical abortion will most likely become a thing of the past anyway.

reply from: AshMarie88

Most of the time it is! Over 90% of the time it is.

reply from: danib

It's a bad option. I wish someone had taken that "choice" away from me as I know a lot of other women do also. It's not about compassion. I don't know why you believe that lie.

reply from: ProChoice

Most of the time it is! Over 90% of the time it is.

And where do you get this fact from

reply from: ProChoice

It's a bad option. I wish someone had taken that "choice" away from me as I know a lot of other women do also. It's not about compassion. I don't know why you believe that lie.

I'll believe what I want to believe, thank you.

reply from: danib

That's obvious. And your welcome.

reply from: Skippy

In some places, women have lots and lots and LOTS of illegal abortions.

I was reading about abortion in mexico. Although it is mostly against the law, the World Health Organization estimates that mexican women may be having as many as 800,000 illegal abortions a year. That's a lot, in a country of only 106 million people.

And I think that statistic says something important: Even in a predominantly catholic country, where people have the "abortion is a sin" mantra pounded into their heads with a sledgehammer, women are simply refusing to bring more children into their lives of abject poverty and negligible opportunity.

reply from: MaleNurse

Answer: Earth
You've obviously never taken care of a quadraplegic on life support (who's mentally ill)
Try to stay with me now while I walk you through this:

You assert baby is "a dependant parasite" or that baby does not have "physiologic independence". You also asserted that because baby is not a "rationale being" These factors you draw the conclusion that the baby doesn't have a right to live.
The ananalogy I draw puts these factors on the born baby.
(ie. the quadraplegic is dependent on another person and not rationale if mentally ill)

I don't care about your twisted moral stance. But I'm here to tell you babykilling is wrong! That way, when you meet your maker you can't say "no-one ever told me"

As far as saving lives from illegal abortions. If they want to babykill, I don't give a *flip* if there is the risk of death involved. All the more incentive for them to not babykill. It's kinda like people that do drugs. People still do drugs, but there is far less due to the legal risk of getting caught.

reply from: ProChoice

That way, when you meet your maker you can't say "no-one ever told me"

As far as saving lives from illegal abortions. If they want to babykill, I don't give a *flip* if there is the risk of death involved. All the more incentive for them to not babykill. It's kinda like people that do drugs. People still do drugs, but there is far less due to the legal risk of getting caught.

For one, don't bring religion into this. I personally don't have a "maker". Geez.. anti-abortionists need to just get over it. It will remain legal. If you don't want to participate, then fine. But when you become pregnant, or someone you know does, and does not want that child, they will always have this option to consider. Enough said. I'm done.

Oh and by the way, "babykill"? Honestly, think of a better word than "babykill".

reply from: MaleNurse

"Babykill" is accurate, concise and tells people (like you) what is really happening.
It is at the heart of the whole debate. Unborn babies are alive inside the mother.
If you have an abortion, the baby is dead. you "KILL" the "BABY" It's simple brainiac.

reply from: ProChoice

If you have an abortion, the baby is dead. you "KILL" the "BABY" It's simple brainiac.

What I was saying by "think of a better word than "babykill" is that is sounds juvenile.

reply from: MaleNurse

The act of (Killing of an innocent helpless baby) sounds more "juvenile"

reply from: ProChoice

The act of (Killing of an innocent helpless baby) sounds more "juvenile"

Or how about you just cut the bull_ and call it anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists. There. Settled.

reply from: MaleNurse

"Abortion" is the means
"BabyKilling" is the result

I'll stick with the Babykilling term. Thank you

reply from: Alexandra

Actually, yes it is. It's quite prolific in the animal kingdom. The human race has a long, long history (book by Devereux, i recommend it) of abortion and infanticide. If it wasn't a human instinct then it wouldn't exist, considering that everything we do stems from instinct.

Except that humans aren't animals.

reply from: Alexandra

If someone is attached to you and sustaining themselves entirely off your bodily resources (such as the fetus to the woman) then you have every right to have them removed, regardless of whether or not said removal will result in the death of the dependent person.

When we say 'pro choice' we're referring to our position in the debate regarding reproductive rights.

Wow, that's cold. Never mind that pregnancy is a perfectly normal, natural function, and that a woman's body was DESIGNED for this!

Never mind that when you mess with nature like that (abortion), you're asking for trouble.

