Home - List All Discussions

Please consider this situation

A former pro-lifer speaks out

by: nykaren

I am a 57-year-old Christian conservative grandmother who lives in NY State and has until recently been solidly a pro-life supporter. A few months ago my daughter and son-in-law became pregnant with their second child. At 24 weeks, a sonogram showed that the baby has no chance of survival. He is afflicted with a genetic disease of the kidneys. His kidneys are covered with cysts and no longer function. His lungs cannot develop. Due to a lack of fluid around him in the womb, he is becoming severely deformed with the condition known as Potter's Syndrome.

The doctors at the hospital agreed that my grandchild has 0% chance of survival. My daughter and her husband were told that they could either carry the child full-term, or they could have labor induced and deliver the baby then. They were both devastated by the fact that this child will not survive, but since the outcome will be the same however long they carry on the pregnancy, they decided to have labor induced and the child delivered. The procedure needed first to be approved by the hospital's ethics committee, and after several days their approval was given and plans were being finalized to go ahead. Unfortunately, for some reason, lawyers became involved at this point. They made the decision that, according to NY State law, labor could not be induced because the mother's life is not at risk. This medical procedure, which was being done for the good of both mother and child, had suddenly become an "abortion" under NY State law, and could not be done.

Since then, my daughter has suffered more than any person should be forced to. She is at 31 weeks and in pain much of the time. With no fluid around the baby, he rests against the walls of the uterus and on very sensitive nerve endings. He is very active and the pain is at times severe. Little can be done for this. Taking strong pain-killers is not an option. My daughter refuses to spend her pregnancy in a drug-induced fog and unable to function as a mother. She is now also having contractions every day for at least an hour or two -- more pain which might well have been avoided. Add to this the grief, not only of my daughter and her husband in carrying full-term a child they have had to make burial plans for, but the grief and confusion of their 3-year-old daughter.

The baby, who has already been named Sam, is no doubt in considerable discomfort as well. He is crowded into a small area with no fluid around him. He has developed club feet and deformed hands. His face is shoved up against his body and becoming misshapen. His obvious discomfort is as painful to his parents as their own. He is loved beyond words by all of us. His being forced to suffer like this is inhumane at best. In my opinion, it is exceedingly cruel. His mom and dad talk to him, read to him, play music for him - anything to ease his distress at least a little.

As I stated at the start of this letter, I have always been pro-life. Watching my kids and grandkids suffer due to a "pro-life" law has changed that. Induced labor in a case such as this should be a medical decision, not a legal one. A law written with the assumption that ANYONE getting an abortion in the third trimester is doing it for the heck of it, is ridiculous. I am totally against abortion in the case of women doing it because the baby is a "mistake" or "inconvenience". But the laws need to be changed to differentiate between those cases and those of a pregnancy where the baby has absolutely NO chance of survival.

I would ask if you can see the need for a change in this law, and what you will consider doing to prevent other women and families from going through this nightmare. Until the pro-life movement shows some common sense concerning situations such as this, I can no longer be a supporter.

Sincerely,
Karen

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'm so sorry for what your family went through, but I will never find it "common sense" to kill people instead of letting them die naturally. If you're Christian, certainly you must believe God is the one who decides when we should die. Finally, no one can say if your grandchild will or won't survive. Even a group of doctors can be wrong. Why don't you pray that your grandchild lives instead of fighting for his death? Why don't you look for doctors who specialize in Potter's syndrome. Think about this. John 9
Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind
1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4
If you abort this child you are denying God the chance to display His work in his life.
The name of the syndrome struck me though, as it reminded me of this passage in Isaiah 45
9 "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker,
to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground.
Does the clay say to the potter,
'What are you making?'
Does your work say,
'He has no hands'?
10 Woe to him who says to his father,
'What have you begotten?'
or to his mother,
'What have you brought to birth?'
11 "This is what the LORD says -
the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker:
Concerning things to come,
do you question me about my children,
or give me orders about the work of my hands?
Remember, one of the key points of the Bible is that in matters of morality we are to follow the word of God and not lean on our own understanding. It may be your understanding that Sam should be aborted but you won't find any support for that in the word of God.

reply from: 4given

I understand from this post that you are agonizing over the suffering w/in your own family.. How does being pro-life change any thoughts or moral convictions you have upheld in respect to this unique situation? Personally you suffer w/ what your daughter is going through, but I don't understand what being a "supporter of the pro-life movement " has to do w/ this. I am going to research Potter's Syndrome.. and planned to before responding.. I just have to let you know that this law.. I am assuming it isn't a 3rd trimester abortion.. is separating you from a conscious view.. My sister was born at 28 weeks.. She weighed 2lbs. 5 oz.. She survived an early birth and has thrived as an adult woman. Drs. wanted to deliver my last child at 35 weeks because of a health issue threatening my "well-being". Because of personal tragedy in my life, they did not. I delivered a healthy baby on his due date. I am well.. Maybe I just don't comprehend what you are saying? Delivering your grandchild early to prevent further damage to the child and mom is w/in the law.. It doesn't seem clear to me why you say they won't do that. I have an acquaintance that has a child w/ club feet and other deformities. She is a happy 4 year old..(I don't have any understanding of Potter's Syndrome though..) Again, maybe I don't understand why they told her she couldn't be induced at 31 weeks. They told me at 32 weeks my child could survive. (I had ultrasounds weekly..) I know typically 35 weeks is the earliest. It is sad that you have endured all of this, but even more grievous that you are willing to say the ruthless killing of other children who may or may not be subject to, or subjecting their mother to suffering (such as in this unique case) is an alternative. It does not excuse your intention to beset the efforts to preserve LIFE. Being a supporter of the pro-life movement indicates to me that you understand an abortion.. the methods used to kill living, innocent human beings. W/out understanding fully the measures taken.. you claim to have taken a stand. So much more your stance is required! This is the life of your grandchild! This is the life of your daughter. Life itself is full of many trials. Seek God for healing and guidance. He wants to use everyone for His glory. Being assailed by sudden tragedy is part of existing.. Seek Him. Don't be discouraged. Ask for wisdom and understanding and peace. Also ask for healing. Whether or not you call upon the Name of a Living God or not, I encourage you to try to find peace and direction. Saying that this tragedy has personally led you to encourage the savage mutilation of children doesn't prove assuredness to the cause (essentially that one can demoralize so quickly) to me.. Maybe desperation? Just don't let that desperation become depravation of moral integrity.. I will pray for you and the baby and his mom and family. And I will do some research. Maybe attention to this topic will help the Drs.? It just isn't a pro-choice/pro-life case.. There has to be more to it. It is not completely clear... but I will pray.

reply from: lifted

Life happens.. there is no such thing as a "former pro-lifer". You choose to promote the murder of children or you don't.

reply from: nykaren

Potter's Syndrome is not extremely rare. My daughter's situation is unusual because the law in this state is not often used to prevent induced labor.
As I already mentioned, I do not approve of abortion performed when a baby is an inconvenience to the mother. But I can't support a law that penalizes women at the other end of that extreme who choose to induce. This baby is not being "killed". It would go through the normal process of labor and delivery, and die shortly thereafter. Do you support abortion to save the life of the mother? Then why not in a case where there is no hope of the baby's survival?
Karen

reply from: nykaren

I guess I should have been more specific about the disease this child has. It is genetic and rare. Potter's Syndrome is not rare and covers a full range of kidney dysfunctions (and a few other things) in an unborn child. What Sam has is called Polycystic Kidney disease. Of that, there are 2 kinds - one that attacks in the womb. This is what Sam has. The other attacks later and can in some cases, at least, be treated. In the fetal form of the disease, the kidney's become cyst-like. The damage to the kidneys means there is no fluid around the baby. The lungs cannot develop because of that. The kidneys, as of the last sonogram, are 4 times their normal size. They have squeezed shut the intestines. Potter's Syndrome is the secondary result of all this. Potter's Syndrome on its own will not kill a child. The underlying causes in most cases will.
Research has found no treatment for this disease in a new-born child. They have attempted to transplant healthy kidneys into the child but the genes that cause the disease are still present and attack the new organs. They have found no way to change the genetic code to prevent a reoccurance. The disease is relentless and moves quickly.
I hope this helps some of you better understand what this child is up against.
Whether he had been delivered at 25 weeks or goes to 34+ weeks, he may possibly live for an hour or so. Carrying him longer does not mean he will live any longer. The birth process will be the same for him either way, and the end result will be his death.
Karen

reply from: faithman

It is still relatively rare as far as the main population is concerned. Take all the hard cases, and they represent onl 5% of abortion at most. It is the over 90% of elective abortion on demand that drives this issue. Are you saying it is always fatal? Aren't there miricals where the kid beats the odds? So we should take away all chances and hope for life? People like you should stay away from IV bottles.

reply from: nykaren

I'm glad your sister and your child are fine. Thankfully they were born healthy and had every chance of survival. Inducing labor before the 34th week here in NY, other than to save the child's life or the mother's life, is illegal under NY state's abortion laws. Some states allow induced labor late in a pregnancy if the child has no chance of survival. New York is not one of them.
Thank you for your prayers. That means a lot to me.
Karen

reply from: ladybug

no.. i dont support abortion if it means the mothers health is at risk. God has a plan for all of us, it is not our job or right even to "choose" who lives and who doesn't. I feel terrible for your daughter but then this is a wonderful opportunity to get with your community and raise money for research and get together wonderful prayer groups to pray for your daughter and her son. God is showing you that you cannot give up and that no matter what he has provided you with this child for some reason. No one is ever put on this earth "just because". God is trying to show you, maybe even reach out to you or your daughter or someone to strengthen their faith in Him...

reply from: yoda

Very puzzling indeed. The sub-title you choose for this thread seems to indicate something totally different from what your posts say. The sub-title seems to indicate that you are now a proabort, but that's not what you seem to be saying. Goodness, the proaborts would never claim that any unborn baby "suffered" pain or discomfort in the womb!
You really ought to edit the thread sub-title, if all you are seeking is an exception to some late term abortion regulation. While many of us will not agree that euthanasia is appropriate for any unborn child, it is still not in the mainstream of elective abortions that we focus on, the "birth control" abortions that comprise 95% of all abortions.

reply from: nykaren

My subject line refers to the fact that I can't support the pro-life laws as they are now. You are so right that this is a "small" number of cases, but this 5% is 5 women out of every hundred who are not being taken into consideration the way the law is written right now. Why aren't they? This is not a case of not wanting this child, it is a medical condition and a medical matter.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I never said I was pro-choice. My point here is that the laws need to not be quite so cut and dry and until the pro-life movement is willing to look at the realities of cases such as my daughter's, I have a real issue with supporting it. By stopping those abortions which should be stopped, and including ALL abortions in the laws, you are punishing those in my daughter's situation for the sins of that 90-95% .

reply from: Hereforareason

Hello Karen,
I am sorry that you and your family are going through so much pain. I pray that God would strengthen you through it and bring glory to his name.
You are in a difficult situation, but you don't honestly know how it will end. Doctors have been wrong on things from what gender the baby it, if it has a disease (Parents have aborted because the child wouldn't survive, only to find that the child was perfectly healthy) and if it will live. God is in control and will work everything for the good of them that love him. Even if we can't see the reason.
I don't know if I agree that an early inducement should be illegal, but what is the motive? As another poster said, babies are able to be born earlier and earlier and have good survival rates.
In this case, was the plan to give birth early in order to treat two patients, or to kill one? If the child can do as well outside the womb as inside and needs further help, then yes it should be legal to induce labor early for the good of both mother and child. The doctor then has 2 seperate patients to tend to.
Abortion, is delivering the child and killing it.
"Do you support abortion to save the life of the mother? Then why not in a case where there is no hope of the baby's survival? "
No I don't really. Because as I said above, abortion is the intentional killing of a child. If an early birth is needed, it can be done. The instances of a woman needing to stop a life within her and suck it out, or deliver it part way and then kill it, to save her own life are extremely rare if they exist. It is absurd.
So by "abortion to save the life of the mother", do you mean that the baby should be removed from the womb and treated as a human being, or removed from the womb and killed?
Your family will be in my prayers.
Amber

reply from: nykaren

This isn't about "life happens". I am at peace with this child's disease and the loss we will endure when he dies. I know that he will be in the arms of Jesus and I will see him again one day. The issue here is that on top of the grief and pain, we have had to deal with laws meddling in what should be considered a medical, not a legal, issue. Does it tell you anthing, that the ethics panel for several prominant hospitals approved inducing labor in this case? There are pro-lifers on that panel.

reply from: Hereforareason

"
This isn't about "life happens". I am at peace with this child's disease and the loss we will endure when he dies. I know that he will be in the arms of Jesus and I will see him again one day. The issue here is that on top of the grief and pain, we have had to deal with laws meddling in what should be considered a medical, not a legal, issue. Does it tell you anthing, that the ethics panel for several prominant hospitals approved inducing labor in this case? There are pro-lifers on that panel."
Karen, I don't know the language of the law. Maybe it is a bad law that should be changed. I don't know. But I hope that you aren't going to stop the fight to save over 4,000 lives a day, because of one bad law. I pray that instead, this inspires you to fight harder for life to be recognized as precious.
Amber

reply from: nykaren

Amber, My grandson will not be removed from the womb and killed! Whether he arrives by way of induced labor or natural labor, he will be cuddled and loved by his parents, sister, and grandparents for whatever short time he has. We will all be there for him. He will be dressed in clothes I have made by hand for him and wrapped in a soft blanket I crocheted for him. That would have been the process at 24 weeks, and is what will happen whenever he comes. He will die a natural death. He has no lungs and no kidney function. Do you think we would not save this child if we could?? Thanks for your thoughts and especially your prayers. Karen

reply from: nykaren

You don't have a clue of who I am or what I am. You have no right to judge me.
Karen

reply from: Hereforareason

Karen,
That is what I thought from what you had posted. My heart goes out to your family.
If it is indeed a case of the law being abused (or as I said, a "bad" law that needs to be changed) I hope that instead of withdrawing from pro-lifers, you would focus specifically on this one thing that needs to be changed. Maybe that is where God wants you to work.
Please keep us updated on the condition of your family, specifically your daughter and grandson.
Do you happen to have the exact name or number of the law? I would like to look at it if you had the information.
Amber

reply from: faithman

I haven't seen any prolife legislation that doesn't have life of mom consideration. Even pre-roe, the hard cases were legal. The 5% were never at issue, and still aren't. The issue is abortion on demand for any reason.

reply from: AshMarie88

So...... that child should just be killed without ANY kind of fighting chance?
Maybe he won't survive after he is born, but miracles DO happen. And you don't kill people just because they aren't perfect.
Let him die naturally, don't induce a murder just because you feel it's ok! If you were really Christian, you would let God take care of that child. When it's his time, he'll pass away, but killing him is wrong, no matter how you feel.

reply from: AshMarie88

"Why shouldn't a woman whose baby is going to die anyway have an abortion?"
Doctors are not always right when they make this diagnosis, but even when they are, there is an enormous moral distinction between the natural death of a child and the intentional killing of one. It is the same as the distinction between a man dying from a heart attack or being killed in a holdup.
The question is, once we have adopted this "going-to-die-anyway" standard, why apply it only to the unborn? If a man is charged with murder, shouldn't we drop the charges if we discover that the victim already had a fatal disease? Or when certain medical experiments are too dangerous to be attempted under normal circumstances, why shouldn't we force prisoners on death row to participate since they're going to die anyway?

reply from: nykaren

Amber, The law can be found at http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS Scroll down to PENAL and click there; you will find laws governing homicide, abortion, and manslaughter. Karen

reply from: nykaren

Perhaps you should go back and read my original posting. My daughter is in pain, sometimes severe, a good bit of the time. Her doctor and several other doctors that have been consulted feel she needs labor induced because of the physical strain her body is under. It's not a "life and death" situation, though, so they do not have that option.
As for the rest of your diatribe, that sort of ridiculous rhetoric is why I figure there's not much chance in getting help from anyone who is a pro-life activist. So would you please tell me what my choices are if I want to protect women from the situation my daughter and her family are in?? You obviously are not going to consider anything other than your own viewpoint. In your mind, you are right and I am wrong. Period. So where would you have me turn?

reply from: nykaren

I do NOT support abortion on demand. I support a change in the current law. I would like to see a law that denies abortion UNLESS it is medically needed, to protect the life or health of the mother, or when a baby has a 0% chance of survival (survival, btw, means to continue to live after birth)

reply from: ladybug

no it has nothing to do with right and wrong.... well it does, but this debate isn't about WHO is right or wrong. The fact of the matter is this is still a child... a loving beautiful child. Would your daughter not want to spend as much time with her living breathing son as possible before he goes home to be with God... its that selflessness that I spoke about on a previous topic. She may be in horrible pain, we're not trying to throw that subject aside.. however if i was in her situation it would be so sad for me but I would want as much time with my baby as possible. If I were her and I had my baby early by choice I would regret it every day for not getting to spend the last month or so with my child... she really needs to think about the effects it will have on her years down the line, not just what she's feeling now...

reply from: nykaren

I DO believe that NY state's abortion law is unfairly retrictive. If it will make you happy, I will from here on out refer to it as "abortion law". I am placing the blame on the law, not on you personally. And "blame" is not the issue here, at least not for me. "Change" is the issue. Medical issues being decided by lawyers is the issue.

reply from: nykaren

From my original post:
You are reading into my posts what you want to see in them. I asked for help in changing the law. I have been attacked as some sort of monster who wants children murdered by the millions. I've even been told I'm not a Christian.
If you choose to see me as someone who made up a story so I could come here and harrass you, that's up to you. If you want to pick at the fact that I sometimes call the baby Sam, and sometimes "this child", it seems to me that you're pretty desparate to think I'm not for real. Does it make it easier if you can look at these situations as just the 5% who should not be under the abortion law? Is it better if they are not real woman with valid reasons to want the law changed? If you decide this is nothing but "fiction", does it make it easier for you to just go on your merry way and work to prevent all abortions?
I came here hoping for a good discussion and some helpful imput on getting the law changed to protect that 5% of women who need to be protected. I guess I have my answers on that. I obviously need to look elsewhere for help.
I thank those of you who have offered prayers and concern.
Karen

reply from: yoda

No, I have absolutely nothing to do with those laws, and neither do 99% of the people involved in the "prolife movement" that you are so determined to disown.
It is you, in fact, who is attacking 99% of the prolifers in this country for something done by less than 1% of those legislators in one state who call themselves "prolife". You need to keep a little perspective in the use of your paint brush, you're painting everyone with what a tiny little group has done that you disapprove of.
If you think that your dissatisfaction with this relatively rare situation justifies your attack on prolifers in general, then I would have to question your commitment to saving the lives of unborn babies.

reply from: ladybug

Honestly I think if you are prolife, you are 100% no exceptions prolife... if you need help changing laws to exclude certain people from that 100%, you might want to look in the prochoicer's areas, forums, chats, etc. They would be alot more helpful than Im sure we could be. I'm sorry we couldn't show you otherwise that what you believe isn't morally right

reply from: AshMarie88

I agree 100%. I don't believe in such a thing as "pro-life with exceptions" AT ALL.

reply from: Hereforareason

"I do NOT support abortion on demand. I support a change in the current law. I would like to see a law that denies abortion UNLESS it is medically needed, to protect the life or health of the mother, or when a baby has a 0% chance of survival (survival, btw, means to continue to live after birth)"
Karen, could you define what you mean by abortion to protect the mother? (Obviously inducing labor and killing the child is one.)
But once a child has been delivered, do you believe it should have full medical attention to do as much as possible regardless of what the doctors thought?
Amber
Thanks for the link. I need to run right now, but I will look it up.

reply from: nykaren

Amber, If a child is born and doctors determine he/she has a chance of being helped and living longer than expected, then yes, of course I think it should receive full medical attention. That of course is a rhetorical question and answer and does not apply in the situation I came here about. As for protecting the health of the mother, I'm certainly not implying that a child that has a chance of living more than a short time past birth should be destroyed for any reason other than to save the mother's life. But when a child's situation is hopeless (as determined by physicians and ethics panel), then the mother's health, both physical and emotionally should be considered.
There's been discussion on this forum today of what my daughter "should" feel and "should" want. To that I will just say - unless you have been there, you have no idea of what takes place in the body or mind of a woman in this situation.
Thanks for your response, Amber.
Karen

reply from: whydeath

First I want to say how sorry I am you and your family are going through this. With that said here are my comments.
Why not carry and let nature take it's course? If there is a possibility this baby could life for a couple minutes is it not worth it??
You say the inducing is being done for the good of the mother and baby??
How is that good for the mother? Her life is not in danger, and the baby will not have any chance of living.
I know after carrying a baby I would want to meet him face to face even if it is for minutes.
I also see how this is "abortion" this is what they call aborting due to fetal abromalities.
You mention grief she is going to have much greater grief if she knows she did not "allow" her baby to live for even a couple minutes.
I understand she is in pain and she is uncomfortable. She feels him moving around in her I would think she would have a "good connection" with that. What I mean is she is feeling him move around inside of her, she is feeling him living/alive.
Yes I am sure it is painful for them to make funeral arrangements for their baby. That is something no parent ever wants to think about.
As for the confusion from the 3year old, she just needs to be loved and offered open communication about her feelings. She is not the only child who is going to deal with a situation like this. Children need to be told that the baby mommy carries is very sick and after he is born he is going to live in heaven. Children can cope with this.