Never mind that women have been killed BECAUSE OF legal abortion.

Women do NOT have the fundamental right to kill their children--PERIOD.

Besides, that child is there only nine months. I am a mother myself. My pregnancy with my son was a bit uncomfortable, and sure it was a little bit inconvenient, but my child is more than worth it!

I'm sorry you view children as burdens and not the blessings that they are. I really do feel sorry for you, because your heart is so calloused.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

If someone is attached to you and sustaining themselves entirely off your bodily resources (such as the fetus to the woman) then you have every right to have them removed, regardless of whether or not said removal will result in the death of the dependent person.

When we say 'pro choice' we're referring to our position in the debate regarding reproductive rights.Yeah? What if siamese twins were connected by the stomach and wanted to be seperated but would die if they did? Which one's head should we twist off?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I ask, which Biology book did you get this from? Oh, and a baby just doesn't *magically* come to life the second it is outside the mother.

reply from: Alexandra

I ask, which Biology book did you get this from? Oh, and a baby just doesn't *magically* come to life the second it is outside the mother.

Didn't you know, Laurissa? It's a clump of cells that magically turns into a baby the minute the baby is born. (Note the sarcasm.)

Hey--is it still a baby if its legs are still in the birth canal?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So I suppose siamese twins aren't humans, correct?

reply from: yoda

You disappoint me, I was actually hoping for an honest response. NO contrived, hypothetical situation made up by probabykillers is in any way similar to gestation, any fool can see that. Gestation is a UNIQUE and TOTALLY MANDITORY process for EVERY LIVING HUMAN BEING...... can you say that about any of your contrived analogies?

You're not good at math, either. Unless more than 100% of all women wanting abortion actually died from illegal abortions, your math won't work. How can more than 100% of them die?

reply from: yoda

REALLY? And what do you suppose all us antibabykilling advocates are doing here? Are we "no one" to you, perhaps?

Oh, btw, unborn babies ARE alive.

reply from: yoda

But I was told that abortion saves more lives than it takes...... how does that work out, mathmatically?

reply from: yoda

You said it yourself: "Who's to say"? But based on that chance that a baby MIGHT have a bad life, you'd reccommend killing it, wouldn't you? What a guy!

reply from: yoda

Of course, it's "crazy" to try to save the life of an innocent baby, isn't it? People who try to do that must be insane, right?

reply from: yoda

It comes straight from Planned Barrenhood:

Women who have had abortions cite the following reasons*:

Table 2. Percentage distribution of women who had an abortion, by main reason given for seeking abortion, various countries and years (U.S. 1987-88, by percentages)
25.5 -Wants to postpone childbearing
7.9 -Wants no (more) children
21.3 -Cannot afford a baby
10.8 -Having a child will disrupt education or job
14.1 -Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2 -Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
2.8 -Risk to maternal health
3.3 -Risk to fetal health
2.1 -Other (includes rape)
100 -Total (1773 -Number surveyed)
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

reply from: yoda

Nope, not even if one little toe is still inside! In fact, Senator Barbara (I love abortion) Boxer claims that it's not a baby until the mother takes it home and is satisfied with it.

reply from: Alexandra

You said it yourself: "Who's to say"? But based on that chance that a baby MIGHT have a bad life, you'd reccommend killing it, wouldn't you? What a guy!

I was an "illegitimate" child. My younger half-sister was not--her father was my adoptive father.

I was not wanted by my birth father. My sister was planned.

Today is my 33rd birthday. I've been married exactly 12 1/2 years and my husband and I have a 4-year-old son. I've never been in jail or anything, never smoked, drank, or did drugs, and my husband and I both saved sex for marriage.

My sister will be 32 on May 2. She's in AA, she's done drugs, and she has mental and emotional problems, she's a little bit on the promiscuous side, and she's 200 pounds overweight. Our mother has legal guardianship of her. She's been engaged numerous times but never been married. My mother had a high-risk pregnancy with both of us, my sister having been even more high-risk than I; she was born 3 weeks late (her due date had been April 10, 1974).

So being planned doesn't guarantee a good life; conversely, being unplanned doesn't guarantee a bad life. And my sister and I were raised pretty much the same way.