It saddens me to hear this. But I still can not shake the feeling of the pain Sam would have if he were to be aborted.
I did a quick google search and found a couple stories from parents who have also had to experience this.
http://www.prenatalpartnersforlife.org/Stories/StoriesKidneyDefects_Michael.htm
http://www.geocities.com/jennbillncass/CristinsCorner.html

reply from: Shiprahagain

Karen,
Did you look over the Bible verses I posted? If so, what are your thoughts? I'm not accusing of not being a Christian, but as a Christian, how do you justify deciding when this child should die, or letting doctors decide, as opposed to letting God decide? Do you feel you are leaning on your own understanding in this or trusting God's word. Remember, what man calls wisdom God calls foolishness, and your doctors are advising you to do the ungodly -- so no matter how wise or ethical they may seem keep that in mind. Perhaps you came here to offer prolifers something to think about, but maybe God sent you here to here another perspective.

reply from: nykaren

Thanks for your condolences and your comments...I will do my best to answer your questions.
Sam DOES have a chance of living for a short time. I'm not sure what procedure you think would be used to deliver him, but if labor had been induced, he would have been delivered as in a normal delivery. He would be brought into the world gently, placed in the arms of loving parents to be held and cuddled for the short time he has. Part of the reason to induce early was that he is more likely to be born alive early than if he goes full-term. That is what doctors have told us. The nature of polycystic kidney disease is that it will continue to destroy his organs up until he is delivered. Someone here stated in their message (sorry, I don't recall who) that Potter Syndrome babies are seldom stillborn. That may be true but those with PKD are the ones more likely to be stillborn due to the nature of their disease. Potter's Syndrome can be caused by a number of different diseases, some more severe than others.
We all want more than anything to spend some time with Sam alive. Tests a few days ago showed that his heart is still strong and that makes us hopeful we will have an hour or so with him. Hospice has been helping us to prepare for his birth and death. They have been a Godsend. They know the details of how my DD and SIL want the birth handled, and will see that those things happen. He will be bathed and dressed by his mom and dad, then will meet his sister, then the rest of us. He will know without a doubt that he is loved. Once my daughter is home and up to it physically, he will be laid to rest next to his paternal grandfather.
I think I've answered why sooner is better for the mom, and your other questions but if not please let me know. And thank you for the links, I will check them out later.
Karen

reply from: nykaren

Yes, I read the scriptures you posted. I believe in miracles. In the case of an induced pregnancy, a sonogram would be done immediately before to see if there were any changes. And yes, we would be deciding when this child would be born. We would not be killing him. He would, as I've explained, die a natural and peaceful death in the arms of those who love him. As for Jesus' healing miracles in the Bible, there were also those who were not healed, for whatever reason. Whatever decisions are made for Sam, God is still in control, don't you agree, just as he was then? If he chooses to heal this child, he will do so.
As for the other verses you gave, we love Sam as a gift from God and a blessing. If you interpret our desire to hasten his birth and very possibly have him born alive and spending time with him as questioning the work of God, there's nothing I can say to change your mind. That's certainly not our intention. Believe me, I have spent much time in prayer since Sam was diagnosed. I am at peace with however he enters this world and with his death.
I appreciate your thoughts and kindness today. It's been a rough day. My daughter sees the doctor tomorrow. She's been having contractions more often the past 3 days, sometimes an hour apart, sometimes back to back. I may not be on here much tomorrow since I will have my granddaughter most of the day. I will check in when I can.
Karen

reply from: Shiprahagain

Karen, perhaps I misunderstood. If this is something that would allow Sam to live longer, than it is ethical and quite prolife. We only oppose options that will kill Sam before his time. I'm so sorry you are in a position no family deserves to be in.

reply from: carolemarie

Dear Karen!
I am so sorry for your entire family! What a horrible thing to have happened. I
Why don't you work with your legislatures to make an exception written into the law to cover things like this?
I feel for your daughter and her family as they go through this and I will be praying for all of you,
Blessings,
Carole

reply from: whydeath

Sorry this is so early I have been up all night.....
I was thinking, you say either way the end result was going to be death....
What if a doctor told her she would birth a healthy(or sick) baby and he would live until he was 2weeks old or 2 years old meaning this youngster's life was going to end, would she still opt to inducing? or would she want to make the best of that short time she would have with him? Again both having the same end result.
We could even look at it in a larger picture, we are all born, born to die. We just do not know when "our time will be". IF we are all going to die (eventually) then why be born?
I am glad to hear that Sam is expected to live a short time after his birth. From the postings from concernedparent, the longer that Sam is in his mother's belly the more developed the lungs (can) will be. I know she is having to carry this pregnancy against what she and her husband want but, if it will bring an extra 15min of life is it not worth it?
Good night (again)

reply from: faithman

UUUUHHH, the last time I checked, we all die after birth. Why can't we celebrate life, no matter how long it lasts? What if we learn how to prolong life, the more we try to save it? Things that were lethal in the past, are just a bump in the health road now. Why do some believe in exicution as the only answere to a dificult life?

reply from: nykaren

Thank you. This will not kill Sam before his time, in spite of what Concerned Parent says. My daughter is in the care of an ob-gyn who is tops in the field of kidney disease, and I'm going to venture the opinion here that he maybe knows more about PKD than she does or than anyone can learn in an on-line search. My daughter is headed for his office today and her hospice counselor is going to be at the appt with her. We're hoping Sam will decide to arrive soon. Your prayers for everyone involved would be appreciated. Karen

reply from: nykaren

Lady, If I wanted sympathy, this is definitely the last place I'd come.

reply from: nykaren

Concerned Parent, Your research has reached the point of the ridiculous. There are 2 different types of PKD. We covered that somewhere already. In the one you have "researched", yes, a child can live and it can be treated. In the other, this is not the case. You are desparate to prove your point and prove me wrong. Why is that?? I'm sorry to have caused you so much discomfort by coming here and posting. Nothing I can say will make a difference in what you think. It's like banging my head against a brick wall and quite honestly, I haven't the time and energy.

reply from: nykaren

If the child would survive 2 weeks or even 2 days, my daughter would gladly go full-term and enjoy that time with him. The lungs in his case will NOT develop more. That is not the way the disease works. Again, this info is from one of the top pediatric kidney specialists in NYS. He didn't google for his degree. It's not a matter of an extra 15 minutes. The sooner he is born, the more time he will probably live. Karen

reply from: nykaren

Carole, Thanks for your concern and prayers. I've contacted every elected official who can possible help us and I've learned from them there is a bill in the works that will make exceptions for cases in NY such as this. Unfortunately, it is sponsored by the pro-choice legislators and a pro-choice governor and also will allow abortions which I do not believe in. This is induced labor, this is not partial-birth abortion as many seem to think. There is a huge difference. I would love to find a pro-life legislator in this state who would work for a law that would prevent "frivolous" abortions but yet allow for induced labor when it is medically recommended. So far, I'm not having any luck. Pro-choice legislators are like some here - all or nothing. I will continue trying as will many others who are aware of this situation. Karen

reply from: ladybug

nykaren.... dont you get it??? what you are supporting is still a form of abortion. You are once again being so selfish... you cant wait for the child to come on his own?? why are you and your daughter in such a hurry??? If you try to make this one thing legal.. you open the doors for any form of abortion during the full pregnancy to be legal... dont you get that???? As a "former prolifer" you should understand that. Thats like saying well... rape should be legal sometimes... if the woman is a prostitute anyways, what does it matter? That's freaking ridiculous!!!!!

reply from: nykaren

Did I forget to mention - or can't you read? The sooner Sam is delivered, the more likely we are to have maybe an hour with a LIVE baby rather than a DEAD one.
And please don't put words in my mouth.

reply from: ladybug

i didn't put words in your mouth.. "former prolifer" is in your subtitle, you wrote that yourself. another question, that is a neutral one.. have you gotten a second or third opinion on this situation?

reply from: faithman

Well!! you be the one who opened it, so others could put words in it.

reply from: nykaren

Actually, I was referring to your comparison of this with rape.
Yes, we have gotten other opinions. The sonagrams have been redone and read by different specialists at a different hospital. They have been viewed by a number of specialists in different cities. They all make the same diagnosis and prognosis.

reply from: nykaren

Faithman, Does that mean I have no right to be treated with respect??

reply from: ladybug

well then the comparison of rape are words out of my mouth obviously... not yours, but i am comparing your request to a request for expections for rape

reply from: AshMarie88

But you'd rather him be killed now instead of wait until he dies naturally after birth. Correct?

reply from: faithman

You said you were a pro-abort. I respect no pro-abort.

reply from: AshMarie88

What is wrong with letting someone die naturally rather than induce their death making it a type of murder? How can that make you feel good?

reply from: faithman

The power to take the life of another is intoxicating. Ask Adalf.

reply from: yoda

Well, nykaren, since you didn't respond to my post, all I can say is that I hope everyone involved in the very complicated situation does their very best to see that the right thing is done, and that everyone involved follows their conscience. Beyond that, I hope that we can move on beyond this very rare type of situation and get back to the discussion of elective abortions done for economic and social reasons, which is the reason for this forum, IMO.

reply from: Shiprahagain

But you'd rather him be killed now instead of wait until he dies naturally after birth. Correct?
I think she said if he's delievered now he'll live longer out of the womb than if he comes on his own. I don't think she's trying to kill him now.

reply from: carolemarie

In the meantime, I am really concerned for your daughter and her husband. It must be a very hard and painful situtation for them. I am glad that they have a hospise coordinator who will be helping them walk through losing their son.
One of the problems legislators face is trying to write a law that will protect babies from abortions that are not needed, that allows protection for the rare situtation your daughter's family is experiencing, and that pro-abortion Dr. can't manipulate to do what George Tiller does in Wichita.
I know that isn't any comfort to your daughter or you now, but God will walk through this with you and them. Little Sam will spend a few precious moments with his family and since it is too late to change anything for your daughter and little Sam, I am going to be praying that God touches her spirit and gives her strength and peace and the same for you. Please let her know that I am praying for her family. Once again, I am so sorry for the pain you are all experiencing.
Much love!
Carole

reply from: nykaren

Again...Whenever Sam is born, if he is born alive, he will die a natural death.

reply from: nykaren

You said you were a pro-abort. I respect no pro-abort.
That says a lot about the kind of person you are. And I've repeatedly said I don't believe in abortion. Can you possibly grasp the difference between "abortion" and "induced labor"? I do not support abortion, but I can no longer support your agenda because it is all or nothing. In that respect, I can no longer say I'm pro-life, because it connects me with the likes of you. You will not listen to reason. I have throughout this discussion been much more courteous and thoughtful in my responses than how I've been treated by many of you. I refuse to stoop to your level.

reply from: nykaren

I apologize, sir. What post didn't I respond to? I thought I'd answered yours.

reply from: nykaren

Feel good??? I'm losing a grandson, and you think this is about me feeling good?

reply from: nykaren

Thanks, Carole. I understand the problem of writing a law that can't be abused. Plus both sides of the issue have pig-headed leaders who want it all "their" way or not at all. That makes a solution impossible. What I've seen here the past 2 days leaves me believing they'd rather lash out at each other and fight, than work towards a solution.
My daughter is a very strong young lady, and her husband is in this as much as she is. They can definitely use your prayers for what they will be going through. Hospice has been wonderful. They have 3 counselors assigned to them. One for the 2 of them, she visits them weekly, goes to dr. appts with them, and will be in the delivery room. One for their 3-year-old daughter, she visits weekly and will also be at the hospital part of the time to talk with her and help her understand. And a bereavement counselor who has visited them a few times and will be more available after Sam's death. All 3 of them will be available for up to 2 years afterwards, as needed.
Much love to you, too.
Karen

reply from: pookiy1980

Nykaren
I can not even imagine what you and your family is going through. This is the kind of situation that we can only listen unless we have actually been in your situation.
I have read through this topic and wanted to comment on a couple things.
First I keep reading about "induced labor" as killing the baby....but like you said inducing the labor would be birthing a living baby who would then die naturally, it is not like they are ending the baby's life prior to birthing it.
I think what some of the posters are trying to understand is why it is ok to purposly birth a baby early in this case, but not others. I think this is where the rape similarities came in. When questioning what to do for Sam he was what 24 weeks? Babies survive at this age, so if he was to show signs of "being healthy" then I assume proper measures would come to play.
Anyway I wish you and your family well and send my blessings to your daughter and her family.

reply from: nykaren

Exactly!
I've been trying to understand that comparison with rape. Comparing gently birthing a baby by inducing labor to a violent act such as rape or to saying it would be fine to rape a prostitute (a ridiculous statement on its own) makes no sense. If the comparison is being made between birthing this baby early and aborting a child conceived through rape, again there is no similarities other than both being babies. The baby in my daughter's case will die whenever he is born, the other is presumably a healthy baby that can thrive when born. The first is a medical situation, the second is a matterof a baby not being wanted. Right?
Sam was 24 weeks when diagnosed. The ethics panel did not meet till 10 days later, because one member was in Europe and they wanted all members to be present. There was no question at all as to the medical issues. By then 3 sonograms had been done and the disease had shown some progression with each one. It was several hours after that meeting ended and we'd been informed that the procedure was approved, that hospital lawyers for some reason met and invoked this seldom-used law. This was a total surprise to the doctors and ethics panel. Up till that point, the word "abortion" had not been used in the situation (other than maybe behind closed doors of the ethics panel), and honestly hadn't even occurred to my daughter and her husband, or the rest of the family.
Thanks for your wishes for my daughter and family. She said to tell you thanks also. I shared with her about the discussion here and she can't believe the way it's gone.
Karen

reply from: yoda

I like to see things kept fairly simple, for the sake of the 95% of the babies being slaughtered every day for elective (non-health related) reasons.
Our best and simplest principle is "Live baby good, dead baby bad". We just don't like the idea of killing babies, no matter who thinks they have the right to say that death is "in the baby's and/or the mother's best interests". That's just a decision for a "higher authority" than we mere mortals to make, IMO. We have no moral right to take innocent life, and if "nature" says that a baby must die, then let nature take "her" course, and let us not set ourselves up to make such decisions.

reply from: nykaren

For the 95%, I couldn't agree more! A dead baby is NEVER a good thing, but unfortunately sometimes a harsh and inevitable reality.
Wonderful quote. Human kindness is something we can all use more of, don't you think, whatever our differences?

reply from: nykaren

No, I have said that in THIS case, induced delivery would give us more time to spend with Sam. Again - this is not about saving the baby (he cannot be saved), this is about birthing him at a point where he will live long enough to be lovingly cared for, for maybe an hour, by his parents and other loved ones. This is not about KILLING a baby. This is about birthing a baby, and that baby then dying a natural death, in the arms of family.
Your contention that the only ETHICAL reason to induce early - that is an OPINION, not FACT. Obviously the ethics panel at the hospital where my daughter is being seen would differ with your opinion, since they approved the procedure. This is a major childrens' hospital. You are more informed of this particular suituation than they are?
I have never said that "every mother" should be allowed to use mercy killing as a reason for abortion. This is not a partial-birth abortion, where the aim is to kill and dispose of a fetus. And this is not a "mercy killing", or a "killing" at all. It is a live birth and a natural death. Perhaps if I type more slowly...L-I-V-E B-I-R-T-H, N-A-T-U-R-A-L D-E-A-T-H. Got that?

reply from: nykaren

Frankly, I seriously doubt this is the case, and I'm positive that no doctor has guaranteed any of you anything. Doctors can only logically deal with probabilities. Show us any source that would substantiate your claim that a child with PDK might benefit from premature birth. Even if this were true, why would it cause you to decide that every woman should be allowed to abort if the child is not expected to live? I doubt any of us would object to abortion intended to save a baby, or allow it to live longer.... Are you not insisting that mothers should be allowed to rid themselves of "doomed" babies if they choose? Am I misunderstanding you? Do you really support changing the laws so that more pregnancies can be legally aborted with the intention of killing the child, simply so that a few can abort in order for their children to live a little longer? I'm not convinced that New York law prohibits inducing labor in order to benefit mother and/or child. You provided a link to a cite where NY laws can be looked up, but not to any specific statute. I would think you would be familiar with a law you are attempting to change. How about quoting the statutes as now worded, and specifically outlining the changes you would have us support...
You're right, no doctor has given any guarantees. The doctor is logically dealing with probibilities (your words). And short of showing you Sam's sonagrams or giving you access to my daughter's medical files, I can obviously not prove to you that in THIS case, inducing early would more likely give us more time with Sam. I have never said that ALL mothers should be able to RID themselves of babies who are doomed. Have you actually read all my posts and think "ridding" ourselves of a baby is our aim?? Yes, I do support changing the law so the decision is made by the parents and their physician and an ethics panel, NOT by lawyers. This is a MEDICAL situation.
I apologize that you were not able to find the law thru the link I posted. Here is NY State Penal law § 125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human
being who has been born and is alive.
2. "Abortional act" means an act committed upon or with respect to a
female, whether by another person or by the female herself, whether she
is pregnant or not, whether directly upon her body or by the
administering, taking or prescription of drugs or in any other manner,
with intent to cause a miscarriage of such female.
3. "Justifiable abortional act." An abortional act is justifiable when
committed upon a female with her consent by a duly licensed physician
acting (a) under a reasonable belief that such is necessary to preserve
her life, or, (b) within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her
pregnancy. A pregnant female's commission of an abortional act upon
herself is justifiable when she acts upon the advice of a duly licensed
physician (1) that such act is necessary to preserve her life, or, (2)
within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her pregnancy. The
submission by a female to an abortional act is justifiable when she
believes that it is being committed by a duly licensed physician, acting
under a reasonable belief that such act is necessary to preserve her
life, or, within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her
pregnancy.

reply from: nykaren

Sonagrams, dear. Did I mention that? Each one showing the disease progressing, and NO development of Sam's lungs.
Do you honestly think I'm going to post the doctor's name here so you can harrass him the way you have harrassed me? Yeah, right. And I repeat - since you must not have read it - we have gotten numerous opinions from numerous specialists. Sam's lungs are NOT developing. Do you think the ethics panel simply said "Oh, hey, let's let them do this. We have no proof but sure, go ahead." Perhaps they should have consulted you first?? Where did you get your medical degree? I don't recall you mentioning that. Oh, yeah, you have a degree in "googling"!

reply from: nykaren

Folks, if I seem to be running out of patience with "concerned parent" here, it's because I'm tired of being treated like a killer. She's not concerned for Sam, she is simply concerned with her agenda and being "right". The words "ignorant", "pigheaded" and "cruel" come to mind. Logic escapes her. I am done responding to her.
If any of you want to keep in touch and be informed of Sam's birth and how the family is doing, please contact me privately. Some of you have been compassionate and kind and caring, and I'd love to hear from you.
Karen

reply from: Shiprahagain

Nykaren, Concernedparent picks on everyone -- even the most ardent prolifers. He's a man, btw, but he is also intelligent and passionate. Don't worry about his comments. Just put him on ignore so you don't see his posts.

reply from: nykaren

A man?? Why does he post as a woman? and with not even a first name? Thanks for letting me know that, and about the ignore option.

reply from: faithman

You said you were a pro-abort. I respect no pro-abort.
That says a lot about the kind of person you are. And I've repeatedly said I don't believe in abortion. Can you possibly grasp the difference between "abortion" and "induced labor"? I do not support abortion, but I can no longer support your agenda because it is all or nothing. In that respect, I can no longer say I'm pro-life, because it connects me with the likes of you. You will not listen to reason. I have throughout this discussion been much more courteous and thoughtful in my responses than how I've been treated by many of you. I refuse to stoop to your level.
Stoop nothing!!!!! It would take you a very long time to stand up from the pit of depravity you have laid down in. Pro-aborts are totally unreasonable, as it is unreasonable to slaughter womb children while hideing behind hard case boo hoo stories. If you want to role with the skanky bortheads, don't cry when you get treated like one.

reply from: yoda

Okay, that's true. But that slogan is so simple that it leaves out an implied principle.... that we never CAUSE a baby to be dead.... that's what it means to me, anyway. If a baby dies despite our best efforts, we accept that... but not baby killing.
Absolutely. But babies especially..... they have no way to defend themselves at all.

reply from: Shiprahagain

He's not posting as a woman -- that's a judge's wig I didn't know concerned was even being mean to you b/c I've had him on ignore for ages. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

reply from: yoda

This is the kind of statement that puts you at odds with many people on this forum.
It's perfectly understandable that you may disagree on various points with various posters, but to make the statement that you "can no longer say you are pro-life" simply because you disagree with this poster or that poster boggles my mind. Where did you get the idea that any poster on this or any other forum represents the entire pro-life movement? Where did you get the idea that you cannot call yourself prolife and have opinions that differ from other prolifers, even if they differ with the majority of prolifers?
To be "pro-life", according to the dictionary, you need only oppose the legal status of elective abortion. And the term "elective" is generally understood to mean those done for "non-medical" reasons.
So, unless you're prepared to say that the abortions that you want to be made legal have no medical motivation to them, your status as a "pro-lifer" ought not be in question. And it most certainly ought not be affected by any disagreements you may have on this forum.

reply from: AshMarie88

Hey Karen, say you were gonna die tomorrow because of some fatal disease and your family wanted to kill you before you had the chance to live the REST of your life. Would you go for that? Would you want to die by a kind of murder, or would you just want to go when it was YOUR time to go?

reply from: nykaren

You neglected to answer this, but Im going to just go ahead and venture a guess that it's waaaaay beyond you.

reply from: nykaren

This is the kind of statement that puts you at odds with many people on this forum.
It's perfectly understandable that you may disagree on various points with various posters, but to make the statement that you "can no longer say you are pro-life" simply because you disagree with this poster or that poster boggles my mind. Where did you get the idea that any poster on this or any other forum represents the entire pro-life movement? Where did you get the idea that you cannot call yourself prolife and have opinions that differ from other prolifers, even if they differ with the majority of prolifers?
To be "pro-life", according to the dictionary, you need only oppose the legal status of elective abortion. And the term "elective" is generally understood to mean those done for "non-medical" reasons.
So, unless you're prepared to say that the abortions that you want to be made legal have no medical motivation to them, your status as a "pro-lifer" ought not be in question. And it most certainly ought not be affected by any disagreements you may have on this forum.
Okay, That all makes sense, and obviously my comment was aimed at one of the posters who has been quite vicious. I've seen a lot of the "either you are pro-life or you want to murder babies" attitude here. I did not come here making that statement you object to above. I came here asking if anyone could agree with me that the law needs to be changed to allow for purely medical situations. That statement came as a result of persistant harrassment.
My question, though, is how do I go about changing the law from within a pro-life view? The NY state governor is working to change the law, but by doing so will make ALL abortion legal in this state. But the pro-life people I talk to generally are not interested in that 5% my daughter falls into, just the 95% that you've mentioned the focus here as needing to be on. So my only option would seem to be leave the law as it is, or vote in favor of the new legislation, which obviously protects the 5% and dooms the 95%.
I know that I came here from an emotional place of watching my daughter and grandson suffer, but it seems like there is no way to prevent that for other women. That 5% DOES matter and can not just be swept under the rug.
Karen

reply from: faithman

This is the kind of statement that puts you at odds with many people on this forum.
It's perfectly understandable that you may disagree on various points with various posters, but to make the statement that you "can no longer say you are pro-life" simply because you disagree with this poster or that poster boggles my mind. Where did you get the idea that any poster on this or any other forum represents the entire pro-life movement? Where did you get the idea that you cannot call yourself prolife and have opinions that differ from other prolifers, even if they differ with the majority of prolifers?
To be "pro-life", according to the dictionary, you need only oppose the legal status of elective abortion. And the term "elective" is generally understood to mean those done for "non-medical" reasons.
So, unless you're prepared to say that the abortions that you want to be made legal have no medical motivation to them, your status as a "pro-lifer" ought not be in question. And it most certainly ought not be affected by any disagreements you may have on this forum.
Okay, That all makes sense, and obviously my comment was aimed at one of the posters who has been quite vicious. I've seen a lot of the "either you are pro-life or you want to murder babies" attitude here. I did not come here making that statement you object to above. I came here asking if anyone could agree with me that the law needs to be changed to allow for purely medical situations. That statement came as a result of persistant harrassment.
My question, though, is how do I go about changing the law from within a pro-life view? The NY state governor is working to change the law, but by doing so will make ALL abortion legal in this state. But the pro-life people I talk to generally are not interested in that 5% my daughter falls into, just the 95% that you've mentioned the focus here as needing to be on. So my only option would seem to be leave the law as it is, or vote in favor of the new legislation, which obviously protects the 5% and dooms the 95%.
I know that I came here from an emotional place of watching my daughter and grandson suffer, but it seems like there is no way to prevent that for other women. That 5% DOES matter and can not just be swept under the rug.
Karen
There is a 100% chance that we all die, get over it!!! The question is , do we shorten the time of death for the womb child? So you would throw away ninty five babies, so youy had the "right" to throw the 5% away. Now if we do the math, that means you would rather throw 100% away. That makes you a pro-abort death skank maggot, and a monster. Get a mirror if you are confused as to what that looks like.

reply from: yoda

What the "prolife people you talk to" are interested in ought not be of major concern to you insofar as your own stance on abortion. There is no unified prolife movement or standardized prolife position (except a general opposition to elective abortion), we are a conglomeration of organizations and individuals of widely differing opinions. So you still have not presented any logical reason to abandon a belief in the moral right to life of unborn humans.
But it troubles me that you seem to think that it is moral to support a law that legalizes all abortions, in order to get legal authority to have an "early delivery" of a child with serious medical problems. That simply does not make sense.
In the first place, doctors have and have always had wide latitude in making the determination of when to deliver babies where serious medical problems present themselves in either the baby or the mother, so I doubt that a new law is really needed for that to happen. In the unlikely case that a "new law" is needed, then such a law could only be morally supported by prolifers if it did not sacrifice healthy babies for the sake of seriously ill babies like the one you describe. It is never moral to kill one innocent baby to save another, it makes the person who does so as bad as the worst baby-killer.
But in any case, such exceptions do not affect the morality of healthy mothers killing their healthy babies. Indeed, to use such an exceptional situation to condemn healthy babies of healthy mothers is tantamount to moral treachery, IMO.

reply from: AshMarie88

Still waiting for an answer oh dear Christian one.

reply from: MC3

To the pro-lifers on this thread:
Stop being strung along by this nykaren person. Her "I-used-to-be-prolife-but-became-enlightened-and-now-no-longer-want-to-be-associated-with-people-like-you" sob-story has holes in it big enough to fly a 747 through.
Just remember, we've heard this crap before. Many times. It's just another pathetic attempt by a garden variety moral degenerate trying to bamboozle the rest of us into believing that there can be some kind of moral justification for the wholesale slaughter of children. The fact is, like every other abortion apologist we have ever encountered, this old gal is lying through her bloodstained teeth. Believe me, if there is one thing I have learned during my years in this battle it is how to recognize a pro-lifer. She ain't it and never was.
As for you nykaren, I really do wish you baby-killers would introduce a new line of lies. Your shop-worn BS became tedious about 30 years ago and it has not gotten one bit better with age. So please, move on. Develop a little imagination. Come at us with something we didn't already blow out of the water a couple of generations ago.

reply from: nykaren

Still waiting for an answer oh dear Christian one.
oh dear sarcastic one,
I would want to die a natural death, surrounded by loved ones. If I had a terminal illness, I would welcome whatever medical procedure would make that happen. Wouldn't you?? That's exactly what I want for Sam.

reply from: nykaren

What the "prolife people you talk to" are interested in ought not be of major concern to you insofar as your own stance on abortion. There is no unified prolife movement or standardized prolife position (except a general opposition to elective abortion), we are a conglomeration of organizations and individuals of widely differing opinions. So you still have not presented any logical reason to abandon a belief in the moral right to life of unborn humans.
But it troubles me that you seem to think that it is moral to support a law that legalizes all abortions, in order to get legal authority to have an "early delivery" of a child with serious medical problems. That simply does not make sense.
In the first place, doctors have and have always had wide latitude in making the determination of when to deliver babies where serious medical problems present themselves in either the baby or the mother, so I doubt that a new law is really needed for that to happen. In the unlikely case that a "new law" is needed, then such a law could only be morally supported by prolifers if it did not sacrifice healthy babies for the sake of seriously ill babies like the one you describe. It is never moral to kill one innocent baby to save another, it makes the person who does so as bad as the worst baby-killer.
But in any case, such exceptions do not affect the morality of healthy mothers killing their healthy babies. Indeed, to use such an exceptional situation to condemn healthy babies of healthy mothers is tantamount to moral treachery, IMO.
The opinions I've seen here do NOT affect my beliefs on abortion. I came here saying I am opposed to abortion, and I still am. I've said that over and over and over.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough when I mentioned the only 2 options. NEITHER of them are acceptable and what I was asking you is how I go about creating that third option that would protect babies and also allow medical cases to be decided MEDICALLY, not legally. Decided BY a woman's doctors, and the woman herself, and APPROVED by an ethics panel. This is not about allowing "any" woman to dispose of an ill child, it is about allowing a decision to be made by a process clearly spelled out in the law for the 5% where it is needed.
In NY state, doctors do NOT have that leeway in these cases. My daughter's doctors believed induced delivery was best for mother and child. An ethics board agreed. The procedure was stopped by a LAW still on NY state books - written before Roe vs. Wade, but still there and enforcable. That law, which I posted earlier, allows such procedures after 24 weeks ONLY if necessary to save the mother's life.
Karen

reply from: faithman

What the "prolife people you talk to" are interested in ought not be of major concern to you insofar as your own stance on abortion. There is no unified prolife movement or standardized prolife position (except a general opposition to elective abortion), we are a conglomeration of organizations and individuals of widely differing opinions. So you still have not presented any logical reason to abandon a belief in the moral right to life of unborn humans.
But it troubles me that you seem to think that it is moral to support a law that legalizes all abortions, in order to get legal authority to have an "early delivery" of a child with serious medical problems. That simply does not make sense.
In the first place, doctors have and have always had wide latitude in making the determination of when to deliver babies where serious medical problems present themselves in either the baby or the mother, so I doubt that a new law is really needed for that to happen. In the unlikely case that a "new law" is needed, then such a law could only be morally supported by prolifers if it did not sacrifice healthy babies for the sake of seriously ill babies like the one you describe. It is never moral to kill one innocent baby to save another, it makes the person who does so as bad as the worst baby-killer.
But in any case, such exceptions do not affect the morality of healthy mothers killing their healthy babies. Indeed, to use such an exceptional situation to condemn healthy babies of healthy mothers is tantamount to moral treachery, IMO.
The opinions I've seen here do NOT affect my beliefs on abortion. I came here saying I am opposed to abortion, and I still am. I've said that over and over and over.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough when I mentioned the only 2 options. NEITHER of them are acceptable and what I was asking you is how I go about creating that third option that would protect babies and also allow medical cases to be decided MEDICALLY, not legally. Decided BY a woman's doctors, and the woman herself, and APPROVED by an ethics panel. This is not about allowing "any" woman to dispose of an ill child, it is about allowing a decision to be made by a process clearly spelled out in the law for the 5% where it is needed.
In NY state, doctors do NOT have that leeway in these cases. My daughter's doctors believed induced delivery was best for mother and child. An ethics board agreed. The procedure was stopped by a LAW still on NY state books - written before Roe vs. Wade, but still there and enforcable. That law, which I posted earlier, allows such procedures after 24 weeks ONLY if necessary to save the mother's life.
Karen
Hey dummy. The legal system governs the medical field. Thats the way "WE THE PEOPLE" prefur it.

reply from: yoda

You lobby your legislature, if that is where you perceive the "problem" to be. What you do NOT do is come to a forum like this and tell us you are "no longer prolife" because the laws in your state are immoral/unjust/unfair. Being or not being prolife has nothing to do with the laws of YOUR state. And you don't lobby for a new law which allows ALL BABIES to be butchered right up to birth, just to "correct" what you think is an inequity.
Lots of doctors, and lots of "ethics boards" are proabort to begin with, so that doesn't tell us much. Most proaborts think that unrestricted abortion on demand, right up to birth is "best for all concerned", so what does that tell you?
Babies are generally viable after 24 weeks anyway, so I don't see any real moral dilemma with that law.
And I'm inclined to agree with MC3 that this thread has the appearance of an effort to legitimize abortion on demand by generalizing about abortion from the perspective of a rather rare situation and trying to make it seem to justify all abortions.
So I'm done.

reply from: AshMarie88

Still waiting for an answer oh dear Christian one.
oh dear sarcastic one,
I would want to die a natural death, surrounded by loved ones. If I had a terminal illness, I would welcome whatever medical procedure would make that happen. Wouldn't you?? That's exactly what I want for Sam.
I thought you wanted Sam to be killed because he wouldn't live past a certain time after birth?
Or is that for all other babies excluding Sam?
I just don't get how you feel it's ok to end a little child's life just because it MIGHT or for sure will die sometime after birth.
I brought up that example earlier to show you that maybe those children would want the chance at life too, and not have their death induced because the parents or other people feel it's the "ethical" thing to do.
If it was my child, it'd be sad he/she would die after birth, but I would not once think about killing him/her just because of that reason. I wouldn't want to be responsible for killing anyone, ESPECIALLY a child!
Not quite sure why you are for that.

reply from: nykaren

Still waiting for an answer oh dear Christian one.
oh dear sarcastic one,
I would want to die a natural death, surrounded by loved ones. If I had a terminal illness, I would welcome whatever medical procedure would make that happen. Wouldn't you?? That's exactly what I want for Sam.
I thought you wanted Sam to be killed because he wouldn't live past a certain time after birth?
Or is that for all other babies excluding Sam?
I just don't get how you feel it's ok to end a little child's life just because it MIGHT or for sure will die sometime after birth.
I brought up that example earlier to show you that maybe those children would want the chance at life too, and not have their death induced because the parents or other people feel it's the "ethical" thing to do.
If it was my child, it'd be sad he/she would die after birth, but I would not once think about killing him/her just because of that reason. I wouldn't want to be responsible for killing anyone, ESPECIALLY a child!
Not quite sure why you are for that.
Can you show me ONE time I have used the word "KILLED" for what I want for Sam or any other baby? L-I-V-E B-I-R-T-H, N-A-T-U-R-A-L D-E-A-T-H.
You asked me a question and got an honest answer. Now it's not really what you wanted to know? I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Unless you have been in my daughter's situation, you don't have any clue what you would be feeling.
Karen

reply from: nykaren

LOBBY here for a law that butchers babies?? I have done no such thing. I stated very plainly that I do not want that law. If you are going to make accusations, at least get your facts straight.

reply from: nykaren

Ahhhh, yes. And said like a true redneck.
If you have cancer, there are laws that tell you precisely what your treatment must be. No options or exceptions. You take that treatment or else. Options? Are you kidding? The legal system knows best!
If you are a diabetic, the law says that ALL diabetics take insulin. That may not be the best treatment for you, but that doesn't matter does it. No, you want our government to dictate what your doctors do. The government, after all, is noted for being wise and doing whatever is best for the people. Heck, I have never in my life known of a dishonest politician. They want what is in YOUR best interest.
Yep, no doubt about it. Uh-huh.

reply from: faithman

Ahhhh, yes. And said like a true redneck.
If you have cancer, there are laws that tell you precisely what your treatment must be. No options or exceptions. You take that treatment or else. Options? Are you kidding? The legal system knows best!
If you are a diabetic, the law says that ALL diabetics take insulin. That may not be the best treatment for you, but that doesn't matter does it. No, you want our government to dictate what your doctors do. The government, after all, is noted for being wise and doing whatever is best for the people. Heck, I have never in my life known of a dishonest politician. They want what is in YOUR best interest.
Yep, no doubt about it. Uh-huh.
AAAAHHH no. Spoken like an American citizen. I want government to protect inocent life from "doctor" who play God, and death skank bortheads like you.

reply from: AshMarie88

ORIGINALLY you talked about babies similar to Sam being aborted just because of their condition, did you not? And that's why you're no longer pro-life, and Sam couldn't be aborted? Pardon me if I'm wrong, but that's honestly how I took that?
No I have no been in your daughter's position and I pray that I never am, and I'm sorry to hear you even have to go thru this.
As I said before tho, I know what I would do in the situation, just like I know what I'd do if I was raped and got pregnant or got pregnant by just having fun sex.
As hard as it would be, I do know.

reply from: nykaren

I'm not sure what you took to mean that. Maybe that I said that my daughter and her husband were told they had the option to induce sooner and choose that? At no point was it a matter of the baby being "killed" because he is defective. The intention was to deliver sooner so that he would more likely live longer than if they waited and had him still-born. And yes, part of it was also because of the pain she is in, but that alone would not have been reason enough to choose to induce early. It was the chance to have Sam born alive that was the main reason for their decision. If the situation were different and Sam would have a better chance of being born alive if carried fullterm, that is what they'd have opted for, regardless of her pain. And even if a baby were to be induced because there were no chance of it living, it should be done as a gentle birthing process and the baby cared for and made as comfortable as possible while still alive. In NO way, do I or have I ever, supported what is referred to as partial birth abortion where the aim is to kill the baby and no care is given to him/her.

reply from: yoda

No, you appeared to be saying that you were considering that option when you said: "So my only option would seem to be leave the law as it is, or vote in favor of the new legislation, which obviously protects the 5% and dooms the 95%. "
I think my facts are pretty straight....... you said that was one option, and I said that should NOT be one option.

reply from: yoda

Dang, FMan, how come you get to be a "true" redneck? I'm jealous!!

reply from: prolifejedi

NYKaren - I'm praying that you do get to have some precious time with your unborn-soon-to-be-born grandchild Sam.
From what you're telling us - its NOT an abortion. Its sort of like having an emergency C-Section, but instead of a C-Section, they are inducing early to give him as much time to live as possible - even if it is only an hour or if its as much as a week.
Saint Gerald, Patron of Expectant Mothers, pray for Sam and his Mother.

reply from: faithman

Dang, FMan, how come you get to be a "true" redneck? I'm jealous!!
Low collars, and lots of sun are key.

reply from: nykaren

Thank you.
Karen

reply from: Teresa18

Karen, I am sorry to here of this difficult situation your family is going through. I realize your daughter and her husband must be devastated they are losing their little boy, Sam. You and they are in my prayers during this rough patch in life.
I realize your frustration. However, you originally said that he has no chance to live regardless of how long your daughter carries on the pregnancy. You later said that he has a chance of surviving outside of the womb if delivered early. Which is it?
Changing the law for these rare exceptions could ultimately prove to be a disaster. Induced labor is a form of abortion. In most situations, when a child is birthed early, a child has less a chance of survival. If one induced labor at say, 24 weeks, their child would have less chance of survival than a pregnancy carried to term. Perhaps it is different in your rare case, but allowing that could allow a lot of babies to lose their lives. Many times doctors are wrong regarding problems with children in the womb. Ethics panels often support abortion and will recommend it or early delivery which can be a form of abortion. In turn, healthy babies could be aborted or delivered too early and die. When it is tricky, the best thing to do is err on the side of life. Allowing the pro-aborts to change this law will ultimately throw the lives of many innocent and healthy babies under the bus.
Now, it also sounds like Sam may have a longer life than if birthed at 24 weeks.
If your daughter had given birth to him at 24 weeks, he likely would be gone now. Since she didn't, he is still alive in the womb. His life is longer and they get more time with him in this instance than they do in the other. As long as he is alive, does it matter if he is in or out of the womb?
I hope that he is born soon, and your family gets to spend some time holding and cuddling him before he passes.