I know it sounds like honking my own horn and putting my sister down, but I'm just making a point here. My sister isn't a "bad" person; she just has a lot of problems, and people would easily say her life is worse than mine. Our mother loves her every bit as much as she loves me.

reply from: AshMarie88

Nope, not even if one little toe is still inside! In fact, Senator Barbara (I love abortion) Boxer claims that it's not a baby until the mother takes it home and is satisfied with it.

Oh how I despise that lady...

reply from: Alexandra

Nope, not even if one little toe is still inside! In fact, Senator Barbara (I love abortion) Boxer claims that it's not a baby until the mother takes it home and is satisfied with it.

Oh, did you see that one where she got totally owned by Rick Santorum over that? "It's born when it's born!" she kept protesting.

And that nut Peter Singer comes to mind too....

reply from: yoda

Right, just like being born to good parents or wealthy parents doesn't guarentee a good life, and being born without them doesn't guarentee a bad life. Kids compensate for disadvantages by hard work and good attitudes very often.

But some folks would have us kill all of the babies that didn't fall into the "right categories".

reply from: yoda

Yeah, he had her mumbling to herself, and saying "I'm not answering any questions, I'm not answering any questions......"

reply from: Alexandra

Right, just like being born to good parents or wealthy parents doesn't guarentee a good life, and being born without them doesn't guarentee a bad life. Kids compensate for disadvantages by hard work and good attitudes very often.

But some folks would have us kill all of the babies that didn't fall into the "right categories".

Too often people throw themselves a pity party. "I had a bad life, oh woe is me, I'm entitled to stuff." Never mind that they should work to better themselves.

My parents were on welfare when I was a baby. They ate once a day and split one bottle of pop between them so I could eat three times a day. They sacrificed for me and later for my sister. My dad was disabled (he eventually died in 2000) and he had yet to get his benefits coming in. We lived in inner-city Detroit my first three years. I have vague memories of being in a soup kitchen with my mother and sister in Detroit.

My parents got themselves on their feet and bought my grandparents' house (which happened to be my first home--before Mom married Dad when I was 3 months old). So they went from being on welfare in the inner city to living comfortably in the suburbs. Mom worked as a substitute teacher for a while, then got a job in an answering service to supplement Dad's benefit checks.

Not once did she regret having me and my sister.

reply from: yoda

It's very different when you put a real human face on abortion, isn't it? When you talk to someone who could have been aborted, who was almost aborted, or someone who actually survived an abortion attempt, you can get a real feeling for what we lose with every abortion. That's why graphics are so important to us, things like 4D ultrasound, healthy AND aborted baby pics, plastic models of gestating babies, all these are important to help us put a human face on abortion. All of them help us to counter the "just a blob of cells" lie told so often by the probabykillers.

reply from: Alexandra

I had a cousin who was aborted, despite my uncle's protests--he wanted to care for the child he helped create. He's still grieving.

I have another cousin who, I'm told, uses abortion as birth control. She seemed to act funny when I was at a birthday party for her early in my pregnancy with my son, back in May 2001. She kept rubbing my belly and telling me to take care of "her" child. Very unlike her. Later, when I found out she'd had at least one abortion, it made sense.

A friend of mine has a friend who's aborted about five times, and as a result she has a hard time carrying a baby to term.

Another friend of mine in Maryland had an abortion and now she's sterile. She's now a pro-life Christian, and she and her husband adopted a beautiful little girl.

A former co-worker told me that she had been born two months premature, and that before she came along her mother had had one or two abortions. I suspect that those abortions are what made her come too early, and I told her that.

On this one board I used to post on, someone related a story about a co-worker who had an abortion. I felt sad even though I didn't personally know these people...it hit me that a baby who had been growing in his/her mother's womb was now gone.

I can't stand to look at abortion pictures, because I start to cry. I've read the transcript for "The Silent Scream" but I have never seen the video--I already know it'll be too disturbing. I really don't want to watch an innocent little girl (and yes, the child was a girl) being murdered.

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

SOooooooooo, If I don't like someone is it okay if I shoot them?

Ugh I hate that come back. It's too different to my experience, I suppose.

Myself, I don't see abortion as a personal issue. I didn't dislike the fetus as a person.. mainly because I didn't ever have the chance to know her.

I disliked the future I saw for us. I disliked being pregnant with a child who would only have one struggling parent and an overburdened family.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Yeah, my parents were on welfare for awhile. I didn't see anything wrong with that, I just hope *I* don't have to resort to that someday.