reply from: nykaren

Teresa, Thanks for your kind words and your prayers. I too hope Sam is born soon.
Yes, I said Sam has no chance of survival. The disease is fatal. He cannot live but a very short time, if at all, outside the womb whenever and however he is delivered. He does have a better chance of living outside the womb for a little bit longer time, say 60 minutes as opposed to none at all, if delivered early. Obviously, noone can guarantee that, but the doctors who have seen the sonagrams and other test results and know the most about his current condition, believe that to be true. We can nitpic forever as to whether he is currently "surviving" because he is alive in the womb, or whether the total time of being alive in and out of the womb combined is more important than the amount of time he spends alive outside the womb. The answers to those questions are a matter of opinion. The bottom line is that he has a fatal disease and cannot live for long once he is delivered.
While I'm at it, let me address a couple of other issues that continue to come up. One is that I said Sam has no lungs and another time I said that his lungs cannot develop. The sonagrams show the tiny beginnings of the lungs, and they will not develop any further. Once the kidneys shut down and there is no fluid, the lungs cannot develop. Perhaps the way I should have said it is that the lungs cannot possibly function. Again we are nitpicing over different ways of saying the same things. The lungs stopped developing long before being functional.
For all practical purposes, he is being born with no lungs.
I've also been accused of saying that inducing early was because of my daughter's pain and because he will not survive and another time of saying that we want him induced early so he will be alive outside the womb longer. Both factors are true, but the primary consideration is the length of his time alive outside the womb.
You say that his life in the womb has been longer now and asked whether that isn't what is more important. Again, that's a matter of opinion, I guess. I don't see why whether he is birthed at 24 or 30 or 35 weeks is of any real concern to anyone here. The fact remains that he dies soon after birth. Would his parents rather have him longer in the womb or delivered now and alive longer outside the womb? Definitely, alive longer outside the womb. It's real easy for people to sit here and pass judgement on that but "enjoying" this time with him in the womb is a bit difficult when you are in pain most of the time, the pressure on the cervix is so intense you you can hardly walk and you are vomiting several times during the day and night. Forget about sleeping, even with the help of pills. Being in this situation and physically and emotionally exhausted is beyond what you can imagine unless you've been there.
I understand the difficulty in creating a law that prevents frivolous abortions and still allows inducing labor in cases such as this where a doctor and ethics panel believe it to be necessary and ethical. I realize that for many here, there is no trust of either ethics panels or doctors. I'm sorry about that but both exist for a reason and should be allowed to function. The ethics panel in this case has pro-life members. If some don't, change that to where it suits your agenda. Don't write them off altogether. It's been said here that 95% of abortion cases are frivolous and should not be permitted. I agree. But you have no right to ignore the very real needs of those women and families in the 5%. Yes, these cases are rare, but they should not be ignored and treated the way my daughter's case has been treated. These are real women and real babies just like the 95%.
I know this post will be torn apart I will be trashed and condemned and called names. I'm done explaining the situation. Some here will find ways to turn my words against me no matter what I say or how I say. And some will say the whole story is made up. I'd hate to live my live in that negative and hateful frame of mind. I pity those of you who do.
Teresa, the above is not aimed at you. Please understand that. I appreciate your kindness and compassion in understanding the pain we are going through. I hope I answered your questions which clearing up this other stuff at the same time.
Karen

reply from: Shiprahagain

NyKaren. I don't think it's really fair for you to accuse us of nitpicking and passing judgementand offering our opinions. YOU opened up this topic for discussion and solicted our opinions. That was your decision. For us to offer informed opinions we have to "nitpick" and get the facts. As you admit, you've said a bunch of different confusing things. First the induced labor was to spare your daughter-in-law pain. Then it was to allow Sam to live. First you said you were a former prolifer (someone who, tautologically, must now support legalized abortion.) Then you turn around and say you're against abortion. In your first post you didn't even mention that the inducing would allow Sam to live outside the womb. You said the result would be the same whether or not he was carried to term. Don't then scold us being confused by your multiple statements and don't call us judgemental. We aren't out to get you. You came here in an antagonistic manner. All you had to do was say that you wanted induced labor against NY's laws so that your grandchild would live outside the womb and you would have found instant sympathy. Instead, you presented yourself as a formerm prolifer who wanted to induce labor to spare your daughter in law pain and because Sam was deformed and because you didn't want to confuse your 3 year old granddaughter. So don't be surprised that you're receiving antipathy.
Even so, you're more coherent than I would be faced with the prospect of losing a descendant and I understand why your posts haven't been clear, but still, you haven't been fair with us.

reply from: faithman

Dang, FMan, how come you get to be a "true" redneck? I'm jealous!!
Low collars and lots of sun are key.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Actually, the term red neck refers to the red dye on the collars of the clothing of the ancestors of the people now known as rednecks. The dye, as you might guess, rubbed off onto their skin -- sorry, I couldn't resist that teaching point

reply from: JaysonsMom

Karen, I apologize for being late in addressing your situation.
First of all, I'd like to offer my sincere condolences on Sam's plight. No family should be faced with such pain and the inevitable, too-soon passing of a child. My heart goes out to you and your family.
I'm sorry you've been treated harsly by some members here. You deserve to be treated and 'spoken' to (typed to) with respect the same as everyone else, in my opinion, and the fact that your post addresses the possibility of abortion due to medical reasons doesn't mean you should be treated poorly.
I'm 100% prolife but I'm also a "do unto others" kind of gal and you'll get nothing but respect from me. I pray for a miracle for precious Sam and I'm so, so very sorry that your daughter is suffering physically as well as mentally because of this terrible situation.
Feel free to private message me anytime.
Lord, I ask that you lay your healing hands on little Sam and his mother. Please be with them and the family during this very difficult time. Thy will be done Lord, but if you see fit, I pray that you help Sam. I ask this in the name of your Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, AMEN.
Amy

reply from: JaysonsMom

Harshly^^ (correction)
Sorry, I'm going on 20 hours of sleep in a week.

reply from: nykaren

Amy, Thanks for the kind words. I've been encouraged by seeing that there ARE some Christians here who practice what Jesus taught about love. Thanks for the prayers for Sam and his mom. I'll keep you updated privately about how they are doing. Sorry to hear you're getting so little sleep, and THANK you for making the effort to post here in spite of that. Karen

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Alright,
I didn't read through all 8 pages of this, but I will simply give you my take.
First you state to be a Christian. Do not all things work together for the better of those who believe? Choose life so that you may live?
This situation is horrible. Absoultely.
The first problem is that to remove a law because of this is to make a law due to the exception.
We can't end a law made for good simply because there are some times that its bad.
Second, Mercy killing is still killing.
God (Christian-remember?) loves to take these PEOPLE (Remember that child is a person) who society treats with pity, and use them for mighty things. Even if you never know it.
We can't kill the child because his life is going to be hard. This is a horrible situation, but we don't kill the retarded or deformed just because they aren't on the same level of us.
The suffering is horrible to hear about.
You all are in my prayers. But sadly we all have different crosses to bear. We cannot play God. God doesn't watch the world from miles away, and do things without reason. Its time for trust, a lot of trust.
A case like this calls for more then most people will ever be called to give.
But there will be good that comes from it.
On a secular level, where do we draw the line?
what line is "too severe" and acceptible for a mercykilling?
Autism? Downs? Severe retardation? Physical deformity? A combination?
You need to try to disassociate yourself for a moment, because this being your grandchild and child involved brings a lot of pain and pity into the situation.
Remember, its a person, Gods child, part of Gods plan.
You say laws shouldn't be cut and dry but never forget the slippery slope.
If its not cut and dry then people find ways around them.
Say that a womans life must be at risk to have a 9th month abortion..Well all the abortionist/pro-choice doctor has to say is that she is at risk, and BAM she can have an abortion.
Its cut and dry that abortion is legal all 9 months of pregnancy, why do you think its so hard for us pro-lifers to work against these laws? Because its cut and dry.
If our PRO-LIFE laws aren't cut and dry, then the spineless babykiller pro-aborts will slip in between the cracks.
You don't advocate the mass-murder of children, we get that.
But the changes you advocate allow that said mass murder.
If a =b and b=c then a=c .
Another thing to look at.
The situation you are in right now isn't going to get fixed. Sadly.
You want to change the laws because OTHERS might get in the same situation.
Its not even going to help your own daughter.
So why aren't you changing the laws that fund abortion?
Those funds could go much better towards medical research to PREVENT these situations. Now babies aren't being killed, and no one else is in your daughters situation. Make laws that save babies and still help others from falling to your daughters situation. You are being blinded by personal emotion.
Stop abortion, and turn all the money and doctors involved there into money and doctors involved in medical prenatal/pregnancy research and bam here is a wonderful solution to the vast majority of baby-killing debates.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

KAREN
SAM IS ALREADY ALIVE!
YOU WILL BE CUTTING HIS LIFE SHORT.
HE.
IS.
ALIVE.
its why abortion is wrong! it kills a LIVING PERSON.
What you want is more time THAT YOU SEE HIM. Its the same ideal that lets people call unborn children "Blobs of tissue". Just because you cannot see him does not mean he isn't there, it doesn't mean sam isn't sam. Sam is still Sam in your arms or not.
Delivering before God chooses to deliver sam is playing God.
I feel horrible about the whole situation. But you must do whats RIGHT, not what is most desirable.
What you want isn't BAD, but its not whats RIGHT.
Thats the problem.
Here the enemy of the Right thing to do is the preferable thing to do.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

okay
the last thing I will say for now.
I got time to read through all the pages, caffine kicked in.
It seems you call yourself christian (Not saying you aren't) but your faith only seems (as far as I can see from text) that you say "Godbless" to people.
You say you believe in miracles waaaaayy back
then every page after says that sam will DEFINATELY die and its a CERTAINLY FATAL DISEASE.
Time to take a leap of faith.
Stop saying you believe and trust God, but you think you should choose when delivery occurs so that you might be able to hold sam while his heart beats. maybe Gods plan isn't to have you hold Sam with a beating heart.
Suck to hear? Absoultely. But we are not in any position to second guess God.
I challenge you to take that leap of faith.
Leave the delivery date in GODS hands.
Leave the heartbeat in GODS hands.
Leaves sams life or death in GODS hands.
Don't pray for anything you want, pray for GODS WILL TO BE DONE.
Let it be done according to HIS will.

reply from: yoda

Dang, FMan, how come you get to be a "true" redneck? I'm jealous!!
Low collars and lots of sun are key.
Well, it still ain't fair.... my skin is too sun sensitive. I think I'll follow Shiprah's suggestion and jest wear a shirt with too much red dye in the collar...... that'll make me more hysterically accurate, ya know?

reply from: faithman

Believe God? What a concept!!!!

reply from: faithman

Dang, FMan, how come you get to be a "true" redneck? I'm jealous!!
Low collars and lots of sun are key.
Well, it still ain't fair.... my skin is too sun sensitive. I think I'll follow Shiprah's suggestion and jest wear a shirt with too much red dye in the collar...... that'll make me more hysterically accurate, ya know?
The red dye in cherry cool aid will stain about anything. Add just enough water to make a paste, and apply. Be runnin with the knuckle draggers in no time.

reply from: AshMarie88

I wonder who Jesus would abort...

reply from: Shiprahagain

Ash, she's not fighting to abort Sam.

reply from: AshMarie88

Ash, she's not fighting to abort Sam.
No, but she hates that pro-life laws would prevent women from aborting babies like Sam???

reply from: JaysonsMom

Karen, I'm still praying for your family. I can imagine the pain, both physical and emotional, that you are all going through.
Lord, please, if it's Your will, please intervene in this situation and bring peace to Karen's family, whether it be by a miracle, which we would all love to see, or a bittersweet end. Thy will be done, Lord. I humbly ask that You keep Karen and her loved ones close to You, wrap Your arms around them. I ask all of this in the name of Your Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, AMEN.
The Lord also will be a refuge for the oppressed, A refuge in times of trouble.
And those who know Your name will put their trust in You; For You, Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You. (Ps 9.9-10)
Philippians 4:6-7
"Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."

reply from: nykaren

Ash, she's not fighting to abort Sam.
No, but she hates that pro-life laws would prevent women from aborting babies like Sam???
Ashley, Could you please define for me what you mean by "babies like Sam"?

reply from: AshMarie88

Ash, she's not fighting to abort Sam.
No, but she hates that pro-life laws would prevent women from aborting babies like Sam???
Ashley, Could you please define for me what you mean by "babies like Sam"?
Babies who too will die shortly after birth, or might not have the same chance of living a longer life after birth.

reply from: MC3

To the pro-lifers on this thread:
Again, stop being so naïve. NYKAREN is just another old abortion-whore trying to come up with some way to justify the holocaust she and her fellow travelers are carrying out. When you engage her in honest discussion about this preposterous yarn she dreamed up, you imply that her position has merit. That gives her, and her co-degenerates, the moral legitimacy they so desperately need.
Like I said earlier, not only is she not pro-life today - she never was! Stop playing her game. She is jerking you around like a puppet on a string.

reply from: MC3

To the pro-lifers on this thread:
Again, stop being so naïve. NYKAREN is just another old abortion-whore trying to come up with some way to justify the holocaust she and her fellow travelers are carrying out. When you engage her in honest discussion about this preposterous yarn she dreamed up, you imply that her position has merit. That gives her, and her co-degenerates, the moral legitimacy they so desperately need.
Like I said earlier, not only is she not pro-life today - she never was! So please stop playing her game. She is jerking you around like a puppet on a string.

reply from: Shiprahagain

You could be right, but I feel like she's honest. Just in case, she deserves our compassion.

reply from: nykaren

You'd prefer I'd be making all this up, wouldn't you. WHY?? All the rhetoric spouted off here makes more sense if real people aren't involved? I can understand that, but I assure you, my daughter's situation is real. Why are you so anxious, to discredit me?

reply from: 4given

You'd prefer I'd be making all this up, wouldn't you. WHY?? All the rhetoric spouted off here makes more sense if real people aren't involved? I can understand that, but I assure you, my daughter's situation is real. Why are you so anxious, to discredit me?
I will not speak for another, because we stand solely accountable before A Living God. I can only say personally one has limited- often no credibility at all to me when they (or as you have) state they are not for the saving of an innocent life.. it is black and white to me. That means you promote the slaughter of innocent lives. I understand this situation is different, and I don't see your intention to slaughter the innocent.. but you were once pro-life and the laws don't suit your preferences, so you decide to promote the demise of future generations to accomodate you (or your daughter rather)? You alone have made the "choice" to be positioned w/ the blood-thirsty infedels that long to corrupt our youth - the same butchers of a second day generation deprived of moral guidance and adequate education. You discredit yourself by banding together w/ a fallen cause. Be clear with your intentions. I understand after reading so many of them- you want to free your daughter of pain and lessen the stress and burden of this lost life- which is your grandson.. There is no such thing as a former pro-lifer. You are or you aren't. Sure, the laws can use some dusting up, but it would be selfish- incredibly selfish of you to ask for the blood of the innocent to spare some discomfort in reference to your daughter. I am sorry you have to deal w/ this. The joy is that her pain will end and the child will never have to endure earthly pain again. It is hard, but that is life. It does not justify a petition to change any law protecting an innocent child. That is selfish and disgraceful! The energy should be put into research and the promoting of funds to help those like your daughter. I pray you come to the realization as to what you have opted to sacrifice by promoting anything abortion related. I also pray for peace w/ your family and comfort and healing. Just try to understand the thread of all that has been said. Maybe for a moment you could envision yourself or the daughter you love as being the innocent life defended? Your initial post discredited you. I want you to understand that. It will be difficult to redeem yourself. It is often that simple- Black and White. Your approach should have been different- but unfortunately for everyone life does not have the option of an "UNDO" or "DELETE". I am sure though, that it would mean there were countless lives saved from such a brutal end! You must not promote that!

reply from: JaysonsMom

I find the rudeness on this thread disgusting. I've typed out and deleted several things several times and will not be baited into an angry argument. Karen, any updates?
Amy

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Karen
why did you choose to ignore my 3 responses?
I believe I was not rude or insulting (or at least I made every effort not to be) in them.
I raised valid oppinions and points, and would appreciate a response if not for your own understanding of my points then at least for my own understanding of your view.
Thanks.

reply from: Teresa18

I too am disturbed by how rude others are being on this thread. I think Karen is telling the truth, but I think I disagree with her ultimate solution to problems similar to those her daughter has.
Thank you for the clarification about the lungs. I understand now.
I'm sorry that he has no chance of survival. The only thing I was saying is that if delivered early, he would now be deceased. At least he is still alive while in your daughter's womb. I understand what you mean about him living outside the womb. Obviously, you want to have time with him and would like for him to see his loving family. To cut his life as a whole short for the possibility that he may be alive outside of the womb longer, is wrong imo.
I did see where you mentioned your daughter is in severe pain and vommiting. If she is indeed suffering that much, I can understand and would fully support her delivering early. I have to admit I would want to in that situation. The problem regarding the laws would be the following. Induced labor is a form of abortion depending on the situation. If that was permitted, women might use that as a method of late term abortion. Pro-abortion doctors and ethics panels may be quick to recommend early induction of labor for things such as mental health or illnesses that may or may not even affect the child. Doctors have been wrong in situations regarding the health of the child. If they happen to be wrong, a healthy baby could be birthed early and die when that baby could have survived. If they are right, a mother might decide to birth a child just because he/she is deformed when the mother doesn't even have discomfort or only has minor discomfort. This could lead to the death of the child who may have gone on to live deformed if permitted to continue in the womb. I know you sincerely want to help women and children in your daughter and Sam's situation, but giving pro-aborts control of the laws could ultimately open a pandora's box leading to the death of many healthy children. I would spend your time working to find a treatment for this condition, as opposed to liberalizing abortion laws. Find a foundation or work with your daughter to start your own in Sam's name. I bet many people would be willing to donate or get involved. A cure or treatment will be better than more dead babies.
Please keep us updated on your daughter and Sam. I'd love for a miracle or for your family to have some time with him before he passes. Your family is in my prayers.

reply from: nykaren

I hadn't answered you because, #1, you stated the assumption that I don't actually live my Christian faith. I understand that what you know of me is based only on what I've posted here and you do not agree with me, but you know nothing of my relationship with God. You asked about my belief in miracles. I have stated clearly that before the baby is induced there will be a sonagram to verify any changes in his condition. I also stated that I've spent a lot of time in prayer over my daughter's situation and decision. In the midst of this nightmare, God has given me peace.
Most of what you've said has been said here by others. You may have said it a little differently, but still the same theme.
As for playing God, I think that pretty well describes this law we're dealing with that is currently denying my daughter much-needed medical treatment. I'm not discussing the details here because we are dealing with local pro-life elements who are endangering my daughter by making threatening phone calls that have directly affected her care this week.
I will go back and read your posts and answer anything that hasn't been covered already, okay?

reply from: nykaren

Are you saying that applies to Sam? If so, you need to reread about his disease and prognosis. And I do find it offensive that you seem to imply we would not want him if that were that case.

reply from: nykaren

The law requires that 3rd trimester abortions be done in a hospital, at least NY law does. Medical proof of a woman's life being in danger would be required by an ethisc panel and lawyers.
The only part of the law I want changed is that it will allow for early inducement of babies with 0% chance of survival, as determined by a team of doctors, approved by an ethics panel, and hospital lawyers. That is all I want changed. This will not cause the murder of millions of baby. That's already legal here and elsewhere.
I HAVE stepped back and looked at the situation and I see a law that will be detrimental to others in the future. Changing it will not help my daughter now, but to leave it in place because of that would be selfish. Helping others who are going thru what we've been thru, is one bit of good that can come from this ordeal.

reply from: nykaren

KAREN
SAM IS ALREADY ALIVE!
YOU WILL BE CUTTING HIS LIFE SHORT.
HE.
IS.
ALIVE.
its why abortion is wrong! it kills a LIVING PERSON.
What you want is more time THAT YOU SEE HIM. Its the same ideal that lets people call unborn children "Blobs of tissue". Just because you cannot see him does not mean he isn't there, it doesn't mean sam isn't sam. Sam is still Sam in your arms or not.
Delivering before God chooses to deliver sam is playing God.
I feel horrible about the whole situation. But you must do whats RIGHT, not what is most desirable.
What you want isn't BAD, but its not whats RIGHT.
Thats the problem.
Here the enemy of the Right thing to do is the preferable thing to do.
Do you honestly think I don't KNOW Sam is alive??
Right or wrong is an opinion and you have the right to yours. Do I have that same right?
How many people in the USA actually consider a 3rd trimester baby a "blob of tissue". I'd love to see some statistics on that since you brought up the term. Thanks.

reply from: nykaren

Amy, no there's nothing new since I last updated you privately. We're looking at some options - both medical and legal. I may know more about those by tomorrow. Thanks for asking. Karen

reply from: nykaren

Thanks for your message, Teresa.
Teresa, The law would certainly be specific enough to prevent these scenerios! With medical technology as advanced as it is today, and the necessary safeguards in place, to deliver in those cases would be a crime, just as it is now!

reply from: 4given

You are right. It isn't entirely appropriate for me to take out my frustrations about abortion supporters on Karen. My intention is not to be rude. Really I was trying to explain to her how she could lack credibility by calling herself a "former pro-lifer". My drive is to protect the unborn and to enlighten those who in their ignorance support abortion and affiliate themselves w/ the snakes that do. I have compassion on the situation, but bottom line would never support an ammendment to a law that could open the door for any abortion. All the while understanding that Karen isn't trying to make it so her grandchild could be aborted, just so the laws may be changed to offer relief to her daughter and those w/ a similar plight. I don't intend to show disrespect, but my passion for the unborn puts it all into perspective. It is a black and white issue.. You are for the saving of lives or you are not.

reply from: MC3

The issue here is not rudeness but the refusal to be duped by someone like NYKAREN.
In her initial post, she said that she had always been "solidly pro-life." I can assure you that such people do not suddenly defect to the other side because they were denied an abortion for a circumstance which even they admit does not threaten the life of either the mom or the baby.
She has attempted to sugar-coat the rationale for her family's wish to abort, but her own words prove that there is no medical basis for it. When confronted with that reality, her only response is to say that what she is wanting is not really an abortion. Clearly, that is not true. What she is suggesting is no different than the "induction abortions" which Chicago nurse, Jill Stanek, exposed several years ago.
If this woman had come here and given the same description of her family's situation, and then said that this is one reason why she is pro-choice, she would have been just as wrong but she would have at least been credible. Obviously, the story she is telling about this troubled pregnancy may or may not be true. My suspicion is that it is not. However, even if it is true, her claim that this incident caused her to renounce her "solidly pro-life" position is preposterous. I have known many pro-life people who have faced similar circumstances as those described by NYKAREN and, to a person, those circumstances have strengthened their pro-life views not destroyed them.
The bottom line is, while it may be in our nature to trust that people are not lying to us, when the facts say otherwise only a fool ignores them. My final advice on this subject is that we stop denying the evidence that NYKAREN is lying.

reply from: nykaren

I see you don't even have the guts to use a name when you attack. You are pathetic and sick, that you hide behind an unknown identity, even as to whether you are male or female. And of course, you do not respond to my questions. You are a coward.
From my original post:
"As I stated at the start of this letter, I have always been pro-life. Watching my kids and grandkids suffer due to a "pro-life" law has changed that. Induced labor in a case such as this should be a medical decision, not a legal one. A law written with the assumption that ANYONE getting an abortion in the third trimester is doing it for the heck of it, is ridiculous. I am totally against abortion in the case of women doing it because the baby is a "mistake" or "inconvenience". But the laws need to be changed to differentiate between those cases and those of a pregnancy where the baby has absolutely NO chance of survival.
I would ask if you can see the need for a change in this law, and what you will consider doing to prevent other women and families from going through this nightmare. Until the pro-life movement shows some common sense concerning situations such as this, I can no longer be a supporter. "
I have at no point during this discussion gone from calling this an abortion to calling it induced labor. It is a medical situation, not a moral or ethical one. I have said that since the beginning. It is an induced labor for the sake of mother and child. It is medically necessary, which I have explained previously. Please, at least do not lie about my words.
Also, at no point have I referred to myself as pro-choice. I've stated, quite plainly, that I cannot support a pro-life agenda that has no common sense as to medical situations as opposed to frivolous abortions. I will not vote for a law that does not differentiate in the case of late-term situations. That does not make me pro-choice. And no, you are mistaken that I must be one or the other. That is MY decision, not yours or anyone else's to make on my behalf.
As you might also notice, I didn't ask in my original post for anyone's opinion on my daughter's decision to induce. My question was whether you and others here, as pro-life leaders, can see the need for a change in the law. I did not come here expecting the level of hate I've encountered for asking that question. But I'm glad I came here and posted my letter. You folks have taught me a lot and helped me to make some important decisions. Having discussed it here, I now have a clearer idea of what I'm up against, and what I need to do.
Karen

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

The law requires that 3rd trimester abortions be done in a hospital, at least NY law does. Medical proof of a woman's life being in danger would be required by an ethisc panel and lawyers.
The only part of the law I want changed is that it will allow for early inducement of babies with 0% chance of survival, as determined by a team of doctors, approved by an ethics panel, and hospital lawyers. That is all I want changed. This will not cause the murder of millions of baby. That's already legal here and elsewhere.
I HAVE stepped back and looked at the situation and I see a law that will be detrimental to others in the future. Changing it will not help my daughter now, but to leave it in place because of that would be selfish. Helping others who are going thru what we've been thru, is one bit of good that can come from this ordeal.
I have a very good friend who was told that He AND HIS MOTHER would die if she tried to carry him to term. Had she been a pro-abort, or even listend to the doctor and was 'pro-life' then she would have killed a good friend of mine
he is alive and healthy. he has several children and a loving wife.
She is alive and healthy.
The idea of a miracle is leaving everything to God to every last moment.
Not testing him with a sonogram to see if he did it yet.
You could give a sonogram minutes before the moment GOD decides to deliever sam, and it could say the samething. Then he could come out perfectly normal.
The entire point of my Faith and Miracle comment was NOT to say you aren't a Christian, but simply to say the way you make it look like is that your faith is Mixed with common sence and Faith. Faith needs to be pure, nobody finds faith with common sence IMO.
IMO choosing to deliver,with or without a sonogram right before, still says to me that faith isn't fully alive. There is hope, but not a lot of faith.
Faith is the evidence of things unseen, not a reward from a miracle being seen before a choice that could deny that miracle.
I do understand sams position.
The point of the retarded or imparied children simply was to state (which I admit I did poorly) that any Child within the womb, from conception on, has the right to be given life from conception to NATURAL death. Not FORCED Natural death.
And if you really believe that an ethics board will look at every doctor who says the child has 0% chance to live, you need to think again.
Not only do hosptials allow slidse here and there, but other states don't require hospitals to do the late-term abortions. So your law could be used as case-law in other states to bring that law to other states.
Where every baby killing fool would call every desired abortion : 'due to 0% chance of fetal survival' .
Changing ANY law in ANY way that protects even 1 unborn child is giving pro-aborts a chance to kill more.
Use your dedication to END ABORTION and USE THAT MONEY TO RESEARCH MEDICAL PROGRESS.So that nobody every is in sams case again because the doctors know how to handle it.
Don't look for the easy way out.
KAREN
SAM IS ALREADY ALIVE!
YOU WILL BE CUTTING HIS LIFE SHORT.
HE.
IS.
ALIVE.
its why abortion is wrong! it kills a LIVING PERSON.
What you want is more time THAT YOU SEE HIM. Its the same ideal that lets people call unborn children "Blobs of tissue". Just because you cannot see him does not mean he isn't there, it doesn't mean sam isn't sam. Sam is still Sam in your arms or not.
Delivering before God chooses to deliver sam is playing God.
I feel horrible about the whole situation. But you must do whats RIGHT, not what is most desirable.
What you want isn't BAD, but its not whats RIGHT.
Thats the problem.
Here the enemy of the Right thing to do is the preferable thing to do.
Do you honestly think I don't KNOW Sam is alive??
Right or wrong is an opinion and you have the right to yours. Do I have that same right?
How many people in the USA actually consider a 3rd trimester baby a "blob of tissue". I'd love to see some statistics on that since you brought up the term. Thanks.
Now you put words in My mouth.
I said the idea that time you can see and hold sam being any better then the time you can't see and hold same is the same idea that lets people call unborn babies a blob of tissue. If they can't see the child, they can demean the child.
And Right and Wrong is never a matter of oppinion. Faith and Morals are not relative. what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. The only right we have in relation to that is weather or not we choose to ADMIT whats right and wrong.
you told teresa that the cases she mentioned would be a crime.(Its a few posts after you responded to me)
You seem IMO to believe abortionists are under the law.
Planned parenthood especially is above the law.
They never follow any law, and never get in trouble.
They refuse to follow laws and disobey court orders and don't get a slap on the wrist.
You think they can't twist the exception you want made and use it?
you need to look into what we are saying, and look into it understanding abortion is above the law. Sad, but true.

reply from: MC3

NYKAREN:
1) MC3 certainly identifies me as much as NYKAREN identifies you.
2) On several of my posts on this forum I have made it clear that I am male.
3) I have not responded to any of your questions because I was not aware that you asked me any questions. If you are referring to the general question you posed regarding whether any of us saw a need for a change in the law, I am happy to respond. I do indeed want to see a change in the law. I will not rest until the life of every unborn child is legally protected from the moment of fertilization and in all circumstances. The litmus test is whether the justification for killing an unborn child would also justify killing a born child. That is the definition of being pro-life.
4) It is asinine to suggest, as you have, that if something is a medical decision it cannot also be a legal and moral decision. In reality, a high percentage of medical decisions have legal and moral components to them. In my view, any practitioner who tells you that his or her decisions are always made without moral or legal consideration is wholly unqualified to have a medical license.
5) At no time did I say that you referred to yourself as pro-choice; I simply said that is what you are. Just because a Klansmen might not admit to being a racist does not mean that he is not a racist.
6) You are certainly free to invent your own altered reality in which your proposal is called "an induced labor for the sake of mother and child." However, that does not change the biological and medical fact that it is an abortion.
7) I do not need to lie about your words nor have I done so. To make my points, all I need to do is repeat them.
8) What you have encountered here is not hate. Whatever else may be true about your story, your statement about once being "solidly pro-life" was obviously not. So quit whining. The reaction you received here is what one should expect when he, or in this case she, has been caught lying.
9) I am curious about what decisions we have helped you make, what you now perceive you are up against, and what it is that you have suddenly concluded you have to do.

reply from: yoda

This is the sentence that convinces me that New York Karen is trying to manipulate us.
Taking one small technicality in a state law in her state and expanding what she considers to be a "nationwide lack of common sense" about such technicalities into something that invalidates everything the prolife movement stands for is immoral and illogical.
Saving babies is not about demanding that the entire prolife movement support changes in the laws in your state that custom fit them to your particular situation, and sulking and pouting like a spoiled brat if we don't get our way.
It is about saving babies any and every way we can.
It's about 4,000 unborn babies being killed everyday for "elective reasons".
It's about accepting help from those who see things differently than you do.
It's about humility and compassion.
It's not about saying "I'm no longer a prolifer".

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

So.
A 30 YO male is in horrible pain, and is going to die and can't voice if he wants to live the rest of his life or just die early.
his girlfriend can Deny him months of life, months in which God might be planning to perform a miracle, just to have 60 seconds with him.
So because his girlfriend wants those few short moments, is it acceptible for her to deprive him of months of his life in what might be against his will and best interests?
NYKaren says yes.
I can't see any logic there..
and Karen, if you are dedicated to changing these laws (Which I feel sad for you since you don't seem to realize that the blood of innocents will be on your hands and you will face your creater when you die. you will also face Sam.) then how can you get so easily upset by resistance?
I mean, I got called by planned parenthood. And I've been out for state for 15 days so I probably missed a few more hate calls.
You cannot expect to do anything without people disliking your actions.
The fact that you can be so upset shows your emotions run higher then your logic IN THIS SITUTATION.
Not to mention I haven't seen you respond once to the idea that you should focus on making abortion totally illegal and using the now free money from that killing industry to do research to prevent others from sharing sams situation.
Instead you would rather inact laws that, weather you admit it or not, will allow the slaughter of innocents.
The one idea that you aren't getting is that Pro-aborts WILL use your law to kill the innocent.
The fact you would rather ignore that and enact a law that would bring some sick sort of comfort kind of raises question to the reality of your claim, since you claim to have once been pro-life.
This whole situation seems to me that you are more in high emotion and denile then a logical and reasonable position.

reply from: nykaren

1. My full name is Karen Briggs. What's yours?
2. I haven't had time to read all the threads, and shouldn't have to to know who you are.
3. Then you haven't read my posts - Here you go:
"You'd prefer I'd be making all this up, wouldn't you. WHY?? All the rhetoric spouted off here makes more sense if real people aren't involved? I can understand that, but I assure you, my daughter's situation is real. Why are you so anxious, to discredit me?"
4. My point is that the decision should be made by the mother and doctors, along with an ethics panel. You can twist that however you want. I've certainly stated it often enough here.
5 & 6 - Your opinion and I will take it for what it's worth to me.
7 & 8 - I've not lied.
9. Yes, I'm sure you'd like to know that.

reply from: nykaren

This is the sentence that convinces me that New York Karen is trying to manipulate us.
Taking one small technicality in a state law in her state and expanding what she considers to be a "nationwide lack of common sense" about such technicalities into something that invalidates everything the prolife movement stands for is immoral and illogical.
Saving babies is not about demanding that the entire prolife movement support changes in the laws in your state that custom fit them to your particular situation, and sulking and pouting like a spoiled brat if we don't get our way.
It is about saving babies any and every way we can.
It's about 4,000 unborn babies being killed everyday for "elective reasons".
It's about accepting help from those who see things differently than you do.
It's about humility and compassion.
It's not about saying "I'm no longer a prolifer".
Again, you are twisting what I've posted. I have certainly never demanded that the entire pro-life movement agree with me, or indicated that my situation invalidates what the movement does. I've shared my situation and my opinions and you have shared yours. Why do you refuse to see it as that?
LOL. Humility and compassion? Yeah, right, that's what I've seen from most of you here.

reply from: nykaren

I did??? No, THIS is a made-up story. And a ridiculous one at that.

reply from: nykaren

I'm not upset by resistance. I'm upset by the total rudeness and lack of respect and the hatred I've been treated with here.
I hadn't responded to the idea of the money for funding abortion going for research, because quite honestly, I see that as something that will not happen. It would be nice if we lived in that kind of perfect world, but we don't. That is my opinion, and you can agree with it or not.
Yes, people will abuse the laws, no matter what they are. We capture them and punish them, according to those laws. That applies to any law, not just abortion laws.
I'm certainly not in denial, and believe it or not, I'm quite capable of logic at this point. If this were simply a matter of emotion, I'd have stopped posting here long ago. Most of what I've seen here, including your little story, is rhetoric, not statistics or facts. And extremely emotional. So please take a good look at yourself before you criticize me or make assumptions about my frame of mind, okay?

reply from: faithman

I did??? No, THIS is a made-up story. And a ridiculous one at that.
I guess you would know. You being the champion of made up stories and all.

reply from: yoda

Ummm....... perhaps because you keep saying you can "no longer be a supporter of the prolife movement because you don't sense that the prolife movement supports your desire to change a law in your state?
That IS the "bottom line" conclusion you keep throwing at us...... ya know?

reply from: MC3

NYKAREN:
First, for some inexplicable reason you seem to be hell-bent on knowing my name. I have always assumed that the people on this forum knew who I am based on my initials and some of the things I have said here. If that is not the case, my name is Mark Crutcher. I am president of Life Dynamics Incorporated in Denton, Texas. I am the one who pays for this forum and the one who gave you the opportunity to tell your story.
With that out of the way, you say that I prefer that you made up this whole story. That is nonsense.
From the start, I made it clear that I had no way of knowing whether this story of your daughter's complicated pregnancy was legitimate or not. The problem is that you began this thread with the claim that, before this episode, you had been "solidly pro-life" and a supporter of the pro-life movement. For those of us who have been in this battle for years, that was a very easily recognized lie. Once we saw that you were so obviously lying about that, the rest of your story became suspect.
Before going further, let me assure that I have enormous sympathy for people with difficult pregnancies, especially those in which the child will not, or even may not, survive. I have no doubt, however, that your attitude is that people like me are so cruel and heartless because we have never faced anything like what you describe.
If that is what you think, let me tell you just how wrong you are.
In 1986, after years of miscarriages, my wife carried our oldest daughter to near-term. Unfortunately, several months prior to her birth we had been told that our little girl
was suffering from an always fatal condition called Mekel-Gruber Syndrome.
Of course, by 1986 the moral depravity of legalized abortion had ravaged our country and child-murder had already become the default position for complicated pregnancies. Naturally, the geneticist involved introduced the idea that maybe we should just go ahead and kill our daughter before birth. I'm sure that the events of the next few moments made it clear that if he were to ever again suggest that I have my baby executed, he would not find the experience enjoyable.
Jackie Page Crutcher died in early August of that year. And I do not recall one day since we buried her that I have not thought about her. Even today, when I drive to work through the campus of the University of North Texas, I see young women walking to class and imagine that one of them could have been my daughter. I have done that sort of thing ever since she died, and I have accepted that I always will.
So yes, contrary to what people like you probably think, I understand exactly how tragic these situations are. However, my wife and I can take comfort in knowing that we do not have to regret - or even question - any decision we made. We had no hand in the death of our child and that is a blessing people who chose abortion (or even "early induction" if that makes you feel better) will, sadly, never have.
I am sure that you will choose not to believe what I am about to say, but it is the truth nonetheless. Had you not come here and started off with the lie that you used to be pro-life, the people on this forum would have accepted your story at face value and been willing to discuss it with you without the rancor and animus you have encountered. And that includes me.
Regrettably, that is not the choice you made. Instead, you decided that your story, whether true or not, would have more impact if it came from a freshly-enlightened former pro-lifer. And in typical pro-choice fashion, you also assumed that real pro-lifers are so stupid that you could smoke this one past us. But it didn't work out that way. You got exposed and now you are whining that you don't like the way you've been treated. So, instead of acting like an adult and taking responsibility for your behavior, you label those who caught you lying and those whose agenda you oppose as haters. In contemporary America, the hate-card has become the deception-de-jour for the Godless-Left and your use of it is a textbook example of that slimy phenomenon.
In the final analysis, you asked why I am so anxious to discredit you when the real problem is that you discredited yourself.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Karen, it's silly for you to go around your real name on the internet, and it serves no real purpose.
I am sorry for both your loss and MC's.

reply from: nykaren

I am extremely sorry for your loss.
Your "opinion" of my pro-life beliefs or status and why the agenda no longer has my full support, is exactly that. Your opinion. My original post was honest. It was not meant to offend. It was meant, as I said at the time, to get some answers on how best to go about making changes so that women like my daughter don't go thru this nightmare. That you and your wife chose to go full-term was a choice you made. That doesn't give you, or anyone else, the right to force that choice on anyone else.

reply from: nykaren

Ummm....... perhaps because you keep saying you can "no longer be a supporter of the prolife movement because you don't sense that the prolife movement supports your desire to change a law in your state?
That IS the "bottom line" conclusion you keep throwing at us...... ya know?
And unless, I've missed something, we all have the right to our own opinions and decisions. You don't need to agree, I really don't care one way or another. You have your opinion on this issue and have made it clear. A discussion is supposed to be a sharing of opinions, is it not? Have you ever noticed on your main page that it says this is a place for both sides of the issue to come and join in?

reply from: LiveLifeLove

First of all, im new to all this.
Im an 18yr old girl, and have NEVER even been pregnant.
I joined this site, because i saw the most horrible abortion pictures in the world!
Its funny because in High School in SEX ED. They tell you to take the pills to prevent pregnancy, and that its your choice to have a baby or not.
But u know what its NOT! because u dont want one u dont have sex. plain and simple.
You have sex ur screwed, something could terribly wrong. And then they tell you its still your choice. Go ahead kill your baby with a suction cup crap thing.
They dont show us all this how disgusting it is, or un-humane.
I am REALLY SORRY! about your grandchild. But You out of all people have been PRO LIFE! and now this. Dont you know God gives us trials and tribulations. But never more than we can handle.
Dont you know that God will take care of it. Doctors arent God, they go with science. I go with GOD. He tells me he'll take care of things.
You know i have 2 cousins im very close to. Both older than me. ones 20 ones 24.
They both have bad abortions. One because she choose to have sex and didnt want a baby. she did this twice. It hurt me so bad! and i didnt understand why. I mean after all it wasnt my body or my baby. But i couldnt help but feel a terrible pain inside. I would lie awake at night crying. And asking God why terrible things happen to deffensless children!
The other because she got married, and they told her the baby would have down-syndrome. So she choose not to be the mother of a perfect baby because it had a difficiency. Like this is an electronic you just "choose" not to own.
That finished killing my heart. Ever since then i cant help but look at any woman who kills their baby with disgust. No matter what situation or condition their in. Because theirs no faith in them. No love. what mother would kill her unborn child. What HUMAN! their sick people VERY VERY SICK!
I understand your pain also, but not that fact that now, because its UR daughter u want to turn your back on these children. Your daughter should give that child a fighting chance. If it were to die after being born, it was a natural death. Not a MURDER!
im so sorry if i sound terribly mean and awful. But theirs so much pain in my heart towards this....