But I tell you, going down with my parents to pick up free cheese is a fond memory of mine.

reply from: Alina

Well, i guess from your perspective it is contrived, but to me it's an entirely relevant analogy. People cannot be forced to use their bodies to sustain another person, so why should pregnant women be the exception? I'm not trying to be manipulative or contrived, i am just speaking about the way i personally see it, i know full well you disagree, but in this debate what one side considers vital is a point completely lost on the opposition.

It's not mandatory, not every human being has to gestate. Not every human being will gestate, regardless of whether or not laws that inhibit abortion are inacted.

My math skills are terrible, but on this point i actually think we have our wires crossed. When abortion is illegal women still abort, and they do die from it. Some (estimated - i'll have to look up the exact number on the UN site) 63,000 women die (i'm not including the number of women maimed here) anually from illegal abortion. Legal abortion would cut those figures.

reply from: Alina

I've seen the Silent Scream, the picture et al, but they haven't changed my views at all. My compassion is entirely for the woman (as in the case of abortion there is a clash of interests), whereas the compassion from the pro lifers is directed at the fetus.

Different perspectives.

reply from: grkg1970

Prochoice,
It is plain to see that you are an uneducated supporter of ignorance. You know some people have PHd behind their names but complete idiots. Even your replies are moronic. What will you have to say after abortions are made illegal? Are you to blind to see that pro-choicers will lose? Are you to blind to see that your rights to kill are being stripped state by state? Can't you see you are losing? Can't you see that we will not rest til you have lost?

http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=237051

reply from: yoda

And I think that's what has kept abortion mills running for 33 years, the fact that women don't usually see their child before they have them killed. It's easier to be "impersonal" about a child you've never seen, touched, held, smelled, or laughed with.

reply from: yoda

Perhaps because gestation is completely REAL, natural process that's kept our species alive for millions of years, and is unavoidable for the baby? Because it's a woman's own body that "forces" her to gestate when she is pregnant? Perhaps because "unhooking" the gestating baby will kill an innocent human being that was forced to be in that position?

No, but EVERY human must BE GESTATED.

Oh I see........ you're not including the deaths of all those babies from abortion as "lives"..... I should have known you'd ignore those deaths.

reply from: yoda

Yes. It's like our compassion was for the innocent man being hanged, and your compassion was entirely for the executioner.

reply from: Alina

I do not see the correlation at all. Again, it's perspective - in the case of abortion where there is a clash of interests i value women over fetii. I have difficulty understanding how you value the mere existence of a non sentient, non viable z/e/f over the thinking, feeling, walking, talking, living (in the philosophical sense) woman carrying it. I have difficulty understanding why you think you'll ever actually stop women aborting and are quite happy to let them die or be maimed in illegal abortions. It's an alien mindset to me, as much as mine is to you.

reply from: yoda

IMO, that can only be because you choose not to see it.

A hangman hanging an innocent man is morally just the same as a woman electively killing an innocent baby.

You are on the side of the hangman, we are on the side of the innocent victims. It's that simple.

reply from: Alina

That may be your opinion, but that doesn't make it fact. I'm looking at this issue from an entirely different perspective, thus i am not going to see things through the same eyes as you.

Once again that's personal opnion.

For you, maybe.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

That may be your opinion, but that doesn't make it fact. I'm looking at this issue from an entirely different perspective, thus i am not going to see things through the same eyes as you.

Once again that's personal opnion.

For you, maybe.

What are you talking about? That's not opinion, that's truth. When you support the person who chooses to kill, you ARE supporting the hangman who hangs the innocent. Unborn babies have absolutely no chance to wrong another person.

reply from: yoda

Yes, I realize that. IMO you are looking at this issue through the eyes of someone who will ignore and deny every single fact in front of you, simply because you are not willing to even entertain the possibility that you are wrong on this issue.