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

I'm not upset by resistance. I'm upset by the total rudeness and lack of respect and the hatred I've been treated with here.
I hadn't responded to the idea of the money for funding abortion going for research, because quite honestly, I see that as something that will not happen. It would be nice if we lived in that kind of perfect world, but we don't. That is my opinion, and you can agree with it or not.
Yes, people will abuse the laws, no matter what they are. We capture them and punish them, according to those laws. That applies to any law, not just abortion laws.
I'm certainly not in denial, and believe it or not, I'm quite capable of logic at this point. If this were simply a matter of emotion, I'd have stopped posting here long ago. Most of what I've seen here, including your little story, is rhetoric, not statistics or facts. And extremely emotional. So please take a good look at yourself before you criticize me or make assumptions about my frame of mind, okay?
The disrespect or rudeness comes from the fact that you are unwilling to admit you are advocating laws that, weather you choose to admit it or not, will result in the bloodshed of innocents. That is not a respectable thing.
Then you even admit you are choosing the easy way out because you don't think abortion will ever end. You claim to be once pro-life and say abortion will never end? Thats not too respectable either.
Then you completely ignore my point that THE PRO-ABORTS ARE ABOVE THE LAW.
Heck Lime5 Talks about a guy who saved a mill from closing by going in and 'cleaning' it up before an inspector came (If I remember the story correctly) then right after the inspector left a young lady was killed or injured there.
I think that was the story.
How many times has PP been caught redhanded breaking the law and not gotten in ANY trouble?
Your law will just be another avenue for baby-killers to slaughter the innocent, and the fact you just ignore that blindly (Me saying due to high emotions was being nice) shows that you aren't being too fourthcoming. Not too respectable.
Statistics and Facts. You Pro-aborts love to call for them when they aren't presented, and ignore them when they are.
No, I will show you the respect you earn through your morals and actions. And your morals and actions have earned none. showing kindness to those who would enact laws to kill children is not the way to end this abortion-battle. And Until we end this abortion war completely the killing wont stop.
I cannot respect someone who is so blinded by selfish ambission they would completely ignore warnings and push for an easy way out that would allow children to be killed.
Get it through your skull, you advocate a law that would allow children to be killed. That makes you a pro-abort. The law you describe is an abortion, and you are for it. Pro-abort.
I'm not being rude or illogical, just honest. Baby-killers always expect carte blanche to say what they what and do what they want, and expect only kind words and soft arguements from those trying to save the children.
No. Absoultely not. I love you in the way my Lord tells me to.
So, I love you, and forgive you, but you being a lady who has a daughter should understand tough love.
I did??? No, THIS is a made-up story. And a ridiculous one at that.
Really.
Its the same story you present, with two differences.
Age of the Victim, and the person wanting to kill the Victim.
Neither of which change that the Victim is a person who deserves to live as long as the GOOD LORD chooses to allow him to live.

reply from: MC3

NYKAREN:
1) That you are not now and never have been pro-life is not my opinion but a conclusion evidenced by your own words.
2) I am growing more skeptical about the story of your daughter's pregnancy with each post you make. However, whether it is true or not, there is no law that can be passed to prevent it from happening to someone else in the future. Ironically, the only thing that could possibly make such situations worse would be to intentionally kill the child - the very thing you advocate. Further, if America has devolved into the kind of snake pit where even an unborn child's own mother and grandmother won't protect his or her life, that simply reinforces the need for the law to protect them.
3) The relevant decision that my wife and I made was to not kill our daughter. In fact, that was never even a remote consideration. To take it a step further, it should not have been legal for us to do such a thing even if we had wanted to. Now, if it makes you feel better to characterize what we did as a "choice to go full-term," go right ahead. For people like you to resort to those sort of rhetorical gymnastics is inevitable. But they do not change reality.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Welcome to the forum, LiveLifeLove. I'm two years older than you and I've never been pregnant either. It's wonderful to have a new young person around the forum, and you sound very compassionate and wise.

reply from: ladybug

Karen.... here are the facts... you WERE supposedly prolife. Now in OUR definitions of prolife, prolife means prolife no matter what... NO MATTER WHAT. so for you to change your position based on one circumstance. You dont have very strong convictions. Based on another topic on here, and being non sypathetic: suck it up. Thats horrible to say but you wanted our sympathy saying "oh your situation is so horrible, oh oh.. yeah, early termination of your grandchild is ok" NO NO and NO. That is not what we are here for and that is not what we believe in. You want to know why we are so negative, because we believe in the lives for ALL children... not just some.

reply from: faithman

But you have the right to force your choice of death on the child.

reply from: 4given

Originally posted by: nykaren
Originally posted by: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead
As for playing God, I think that pretty well describes this law we're dealing with that is currently denying my daughter much-needed medical treatment. I'm not discussing the details here because we are dealing with local pro-life elements who are endangering my daughter by making threatening phone calls that have directly affected her care this week.
I find this statement to be rather curious. Is it truthful?

reply from: JaysonsMom

WELCOME to the forum, LiveLifeLove. Nice to have you here with us. I agree that you sound very wise and informed for being only 18. I'm glad that you've turned your heart and life over to God and that you see unborn babies as helpless children, and not how Pro-Choicers (PCers) see them. Welcome aboard!
Amy

reply from: Lexxy

Karen, I am so sorry to hear about the pain your family is going through. No one should ever have to suffer like this, no parent should ever have to watch their child suffer like this.
I applaud your choice to come here and challenge the traditional pro life view that these things are black and white. Your example, coming from a self described "Christian Conservative" background, demonstrates clearly that they are not.
As a pro choice activist, let me be the first to say that I am heartened by seeing how many of you are genuinely concerned with the welfare of Karen's daughter and her family - it is making me re examine my own viewpoints on your point of view, and previously held unfair viewpoints about the pro life as a whole.
There is one thing I'd like to point out, however, and this is the reason why I registered: Since the pro life viewpoint is supposedly concerned primarily with the treatment of a woman towards her offspring, shouldn't more of you be supporting Karen's brave work in making sure her daughter receives the best physical and psychological care available? Is she not doing what other parents would do if they had to see their child suffer? Since you do not privilege the born over fetuses, shouldn't Karen's daughter receive the same kind of fierce loyalty you expect women to show their fetuses?

reply from: ladybug

this debate isn't about her daughter not receiving good care, its about a law that would allow her to rid the daughter of her ill child early so that she doesn't have to deal with the loss as long. Yes its uncomfortable, yes its emotional painful, but you have to know that when you have sex... when you get pregnant, there are all sorts of risks you have to take responsibility for and accept and not try and escape what isn't the most "comfortable" for you

reply from: yoda

<sigh> Here we go again.......
Lexxy, welcome to the forum, and thanks for the kind words. As to the "one thing you wanted to point out/and the reason why you registered", let me first say that this forum exists, and most of the prolife movement exists, to stop the slaughter of unborn babies..... period. We're not here to enter into any "compassion contests" with you or anyone else.
For the sake of this "debate", let's stipulate that the personal criticism you make against us, and any other personal criticism you or the other proaborts on the board want to make are 100% true and undeniable. Where does that leave us? How does that affect our goal of preventing the slaughter of unborn babies? How does that make it more or less moral to kill unborn babies for economic or social reasons?
You see, we're not here to defend ourselves against your personal criticisms, in fact most of us consider that to be nothing more than a distraction from our stated goal. So as far as I'm concerned, go ahead and lay us out...... rip us to shreds..... tear our reputation apart and leave it in tatters........ we have no time for that debate. We're trying to save babies.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hey Lexxy,
Welcome to the forum. I'm so glad that you have decided to rethink your steretoypes of prolifers. We are a diverse group of feminists, not-feminists, whites, minorities, male, female (mostly female), communist, Republican, atheist, god-fearing people who are united in the belief that all human beings are entitled to human rights. Here are some sites you might like to check out -- http://prolife.liberals.com/, http://www.plagal.org/ (gay and lesbian prolifers) http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/Parliament/8383/paganlinks.html pagan prolifers, http://blackgenocide.org/ black prolifers, http://www.feministsforlife.org/

You've made a misjudgement though. The prolife view is not primarily concerned with a woman's feelings towards her offspring, just as the abolitionist view wasn't primarily concerned with whites' feelings towards blacks. The prolife biew is primarily concerned with securing human rights for preborn human being regardless of what those more powerful for them might feel just as the abolitionist woman was primarily concerned with the rights of blacks and not the feelings of whites. This doesn't mean, for example, that we don't have great compassion for women, but our priority is human rights for the unborn. Of course we want Karen's daughter to receive the best care, however, we want both Karen's daughter and grandchild to live. Karen's daughter's life is not at risk, so even though she is suffering, she cannot kill Sam to end that suffering. No one has the right to kill another human being to end suffering. The primary right is the right to be alive, not the right to be free of pain.
May I ask you a question - what do you think about sex selective abortion?

reply from: Lexxy

Hi Shiprahagain,
Thank you for clarifying your point of view. It was in fact your posts primarily that made me want to add my own $0.02 to this thread, as I saw some very disrespectful, misogynist comments from others that were, pro life or pro choice, completely inappropriate in this situation.
As you pointed out in this thread, Karen's family is not trying to kill Sam. They are concerned with getting the medical care that will be the most beneficial to everyone in this situation. It sounds like from the medical experts' opinion, inducing labour may actually prolong his life after birth, which would allow his family the most amount of time with him while he is still alive. I also think the mother's extreme discomfort as Karen describes (difficulty sleeping, frequent vomiting, etc) constitutes a quality of life issue and should be considered as part of the medical decision.
Ladybug, I don't know if the "you had sex and knew the consequences!" argument holds water here because from everything Karen has said, it sounds like this pregnancy was intentional and furthermore, I'm sure her daughter would absolutely never consider having an abortion or any other invasive medical procedures were there not these complications with the pregnancy.
Shiprahagain, to answer your question, I am against sex selective abortion because it is primarily used to commit femicide. For example, I feel that if the over the counter fetal gender tests become more widely available (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Gender_Mentor) this will be a serious problem as in many cultures boy babies are preferred over female ones. This hasn't happened yet and if it does then the pro choice side will have to review and reconsider their position, considering that a good many of us are also staunch feminists. However, coming from the pro choice position, I believe that it is always up to the woman what she does with regards to her pregnancy. We must trust women to make the right decisions about their bodies - it's an issue of autonomy.

reply from: AshMarie88

If we should trust women killing their offspring, why not trust women with killing their husbands or born children? Lack of trust eh?
And I don't think the "autonomy" issue can even be mixed when it boils down to a human rights issue, and that's what abortion is, a human rights issue. Human beings are killed every day in the name of choice and people ignore it. That's not a choice, that's legal murder.
I'm all for women doing what they want with *THEIR* VERY OWN BODIES. I'm not, however, for women denying a full life to their offspring because they are temporarily inconvenienced.

reply from: AshMarie88

But to you why does it matter if the fetus/parasite/cell is female or male?
Oh... that's rights... only females have rights.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hi Lexxy,
Thanks for your kind words. Here's the thing. While I support removing the baby from the mom if the mom's life is in danger (this is not an abortion if nothing is done to try to kill the baby) and both people are given the utmost in care, I cannot support the killing of a baby for "quality of life issues." One cannot take one person's life to improve the quality of another's. Those who oppose Sam being induced early primarily do so in fear that a change in the law will be used to induce other babies who would normally lead long healthy lives prematurely for frivolous reasons (quality of the mother's life is a very broad term).
Here's why I asked you about sex selective abortion is this
1) If you believe the unborn are parasites, a female parasite has no more rights than a male one. If you believe it's the woman's body and woman's choice, it should be her body and her choice in relation to if she wants to carry the baby of a specific sex. If you believe the mom's rights trump the baby's, they should even if they baby is the undesired sex. Is a baby no longer a "blood clot" or "clump of cells" if its the oppressed gender? Does its sex suddenly make it human?
2) If you believe that abortion is a cure for the mistreament of unwanted children, you should really fear what would happen to the baby of the wrong gender. Wouldn't that baby be especially at risk for maltreatment? Wouldn't you want sex-selective abortion so that you wouldn't have kids of the unwanted gender who you would resent? If the logic in abortion is that it prevents abuse, why would you forbid abortion of a child unwanted for a specific reason who, according to your logic, is more likely to be abused? That's like saying you need abortion because people abuse unwanted kids, Down Syndrome kids are unwanted, but making it illegal to abort kids because of Down Syndrome. If you want to abort kids to prevent their unwantedness, why force people to bear kids of an unwanted gender? Why is that unwantedness okay but not other forms?
3) Why is sex selective abortion illegal in some places, while you can kill a kid late term for something like a cleft lip? A child of the wrong gender will always have that gender -- their "problem" is permanent. A child with a cleft lip has a problem that can be fixed immediately after birth for free. Why make it illegal to kill a child with a "problem" that is permanent, and legal to kill a child with a "problem" that is temporary?
4) Why do babies of a certain gender get special protection under the law? Why not also blind babies, deaf babies, limbless babies? If a girl baby is blind and female and females are unwanted, why is it legal to kill hef for being blind but not for being female? It's the same child. You cannot kill a child because of its genitalia, you can kill it because of glaucoma. You cannot kill a child for having a y chormosome, you can kill it for being deaf.
The underlying problem with all prochoice arguments that are against sex-selective abortion is that a baby that doesn't have any rights in the womb doesn't suddenly acquire special rights for being of a certain gender that other babies don't have. Either the baby has rights or it doesn't.
In other words, why does it matter if sex selective abortion is femicide? All killing of babies is feticide. How does it suddenly become wrong to abort a specific population of a group that, as a prochoicer, you must feel don't have rights anyways? I don't mean to sound accusatory, but I'm just trying to understand. If you support the legal right to kill the unborn, why does it matter if most of the unborn killed are girls? The thing is, sex selective abortion already is a huge problem in many societies. In some places so few girls are born that there a new growing industry of selling and trafficking wives has arisen. The rape rate has gone up, as has the practice of "wife sharing." These are not problems indigenous to countries where femicide is practice but these issues are a direct result of sex selective abortion. By giving women the "right" to kill their unborn girls, we put them at risk of becoming somebody's chattel. I take serious issue with you saying that sex selective abortion hasn't had serious results yet. Since you said the pro-choicers would have to reconsider at that point, I assume you will be reconsidering the issue and I eagerly await the results of that evaluation. Just to clarify, I'm not pro-life out of a lack of trust for women. Saying such is like saying that I believe in laws against rape b/c I don't trust men. The fact is that some men and women can be trusted to act ethically while others cannot, and laws must be made to restrain those who cannot. There's a saying that my rights end where my fist meets your nose. Well, to us, bodily autonomy ends when the body being burned by saline or vacuumed up or chopped to pieces is someone elses.

reply from: ladybug

"I'm sure her daughter would absolutely never consider having an abortion or any other invasive medical procedures were there not these complications with the pregnancy. "
... when i said take responsibility for your actions it means just that... it may have been planned. thats fine, even better! She wanted to get pregnant, wanted to keep the baby... usually if the mother is christian so is the daughter, so lets roll with that for a minute, shall we? she should trust that God has a plan and she should not take her own sons life in her own hands, how does she know that her son would live longer if induced early? because the doctor said so? so when my doctor told me to just "get over" my horrible abdominal pain, it was just part of being a woman he was absolutely correct.. wrong!
if you resort to the well if such and such, then we do this, but if such and such, then we do that...... that has prochoice screaming all over it and i have stated as such i am 100% prolife no matter what. she cannot know her son would live longer... he will come when the time is right, when he is ready to be born.... stop trying to control what is not ours to control.

reply from: Lexxy

I'm sure you know that a zygote/embryo/fetus is 100% dependent on one specific woman for its survival. This marks an important difference between it and a born child or a husband, because they have their own bodily autonomy/rights. A spouse or child can take care of him/herself, or be cared for by anyone else.
Obviously it's not only women who have rights, it's that women have the right to make decisions about their bodies.

reply from: Lexxy

Thank you for your reply Shiprahagain. I will try to address these issues...
First of all, I would like to say that I don't believe that "abortion is the cure for unwanted children". Abortion is just one of a few options that we support for pregnant women. No one is forcing women to have an abortion if she doesn't want one. In fact it can be difficult for many women to get abortions that they need (here in Toronto, a city in a province with good abortion access, the wait is ~4 weeks). If a woman wants to adopt we fully support that choice, and we also support the choice to carry to term and keep the baby.
What I think you are getting at is the issue of why would women choose abortions. You know, I agree with the pro life statement "women deserve better than abortion" even though I come from the opposing viewpoint. This is because I believe that if there were 1. better social programs to help single mothers (e.g. better access to welfare, child care, health care) and 2. more societal acceptance and less stigma for women who become pregnant out of wedlock. If these two things were to change I believe there would be fewer abortions, because women would not be so fearful of raising a child in poverty/being judged by family, friends and society for having a child out of wedlock. Until these aspect of our society change in these ways, access to safe and legal abortion is necessary because history shows that when abortion isn't legal, it doesn't stop women from seeking it.
As for your questions about femicide/sex selective abortion. Personally, I disagree strongly with it. I would personally never do it, and if a pregnant friend said to me, "I think it's going to be a girl, and I don't want a girl child, I think I'll have an abortion" I would tell her why I don't agree with her reasoning (however, I would not prevent her from accessing an abortion clinic if she decided to go through with it).
From your last paragraph I see that you read and considered what I said about the pro choice side having to change their POV if fetal gender testing becomes more widely available - if this does happen, I for one will be reconsidering. However, we are not at that stage yet. These decisions on what to support/fight against must happen within a societal context, and right now I would argue that incidences of femicide or potential femicide in the West (I will discuss other areas below) unfortunately, do not warrant making all abortion completely illegal because of the problems outlined above (1 & 2). This is my opinion right now, it could change in the future. Society is imperfect, and thus some of the ways to alleviate its problems are also imperfect. In an ideal world I'm sure most pregnant women would love to carry their pregnancies to term.
"I take serious issue with you saying that sex selective abortion hasn't had serious results yet."
Yes, I agree that is has, in some communities outside of the West. And I'm not saying that's not a problem, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear from my last post. For example, the one child policy in China has facilitated femicide because you have families aborting female fetuses or giving female babies to orphanages in order to "use up" their one child allowance on a male child. There are similar issues in India due to the tradition of giving dowries which can financially devastate already impoverished families, thus sons are preferrred.
Let me state that I do not believe abortion is the answer to these issues. People are not aborting female fetuses because it is pleasurable or fun, there are cases of horrific abuse against born female children, such as this very recent one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6275770.stm). What is required, rather is a change in these communities' values so that female children are as desired as male children. In India, this would mean dismantling the dowry system, which suggests that a woman alone is not of enough value, so a bride's father has to "sweeten the deal" by providing his son in law with other things of value. Making sex selective abortion illegal would be about as effective as making any abortion illegal in these cultural contexts, because it does nothing to address WHY female children are less desired in the first place.
To get the topic a bit back on track to Karen's OP, and to comment on your very first paragraph, I don't think this one case is going to result in a change in law that would make abortion availability a total free for all. Karen's comments about the hurdles they are facing, from inside the hospital to the pro lifers who are harassing her daughter by phone (to be perfectly clear, I am NOT accusing anyone on these boards of this) demonstrate what an uphill struggle it would be to get the legislation changed. You have marches on Washington with record numbers of protesters trying to prevent anti abortion legislation from being tightened and it doesn't change things. I get the feeling that at this point, Karen is just trying to get the medical care that her family wants.

reply from: Lexxy

Alright, then... I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hi Lexxy,
I'm glad to hear that you support adoption. There are a lot of pro-choicers, like Hillary Clinton, who actually do refer to abortion as a way to prevent "unwanted children." However, I disagree with the idea that society must change before abortion can become illegal -- for example, what if people said that society had to completely change before slavery could become illegal -- that until there was no race, Klan, segregation, lynching, recreational rape of blacks, etc. slavery needed to remain -- well, I'm sure you'd disagree with that/ Even today racism remains and the nation, with free blacks, isn't perfect, but I don't believe the lack of a perfect society (which can never be acheived) justifies the legality of human rightgs abuses. Btw, dowries isn't based on women not being of enough value but has complex origins see The Imperial Origins of Dowry by Srimati Basu. Also, there are facts such as this pointed out by Veena Talwar Oldenburg in her book, 'Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime' that in Punjab, dowry was a'streedhan' (women's wealth). The practice of sending women off with money to make them self sufficient changed under colonialism. This money wasn't supposed to be for the groom or his family.
Oldenburg challenges the claim that infanticide was a Hindu problem and that dowry was abusive. According to her, son-preference was the result of the colonial structure of males as property owners and the creation of military wage work.
Interestingly enough, sex-selective abortion is seen as the result of unwanted females instead of a causation. For example, in traditional Chinese peasant families (btw, you can't tell by my avatar but I'm a black, white, Cherokee, Chinese mix) large families of both boys and girls are valued. Under a one family one child system with mandatory abortion, if you have one child and you're a farmer, you better make sure that child is a boy so that he can do the work. Thus, mandatory abortion of subsequent children leads to sex-selective abortion: see Wanting a Daughter, Needing a Son: Abandonment, Adoption, and Orphanage Care in China (Hardcover)
by Kay Ann Johnson. For a good look at pre-communist gender relations I highly recommend House of Exile by Nora Waln. Your views are interesting, and it's nice to have a calm, polite pro-choicer on the forum. Usually the pro-choicers here are downright cruel i.e. mocking prolifers who are greiving for aborted siblings.
As for why some prolifer's fear a change in Karen's law, check out this article http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2005/09/health_of_the_m.html See, once you make something legal for the health of the mother, prochoicers, and I'm not saying you specifically, tend to make that distinction as broad as possible. For example, in the "March for Women's Lives" one of the "rights" being fault for was the right to a partial birth abortion of a baby who would one day get glaucoma. To those marchers, giving birth to a baby who might someday get glaucoma was a risk to women's health. And that March and other protests worked because partial-birth abortion is once more legal.
1.The Physicians' Ad-Hoc Coalition for Truth (over 600 doctors, most ob-gyns and fetal/maternal experts), along with former Surgeon General Koop have publicly verified that there are no medical conditions, either maternal or fetal, that necessitate the use of partial-birth abortion to remove the baby, or to preserve the mother's health or future fertility.
2.The American Medical Association decided to support a ban on partial-birth abortion, after a careful study failed to find "any identified circumstance" in which it is needed.
3.Even the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a pro-abortion organization, has issued this statement: " A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

reply from: Lexxy

Hi Shiprahagain,
I'd just like to start out by pointing out that the terms pro choice and pro abortion, within the context of the pro choice movement, actually mean two different things. (This isn't directed at you, rather at the tendency for pro lifers to call pro choicers "pro aborts"). The pro choice movement does mean supporting a woman's right to choose. If she wants to adopt or keep the baby, that is fine. We don't privilege one choice over another. That is what the term "pro abortion" means - in the 1970s, as a part of the self help movement that was growing among young feminists, there was a small group who believed that pregnancy was an oppression to women and they should abort any pregnancies that occur (as a sidenote, I don't believe these women were against using birth control to prevent it in the first place). I personally DO NOT agree with this - albeit more because of the physical and psychological implications for the woman in having multiple abortions, or having one when it could have been prevented, rather than because of perceived personhood ascribed to the fetus. Like many of you, I view pregnancy as a special "rite of passage" and privilege that women have, those who can be pregnant anyway, and cannot wait to be pregnant and have children myself (assuming I can, I have never before been pregnant). So I just wanted to point out that in that regard, we are on the same page. Furthermore, I don't believe that I'm going to change your minds any more than you'll change mine - in these discussions, I'm interested in learning more about the pro life viewpoint so that I can broaden my understanding of those who support it, and why.
Now on to what you brought up...
With regard to the comment about how society didn't need to change to recognize that slavery was wrong, that is obviously somewhat true (since there were those then and remain those now who DO believe that whites are superior to all others, and still believe in the "white man's burden" and other such racist BS). However, in my opinion there is a difference between a fetus which is 100% dependent on one woman for survival, and a slave who if not legally owned could survive on his/her own. Furthermore, you do agree that even though we no longer have slavery, there is still very deeply ingrained institutionalized racism against people of colour - I'm speaking specifically about the West, because that is the context in which I study (I'm a Women's Studies major).
I confess that I don't know as much about the conditions in the societies which practice femicide as you do, so I will have to read up. Thank you for the reading suggestions! When you state "
Interestingly enough, sex-selective abortion is seen as the result of unwanted females instead of a causation" this is pretty much what I was saying - that with a change in how the community perceives and values females, there would be less desire and thus, less cause for femicide by abortion.
As for the link you posted re: Karen's law, I understand that the pro life movement is concerned with abortions being permitted for reasons other than medical. My comment about it was simply my opinion, that with the current political climate of the United States (disclaimer, I am Canadian and thus do not live under the laws, so what I know is from reading) I don't believe that wider access to abortion is imminent. The flip side of this is that pro choicers believe that if abortion laws are tightened, women who DO need them for medical reasons will have trouble accessing the medical care they need.
While my personal viewpoint is that abortion should be available on demand, my concern as a pro choice activist is indeed along these lines - if not everyone can have abortions on demand, there should still be checks and balances in place to ensure that women who need them (the "hard cases" I have heard several reference in this thread) will still be able to do so in a safe and timely fashion. This would help cut down on third trimester ("partial birth") abortions which are more dangerous and complex medical procedures than first or second term ones. That's why the March was so important, even to support the types of abortions that the pro life supports (to save the life of the mother). Like in the pro choice movement, there must be varying ranges/types/degrees of pro lifers (I see that in this very thread, in fact).
Lastly, I would just like to add that I personally do not condone abortion for reasons like the fetus might/will have certain abnormalities, or risks for certain non life threatening conditions (like glaucoma mentioned above). That's where it becomes an argument of eugenics - and to add a personal story for emphasis, my younger sister was born with a rare congenital (though non life threatening) condition that she will likely pass down to any children, and as far as I know, she would like adopt if she chooses to become a mother. Heck, I might even pass on the condition - and if I found out that my fetus had it, I would not abort. However, being pro choice, whatever choices I might not make for myself, I would not prevent others from making - this is the core of my personal brand of pro choice.
I have to go get ready for work now, so I won't be on again until after midnight. But let me add that it's been a pleasure discussing these issues with you this afternoon!

reply from: Lexxy

One very, very quick rejoinder of another personal story: You mention pro choicers being insensitive to people whose parents had had abortions - my grandmother, who was a married woman in Greece in the 1950s, had six abortions after my father, because no reliable method of birth control was available to her (not even teaching about the rhythm method - I'm not sure that was known about in Greece at that time). So, I experience this in my very own family and have learned to be more sensitive about it because of my dad.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yea, so? Dependency doesn't mean it doesn't have the ultimate right to life everyone does. Whether or not it's dependent, it STILL has that RIGHT to LIFE.
Besides, born babies are 100% dependent on a person for survival. Does that mean it can be killed if no one wants to care for it? No.
Women, men, and born children have their own bodily rights - But so do fetuses, since they own THEIR OWN bodies.

reply from: AshMarie88

And once that child is created, there is no going back. It's already existing, it's already alive, it already has its own personality, its own body, etc. It's created equal, not born equal.
Don't kill them just because you are inconvenienced.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hi Lexxy,
You're a woman's study major? Does that mean you're currently in college? I'm an English major. I understand that many pro-choicers differentiate between prochoice and proabortion, but to me, that's what I call the Stephen Douglass defense. In the Lincoln Douglass debates, LD said he wasn't proslavery but that he was pro-states choice. However, as you would agree, we don't look back on the people who defended slavery's legality as pro-choice but pro-slavery. I'm so sorry your grandmother had six abortions, and I do feel she should have had bc available to her, but I still don't think in its absence abortion becomes morally defensible.
As for what I said about China, I think you may have misunderstood. Chinese girls are undervalued as a result of abortion. If the one family one child law would end tommorow girls would automatically have a greater of survival because parents wouldn't have to give up the daughters they WANT for the farm strenght of the boys they need. If you made abortion illegal society would change for the better for girls.
As for medical care, even before Roe v. Wade abortion was legal to save the life of the mother.
It was nice meeting you and I look forward to more provocative disccusion.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Lexxy :
I disgree with you on about everything you have said, I don't like that you support baby-killing, and I think that when you debate a pro-life stance you do it as if pro-lifers think the same way pro-aborts do (I know thats confusing, but my point of this response will give an example), but despite all that I'm glad you are here.
So far you are presenting oppinions that in my oppinion are not so intelligent, but you are presenting them intelligentally. I mean that I dont find intelligence in the idea of condoning baby-killing, but since you don't think its baby-killing you would find it intelligent.
Let me be clear, I am going to be very forward and blunt with you, do not mistake that for rudeness. From what you have presented so far you seem to be intelligent and able to take things at face value and not get offended. I'm certainly not trying to offend you, I just get the vibe that I don't have to sugarcoat what I'm saying to you.
that being said, I appreciate the manner in which you debate.
Very friendly and openminded.
One thing I didn't like was the agree to disagree comment.
Remember, us pro-lifers find this to be a matter of life and death, don't ever settle to agree to disagree on something so big IMHO.
thank you for the way you debate, I enjoy the class you bring to the pro-choice side (In my expierience, a classy pro-choicer is a rare pro-choicer).
So, I ceratinly hope you don't get offended by what I say.
Now..
I think ship is doing a wonderful job debating you, so unless I see something crazy im going to leave this to ship. but one thing I will comment on.
You said that Karen and her daughter are considering a choice which: .
This is where I say you debate pro-lifers like they think like pro-aborts.
Remember, Our stance is that the time the child is in the womb is no different then the time the child is out of the womb. Therefor by inducing early labor you are actually taking months off this childs life.
I hope I'm clear with what I mean. Let me know if I'm not.
Karen... I'm still waiting for a response to my comments.

reply from: MC3

I want to issue a warning to the pro-lifers on this thread.
While I respect and admire each and every one of you, I have noticed a tendency by some of you to be a little naive.
Always remember that when it comes to abortion, the political landscape is made up of three groups of people: (a) the hardcore pro-choice crowd, (b) those who might accurately be called "ambivalents" and (c) the hardcore pro-lifers. The ambivalents are by far the largest category. They are also the only group open to being influenced by arguments from either side.
With extraordinarily rare exceptions, in debates over abortion nothing you can say will win over someone from the hardcore pro-choice crowd. Our position is based on the fundamental belief that it is immoral to kill unborn children. The problem is that, by definition, the hardcore pro-choice segment of our society is made up of amoral people for whom right and wrong are irrelevant, even bewildering, concepts. In short, the NYKARENs and LEXXYs of the world are inoculated against virtually any argument you make.
I also caution you not to be taken in by their subtle attempts to trick you into believing that they are nice decent people. They are not. Over the years they have simply learned to use deferential language in dealing with us. This tactic is designed to put us on defense by making it appear to the ambivalents that they are the reasonable ones. That is exactly the way NYKAREN started out on this thread and exactly the way LEXXY is proceeding right now. These people intentionally seek out pro-lifers who will engage them in sterile unemotional discussions about the brutal slaughter of helpless children, because they desperately need the public to perceive that the battle over abortion is not a conflict conflict between morality and immorality but between equally valid moral principles. So they play footsie with us in the hope that we will end up having some sort of "Oprah Moment" with them, even as they hold a knife to the throats of the unborn.
Don't take the bait. Remember the old saying: when a wolf shows his teeth, he isn't smiling. Stay aggressive and never forget that NYKAREN and LEXXY are the kind of abortion-whores who have sanctioned, and thereby caused, the deaths of approximately 50 million babies so far. I point these things out so that you do not become unnecessarily frustrated in dealing with them. If you want to engage them in rhetorical combat as a mental exercise, or to sharpen your skills for those times when you are dealing with ambivalents, or because you just don't have anything else to do, that's fine. However, do not let them cause you to conclude that your arguments are ineffectual or wrong just because they do not respond to them.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Thanks for your advice MC3. In debates on abortion I always use William Lloyd Garrison's quote on abolitionism as a guide: With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.
William Lloyd Garrison
Until someone shows themselves to be either unreasonable or inhumane, as opposed to just confused and miseducated, I'm quite willing to debate with them. Furthermore, I like to address the concerns of even the most ardent pro-aborts in case an ambivalent is reading in the wings. So far I'm comfortable debating with Lexxy but if it becomes counterproductive I'll stop.

reply from: MC3

Shiprahagain:
I appreciate the Garrison quote as well as what you said about debating LEXXY. However, let me throw out something else for you to think about. Despite the fact that we live in what is often called the "information age," we know that some ambivalents are, as you stated, simply "confused and miseducated." However, my experience has been that such a description is almost never appropriate to describe those people who actually take the time to publically defend legalized abortion. In virtually every case, the NYKARENs and LEXXYs of the world are fully aware that abortion is the wholesale slaughter of helpless children, but they are so morally bankrupt they simply don't care. I suggest that these people are, by definition, neither reasonable nor humane. In fact, even the word "tyrant" is woefully inadequate to define them.
Having said that, I agree with your statement about being willing to debate "in case an ambivalent is reading in the wings" and unless "it becomes counterproductive." However, just remember that to be effective you have to walk a tightrope. On one hand you cannot afford to come off as unreasonably dogmatic. At the same time, you must be aggressive enough not to let this "ambivalent reader" perceive that your enemy's position is, from a moral perspective, even remotely equivalent to yours. Sometimes you can only accomplish one. In those cases, defer to the latter. Doing otherwise would indeed be counterproductive.

reply from: 4given

It certainly looks like an interesting day here.. I am thankful for the tactful responses by Shiprah. I have enjoyed reading through most of it. Seems like NYKaren and Lexxy are actually the same person though. I guess I don't desire to debate anyone who is educated enough to understand the ruthless way the unborn are slaughtered-reguardless of the circumstances the child or mother are facing. Bottom line- My words, I do not want to waste on deaf ears. I tend to make energy for those who are still w/in reason a tad confused, naive and frankly void of understanding. Most of that can be quickly realized w/ one abortion photograph. Agreeing to disagree is a cop out when abortion is concerned- It actually means the wolf you are up against is strong enough in their beliefs on abortion that they don't care about the slaughter they endorse. It can be exhausting, and I appreciate Shiprahagain's decision to take her on.. I admire it really, because I have so little tolerance for anyone that gluttonously devours the remaining morsels of their integrity to desocrate the innocent!

reply from: Shiprahagain

Thanks, 4given. The way I think of it is to remember people like John Newton. We was actually the captain of slave ships, he was fully awared of the evils of slavery and its brutality, but he also wrote Amazing Grace and became a passionate abolitionist. Even though it may have seemed as though he were beyond change, one day he just got it. I try to see that potential in pro-choicers. If we write them off in excessive numbers we're ridding ourselves of many potential allies.

reply from: Lexxy

Hi Shiprahagain,
Thank you again for your response!
I understand what you're saying about the Stephen Douglass defense. I was quite sure that you would already know about the difference between pro choice and pro abortion, but I did want to address it in the context of the pro choice movement, in case it was unclear for any others. The difference between the abortion debate and slavery is that within the abortion, there is more room for more grey areas - like supporting abortion rights in certain cases. I'm sure there were some "grey areas" as well throughout the long history of slavery, (and if there were I'd love to know more about it and hear some examples) but I would venture to say, either you're a slaveowner or you're not, or you support slavery or not.
Since I wrote that quick post about my grandmother I think I may not have been entirely clear: I don't think it was morally responsible at all to reduce a woman in the 1950s, when birth control in some forms was available, to aborting pregnancies rather than preventing them. As I said before, I believe using abortion as an "after the fact" form of birth control is damaging to women physically and psychologically. I used this example because like with some of the other things we have been discussing, if resources available to women (like my grandmother) were better, there would be less need for abortion. Again, I refer to the pro life term "women deserve better than abortion" with respect to this situation.
As for the discussion about China, thank you for the clarification. The one child policy is, after all, state control over reproduction, which greatly affects women physically - and this is what the pro choice movement is against at the core. I undersatnd now what you are saying and I'm going to have to claim a bit of ignorance on the subject, until I have done some more reading on the issues.
And yes, abortion has always been legal to save the life of the mother - but if more anti abortion legislation is implemented, the availability of safe and legal abortions will decline, which may make it difficult for women even in these cases to get abortions. Both before and during the legalization of abortion in the West, access to facilities was and is an issue for women who live in rural areas.
It has been great meeting you too, thank you for your insightful and engaging conversation!

reply from: Lexxy

I'm sorry, I forgot to answer your question about college. I am indeed a student, and my other major is English like yours I'm going into my final year in September. After that, I'm planning to become a social worker. What about you?

reply from: 4given

A social worker? Like the kind that saves poor, abused children and finds a safe-haven for them while their abusive parents straighten themselves out?

reply from: Lexxy

Hi Faithwithoutwork,
You are being perfectly clear. I appreciate that even though we disagree on (probably nearly) everything, you are glad I'm here. I'm glad I'm here too.
I see what you mean about my "agree to disagree" comment. I appreciate that you clarify that from a pro life point of view, you look at it differently. The reason i said that is because the member I was responding to (Ladybug, I think) had said something to the effect of how I would never change her mind and how I should "stop trying to control" what I have no right to control. Believe me, I have no desire to change minds here, and if someone tells me flat out that they are not going to have their mind changed and then not engage me in discussion (like Shiprahagain) then I don't know what to say, and I didn't want to say something rude.
Thank you also for explaining about how I perceive the way that pro life supporters think. This is exactly why I am here, to learn more about your movement and why you believe what you believe.

reply from: Lexxy

This is exactly why I'm here. Honestly, do you think that I would think I'd find potential pro choicers in a board like this? I know I'm not going to change any minds, and I'm not here to have my mind changed. I hope I've made that clear. You may choose not to believe me but I truly am here to learn more about your movement and why you believe what you believe, as well as to get to know the different types of pro lifers out there. I'm trying to be respectful because I am a guest in your home on this board. What purpose would it serve if I were rude and flamed you? You'd ban me and it would waste everyone's time.
At least, you can think about it this way: the time I spend on debating with you is time I'm NOT spending doing pro choice activism or working to win those "ambivalents" over to my cause.
(Edited to correct spelling).

reply from: Lexxy

A social worker? Like the kind that saves poor, abused children and finds a safe-haven for them while their abusive parents straighten themselves out?
Actually, what I'd love to do is specialize in public health access and women's health. I would love to work in a women's health clinic, and help women make choices about birth control and pregnancy. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with this question though.

reply from: 4given

A social worker? Like the kind that saves poor, abused children and finds a safe-haven for them while their abusive parents straighten themselves out?
Actually, what I'd love to do is specialize in public health access and women's health. I would love to work in a women's health clinic, and help women make choices about birth control and pregnancy. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with this question though.
Work on saving those poor women! Education is a fabulous approach.. here girls- use a condom- get this shot- say no... I am for the health of every human being- born or unborn! Is it however a contradiction to want to "help" women be healthy and promote saline poisoning and the 'healthy'mutilation of limbs of our future generation of men and women alike! Is it not, Lexxy? What I am getting at is this... the blood-stained hands of a murderer, and her thoughts! If in a breathe you state the mutilation and suffering of an unheard voice- a heart that is beating, body growing, an identity- a blameless, pure being is so much an inconvenience that they must endure such brutality? You have blood on your hands and a blackened soul. I can hope for your clarity about abortion.. Look at 100 abortion photos, Indulge yourself in the satisfaction of who you truly are and what you support. I hope that is not the case. But maybe you are ignorant as to what an abortion is? Please look and then speak..
Edited to include men and women

reply from: Lexxy

First of all, I have never personally had an abortion and I do not perform them, nor do I counsel women about their sexual health options yet, so I am not a murderer - in the context in which you are speaking, I think you mean to say that I support murder?
I have seen the photos. They do not change my point of view that a woman should be allowed to choose. Yes, they demonstrate that abortion ends a pregnancy. Yes, abortion is a very difficult thing for a woman to have to go through. It is not an easily made choice by any means. Maybe when I become a women's health counsellor I can help women to choose birth control methods that will work well for them, so that they can prevent ever having to make that choice.

reply from: Lexxy

Well, not in the same way that fetuses are. It's a different kind of dependent, there's a very crucial difference. If a pregnant woman dies, the fetus dies with her, because her body systems are sustaining its systems. If the mother of a newborn dies, not only will it continue to live a while longer (because its own bodily systems are fully functional) but any other person can take over caring for it, its father, another relative, or someone else. That is why, if someone kills it (by neglect or otherwise) it constitutes murder (first degree, manslaughter or whatever) according to the law.

reply from: 4given

Let me see.. 4 am where I am.. Do I engage in conversation? Might it be worthless chatter separating me from the dream time God has given?.. I surmise.. whether or not you have had an abortion or not, your hands are bloodied. Stating that you support the feticide- gives provision to the tools and various devices of the slaughtering hand you claim ownership to. Whom do you profess a means of penance to?.. You have seen the photos? You still find it a reasonable means of disposal? A disposing of a human being, with a living soul? You aren't fit to be sucking the precious breathe away from us! But, fortunately for you- God doesn't "feel" that way. Seek Him, because you will be held accountable for every word, thought and deed that defines you! If you do not accept Him and confess the error of your ways, you shall surely die! Eternally! There is no death, weeping and gnashing of teeth.. Eternal damnation will give you one thing- a lifetime of being aborted w/out death. Be clear about what you stand for, because God is black and white- just as the conscience you were born with.
Edited to include accept and confess..

reply from: Lexxy

4given, with all due respect, I feel that while abortion may be objectionable to some individuals on religious or moral grounds, that is not the case for everyone. I personally am an athiest, and thus do not believe in a God or an afterlife, so these threats do not scare me. I do not deny or disrespect your (and others') right to believe in a God and subscribe to a religion and certain morality, nor do I seek to prevent you from doing so. I am very clear about where I stand on the abortion issue. If you believe I will rot in hell for it, by all means that's your opinion and you are entitled to that. The world is not a perfect, harmonic place, and neither are some of the choices that some individuals have to make while living in it - that's my reason for supporting the right to choose.

reply from: faithman

SSSSSOOOOO you are all for totally disrespecting the rights of the womb child to live? We are not so much against godless skankism. You have the right to be a godless skank. What about the womb child's right to choose to be a godless skank, or a person of faith? SSSSOOO if they are smaller and voiceless than a skank, then the skank has the right to kill them? WHAT A CHOICE?!!

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hi Shiprahagain,
Thank you again for your response!
I understand what you're saying about the Stephen Douglass defense. I was quite sure that you would already know about the difference between pro choice and pro abortion, but I did want to address it in the context of the pro choice movement, in case it was unclear for any others. The difference between the abortion debate and slavery is that within the abortion, there is more room for more grey areas - like supporting abortion rights in certain cases. I'm sure there were some "grey areas" as well throughout the long history of slavery, (and if there were I'd love to know more about it and hear some examples) but I would venture to say, either you're a slaveowner or you're not, or you support slavery or not.
Since I wrote that quick post about my grandmother I think I may not have been entirely clear: I don't think it was morally responsible at all to reduce a woman in the 1950s, when birth control in some forms was available, to aborting pregnancies rather than preventing them. As I said before, I believe using abortion as an "after the fact" form of birth control is damaging to women physically and psychologically. I used this example because like with some of the other things we have been discussing, if resources available to women (like my grandmother) were better, there would be less need for abortion. Again, I refer to the pro life term "women deserve better than abortion" with respect to this situation.
Here's the thing. Would you support your grandmother carrying these six children to term and then strangling them or abandoning them in the woods? Would that be ok since she didn't have access to birth control? To prolifers, what she did is no more morally defesnible. Or let's put it this way, say Kate lives in a very poor country. She has one sick child and one able bodied one and her husband died in a war. Kate sells the able-bodied child to a factory to feed sick child. Is that ok? I mean, Kate had no other options. Or maybe we know its bad to sell children, but how can we outlaw it -- I mean, until we end the war that kills husbands, cure sickness that afflicts children, and improve the economy, we just have to keep it legal for Kate to sell her child. That's what the pro-choice "abortion can't be illegal b/c the world isn't perfect" argument sounds like to us.
There is no safe thing as a safe abortion, believe me. For example, pro-choice atheist David Ferguson found that abortion led to an increase in suicidal behaviors, depression, substance abuse, anxiety, and other mental problems. Dr. Janet Daling, a pro-choice feminist, acknowledges the abortion breast cancer link and scolds cancer organizations for not recognizing it. During even the safest most legal abortion there are these physical and mental risks
http://abortionfacts.com/effects/effects.asp

And the only solution to illegal abortions is for prochoicers to stop performing them.
As for the discussion about China, thank you for the clarification. The one child policy is, after all, state control over reproduction, which greatly affects women physically - and this is what the pro choice movement is against at the core. I undersatnd now what you are saying and I'm going to have to claim a bit of ignorance on the subject, until I have done some more reading on the issues.
And yes, abortion has always been legal to save the life of the mother - but if more anti abortion legislation is implemented, the availability of safe and legal abortions will decline, which may make it difficult for women even in these cases to get abortions. Both before and during the legalization of abortion in the West, access to facilities was and is an issue for women who live in rural areas.
It has been great meeting you too, thank you for your insightful and engaging conversation!

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'll be a junior in the fall. After I get my Ph D. in English I plan to be a college prof/ writer.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Lexxy, it sounds like one of the "safe legal and rare" pro-choicers. But here's the thing. If abortion isn't murder, there's no reason for it to be rare. If it is murder, there's no reason for it to be legal. You seem to privilege bodily autonomy over all other rights. So even if in the 99% of pregnancies that are not the result of rape where women deliberately engaged in baby making behavior, they have the right to kill the child they created. But here's the thing. In the Dred Scott case, it was held that Dred Scott's owner's right to his "property" was greater that Dred's right to freedom. However, there is no right to property without prior having the right to freedom. There is no right to bodily automny without first having the right to life. It is not defensible to let a woman permanently kill her child so that she doesn't have to carry it for nine months. Do you, by the way, support abortion for all nine months of a pregnancy? Bodily autonomy is not such an essential right that people can kill others. It's interesting that you feel that in the case of femicide you may one day have to rethink the primacy of bodily automony. Well, why not in the case of feticide?

reply from: Lexxy

Hi Shiprahagain,
No, obviously I would not support my grandmother carrying those six pregnancies to term and then killing them. Were Greece not poorer in the 1950s than it had been during the WWII years (due to a civil war) the family might have been able to support more children, but I digress. I disagree that it's equal to murder of a born person, but I understand where the pro life viewpoint is coming from. Let me ask you this: How do you feel about birth control? I know that some pro life supporters are against it, but other than personal/religious objection, its use can and has prevented the need for many abortions.
And yes, abortion does carry health risks. However, so does pregnancy. Check out this link (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy/PR00132) for more information about circumstances in which pregnancies can be risky. I'm certainly not saying that women with these conditions should never get pregnant and/or abort pregnancies that occur, just that like abortion, there are risks to pregnancy as well. Also, let me say also that I am aware that late term abortions are riskier procedures and more difficult physically and psychologically on women.
With regard to illegal abortions, historically when women were unable to receive illegal procedures, there have been some that attempted to abort themselves, which is just as risky as having someone else do it for them. This link (http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html) describes some of the ways in which women would attempt to end unwanted pregnancies.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Well, not in the same way that fetuses are. It's a different kind of dependent, there's a very crucial difference. If a pregnant woman dies, the fetus dies with her, because her body systems are sustaining its systems. Actually, this isn't scientifically true. If the mother of a newborn dies, not only will it continue to live a while longer (because its own bodily systems are fully functional) but any other person can take over caring for it, its father, another relative, or someone else. That is why, if someone kills it (by neglect or otherwise) it constitutes murder (first degree, manslaughter or whatever) according to the law.
If there are two thirty year old conjoined twin women and one is dependent on the other for organs -- can the independent one choose to separate even if it means the death of her twin?
Also, if bodily autonomy is the main principle, how do you justify such violations such as not allowing people to put drugs in their body, or prostitute themselves, or be forcibly institutionalized for stuff like self-mutilation or eating disorders?
Many babies that are aborted could either survive outside the womb with medical care or will be able to in the future. So if viability determines human rights, the unborn are human because viability is only a major or scientific capability and not intrinsic humanity. And abortion certainly is murder b/c whether or not you kill somebody by slicing them up or vacuuming them or whatever even if they are still developing them, you most certainly are causing their death.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hitler never personally killed anybody, he just referred ppl to the gas chambers...

reply from: Shiprahagain

Oh, and this isn't about abortion, but as a woman's studies person you might like reading these people
Ifi Amadiume, Oyeronke Oyewumi, Mojubaolu Olufunke Okome, Barbara Namri Aziz, Fatemeh Keshavarz, Elizabeth Fernea, Fuambai Ahmadu, Richard Shweder, Dorothy L. Hodgson, Marnia Lazreg, and Catherine Acholonu.

reply from: Lexxy

Hi Shiprahagain,
Well, this is the way I look at it. It's not black and white, because you're dealing with a pregnancy rather than with two born people who can survive independently (as in the case of slavery). I don't deny that a fetus is human, but it's a potential human being. Thus, it is not equal to and does not have the same rights as a born person. Being 100% dependent upon one specific woman is what privileges the woman's autonomy. The fetus is part of her body and thus is subject to what she does with her body. Some consider it murder, some consider it morally wrong but less so than murder, and some don't consider it murder. The law addresses these different viewpoints by making abortion available to those who choose it; to those who don't, there are other options available.
With regard to abortion availability throughout a pregnancy, I don't believe that you can legislate against abortion at any time. Like pro lifers being "100% pro life" in order to be "100% pro choice" you have to support a woman's right to choose at any time during pregnancy. However, I'll tell you why I would never do this myself nor counsel a friend to do it: By the time you're in your third trimester, you're showing, you've been through most of the physical and psychological changes associated with pregnancy, and you and those around you are fully aware that you are pregnant. You've had to make changes to your life, alternate work arrangements, doctor visits and other changes that wouldn't be there if you were not pregnant. So if you are still considering an abortion at this point because you don't want to raise the resulting baby, I would strongly recommend carrying to term and giving it up for adoption. Or even inducing labour (if it's farther along) and adopting it out.
Why? Well, these late term abortions are physically and psychologically stressful on the woman, and by this time everyone surrounding the woman has made their judgements of her character or choices in being pregnant, her life has changed irrevocably. I know that for myself or a friend, this is what I would feel would be the best option in the case of considering a late term abortion.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I have no problem with non-abortifacient birth control. It is your opinion that a fetus is a potential human being. Scientifically, this isn't true. As embryologists like Dr. Diane Irving have pointed out. Furthermore, the fetus isn't part of the woman's body. I think this very website adresses that claim well.
It's the woman's body. It's her decision.
First, it is nonsense to suggest that the law never tells people what they can or cannot do with their bodies. In fact, there are many things which people are not legally allowed to do with their bodies. To name just a few, they cannot sell them for sex, or sell their organs to people who need transplants, or put certain drugs into their bodies.
Second, statements like this ignore the fact that, by any rational standard, the unborn child is a separate individual from its mother.

In fact, if an unborn child had the ability to commit a crime, it has everything necessary for a forensic expert to identify it in court. Long before the point at which most abortions are done, the unborn child has its own DNA code, its own fingerprints, and its own blood type - none of which match the mother.
The issue is whether we trust women to be their own moral agents.
Among the millions of people in the pro-life movement, the vast majority are women, including most of its leaders. To suggest that this female-dominated entity seeks to squash other women, or doesn't trust women, would be silly if it were not so condescending. This is just another shabby tactic the abortion lobby uses to keep from having to defend abortion.
To understand how truly asinine this "trust women" rhetoric is, imagine someone opposing laws against rape or incest because he "trusts men to be their own moral agents."
Or imagine that a woman is scheduled to have an abortion tomorrow, but gives birth in her home today. If the baby survives, should she be allowed to kill it? After all, the child was going to be killed the next day anyway. Why should she lose her "right to choose" because of a premature delivery that was completely beyond her control? Is she only allowed to pay someone else to kill her baby, but not allowed to kill it herself? Are we saying that we only trust women to make good moral decisions while they're pregnant?
If we are supposed to just blindly trust women, why not trust them across the board? Let each woman make her own moral choice about whether to stop at red lights, embezzle money from her employer, write bad checks, use cocaine, or become a prostitute. Let's also exempt all female business owners from discrimination laws which make it illegal for companies to refuse employment or service to minorities. In fact, since every law on the books prevents women from choosing to engage in a particular activity and says that women can't be trusted to make that decision, shouldn't the pro-choice mob be screaming that women should be exempted from all laws? Do they trust women or don't they?
The reality is that the only reason for the law to even exist is because people - men and women - can't be trusted to always do what's right. Laws are necessary to keep them from inflicting their immoral decisions on others.
Clearly, this "trust women" rhetoric is a sham. By using the term "moral agents" to describe women who submit to abortion, the pro-choice gang hopes to create the illusion that women who pay to have their children slaughtered do so out of some kind of moral conviction. It's just a rhetorical shell-game to make abortion seem morally defensible.
Why should a fetus have more rights than the woman?
It shouldn't. The pro-life position has never been that the baby's rights are superior to the mom's, but that they are equal. If our country was intentionally slaughtering women by the millions just so children could lead the lives they would prefer to live, the pro-life movement would be fighting that with the same intensity that we now fight abortion.
Our point is that while everyone has the right to live their life as they wish, they cannot kill other people in order to do so. When we say to a man that he cannot kill someone in order to get the money to buy a new car, we are not saying that he has no right to buy a new car or that he has fewer rights than the person he might kill. We're simply telling him that one person's right to life is more valuable than someone else's right to buy a new car.
That same dynamic applies in the case of abortion. Remember, the abortion industry's own data proves that virtually every abortion performed in America is done for non-medical reasons on a healthy baby and a healthy woman who just doesn't want to be pregnant. This clearly proves that the abortion issue is a conflict between the baby's right to life and the mother's desire not to be pregnant. And while that desire may be reasonable, we can't allow her to kill someone in order to fulfill it.
For over 30 years, the abortion lobby has told the public that protecting the unborn would trample on the rights of women. That is a lie. The Constitution was specifically designed to deal with situations like this.
Assuming that there is a constitutional right to privacy, before the law can say that someone's right to participate in a certain activity is protected by that right to privacy, it must first ask, "The privacy to do what?"
One of the principles of the Constitution is that rights are never absolute. They all have limits. For example, libel and slander laws impose a limit on free speech, as do some consumer protection and price-fixing laws.
We also have a right to the free exercise of religion, but we cannot legally kill someone even if our religion requires human sacrifice.
Rights also have value relative to each other. For example, a store owner does not have the right to shoot a shoplifter - even if that is the only way he can recover his property. Our society says a thief's right to life is superior to a store owner's right to own property. This infringement on property rights is based on the relativity of rights which the law and any rational person supports.
This principle of rights having limits and relativity is how the Constitution weighs one individual's rights against another's.
In the case of abortion, the question is not whether a woman has a right to privacy, but whether her right to privacy supercedes her child's right to life. To say that it does, is to contend that there are limits to rights specifically expressed in the Constitution, but no limits on a right which had to be invented in a "penumbra."
In the final analysis, it is as preposterous to suggest that the intentional killing of an innocent human being is a matter of privacy as it is to say it is a constitutional right. And this is precisely the reason why abortion defenders viscously attack any nominee to the Supreme Court who says he or she will interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.
The fetus is only a potential human life.
Only through mind-numbing stupidity could someone suggest that when human sperm and human eggs unite they produce something that is only "potential human life."
If the word "potential" is suggesting that the unborn is only potentially alive, that is easily disproved. Even in the earliest stages of pregnancy, sonograms show movements and heartbeats that do not belong to the woman. Whatever else the fetus is, it is impossible to logically argue that it is not, at least, alive.
On the other hand, for "potential" to be referring to the word human, a fetus would have to have the potential of becoming either a human being or some other form of life. Perhaps a parrot or a spider. Of course, the problem is that there is no record of such a thing having ever occurred.
So while it may be reasonable to say that a fetus is a potential major league baseball star or a potential school teacher, it is idiotic to say that a fetus is a potential human being. If for no other reason, the fetus is a living human being because that is the only thing it can be.
Also, if the issue is "development," let's not forget that human beings develop for their entire lives. A fetus is less developed than a newborn just as a child is less developed than an adult. But being less developed than an adult does not mean that a child is any less a human being. That's also true of the unborn.
Pro-lifers aren't the only ones who know that it is a baby who is killed in an abortion. At a National Abortion Federation conference in Philadelphia during September of 1994, Texas abortion clinic director, Charlotte Taft, said, "When [a pro-choice activist in the Dallas community] came into our clinic - we were inviting her to learn more about abortions - this is a quote from this woman - she said, 'If I believed that abortion was the deliberate ending of a potential human life, I could not be pro-choice.' I said, 'It would be best for you not to see a sonogram.'"
Less than two years later, at another National Abortion Federation conference in San Francisco, a New York abortion clinic director, Merle Hoffman, stated "...I mean, we are talking about an abortion here. And uh, also that the staff is uncomfortable when a patient said, 'I think I'm killing my baby.' So I'm comfortable with saying, 'Yes, you are, and how do you feel about that?'"
Btw, the tone of the website is stronger than my personal voice.

reply from: Lexxy

Conjoined twins is an interesting case. Here's a story about one set which includes statistics as to the survival rate for separation surgeries (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0CE3D9133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63). It also says that the health for both boys in this situation has been greatly improved, albeit the risks with the surgery, with which the parents decided to go through.
Like abortion, all of these things you suggest are not "black and white". Drug use is almost always a personal choice, whether prescribed or illegal. So is prostitution (BTW, I support the legalization of prostitution so that sex workers can receive the care they need and deserve with fear of prosecution). Self mutilation and eating disorders can go on for years without being detected and/or treated, and I believe people are institutionalized when they are perceived as a threat to themselves or others. Again, these people are born and not completely dependent on another person's body system for survival, so they're different from fetuses.
My view is that abortion ends a pregnancy, and a potential life. Later in pregnancy, when viability is an issue, I would support a woman's right to choose to have the baby removed via c section and have it taken care of artificially until it can be adopted out. That should be an option, and hopefully science will be able to make more advances in that field so that maybe one day it will be more widely available.

reply from: Lexxy

"One of the principles of the Constitution is that rights are never absolute. They all have limits. For example, libel and slander laws impose a limit on free speech, as do some consumer protection and price-fixing laws."
This is also why the issue of ending a pregnancy is never absolute either, and why this is such a contentious issue.
"Rights also have value relative to each other. For example, a store owner does not have the right to shoot a shoplifter - even if that is the only way he can recover his property. Our society says a thief's right to life is superior to a store owner's right to own property. This infringement on property rights is based on the relativity of rights which the law and any rational person supports.
This principle of rights having limits and relativity is how the Constitution weighs one individual's rights against another's."
And no one should ever be forced to lend their organs