Saying that something is "opinion" without providing any logical or factual rebuttal is as good as an admission that you have no argument, IMO.

reply from: Alina

Nooo, it's not 'truth' (well, to you it is), it's opinion. 'Truth' is entirely relative. If you choose to see me like that though, then fair enough. There's no point going round in circles arguing semantics.

reply from: Alexandra

George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

So is 2+2 really 4? Or can it be 3 or 5 if you want it?

reply from: xnavy

when i learing about freedom of speech my mother used to say my rights stop where another person's rights start, the same goes for abortion. if a woman does not
want a child she should use more than 1 form of birth control.

reply from: yoda

Only a liar would believe that.

reply from: Tam

And she should be aware that even 2 or more forms of BC will not guarantee that no child is conceived, and plan to care for any children that ARE conceived. If she's absolutely determined that she doesn't want children--she should have her tubes tied. If she's absolutely sure she doesn't want them NOW, and can't deal with a pregnancy, she should wait to have sex until she does.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

So I suppose siamese twins aren't humans, correct? I mean, a fellow pro choicer said himself on another thread:So according to you prochoicers, siamese twins are not humans.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

So, according to ProChoice, a gestating cat isn't fully a cat? How about a dog? Gestation is imperative to all mammals' existance. If you want to be consistant, ProChoice, then you surely believe any other gestating mammal isn't fully its own species, either.

reply from: bradensmommy

And she should be aware that even 2 or more forms of BC will not guarantee that no child is conceived, and plan to care for any children that ARE conceived. If she's absolutely determined that she doesn't want children--she should have her tubes tied. If she's absolutely sure she doesn't want them NOW, and can't deal with a pregnancy, she should wait to have sex until she does.

I don't know about you Tam, or anyone else but I'm entirely sick of people whining "but everyone has sex, sex is for pleasure, blah, blah, blah" And I love the infamous excuse for teens "its the hormones raging, they HAVE to have sex"

I'm proof that you don't have to have sex while in high school so those arguements are null and void if you ask me. I'm tired of excuses, I'm tired of non-debatable arguements, and I'm tired of people thinking that abortion is the easiest way out of a situation you aren't grown enough to handle in the first place.

*off my soapbox

reply from: michael

Hey, A new prochoice person. nice.

reply from: AshMarie88

And she should be aware that even 2 or more forms of BC will not guarantee that no child is conceived, and plan to care for any children that ARE conceived. If she's absolutely determined that she doesn't want children--she should have her tubes tied. If she's absolutely sure she doesn't want them NOW, and can't deal with a pregnancy, she should wait to have sex until she does.

I don't know about you Tam, or anyone else but I'm entirely sick of people whining "but everyone has sex, sex is for pleasure, blah, blah, blah" And I love the infamous excuse for teens "its the hormones raging, they HAVE to have sex"

I'm proof that you don't have to have sex while in high school so those arguements are null and void if you ask me. I'm tired of excuses, I'm tired of non-debatable arguements, and I'm tired of people thinking that abortion is the easiest way out of a situation you aren't grown enough to handle in the first place.

*off my soapbox

I agree.

reply from: ThunderKitten

At some point, a person needs more than just a fear of the consequences to abstain from sex. He or she needs internal strentgh, conviction, and reasons sufficient for his or herself why abstinance is something that should be maintained. Like it or not, the desire for sex stems at least as much from the uncomfortable feeling of not having it as from any pleasure it may bring. And when faced with opportunity and lust, if the decision to wait until the right time, or to not have it at all, is not fully realized within oneself temptation will win.

reply from: Tam

Are you finally going to admit that you are pro-choice yourself? Or will you continue the charade?

reply from: Alexandra

I was always told that sex was for marriage, and my husband was also told this. And we wound up waiting until marriage. I was 20 and he was 26.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Well, before I started dating, I saw marriage as involving a lifetime of sexual obligation, and beingobligated to lose one's virginity on the wedding night. That scared the crap out of me. How would I know whether I would be ready for sex that day? Or that I'd want to sleep with the guy for the rest of my life? Not that I was afraid of a lifetime commitment of living with someone and raising kids, it was the sex part the scared me. In sex OUTSIDE of marriage, it seemed like it would be something that would happen naturally, instead of on some contrived date.

I think if I had to do it over again, I would've waited until marriage, because I realize now, that hey, it can take years to know whether you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, and those problems can be worked out before the wedding night. But back then- I was so full of assumptions and presumptions and not knowing anything about anything.

I don't know, what would you say to someone who was in my situation?

reply from: yoda

Hey, I've seen statistics that show that people who know each other in high school before they get married tend to get divorced at a higher rate than those who meet after high school.

So it doesn't necessarily help to know someone for many years....... after all, people act differently when they have a ring on the finger.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics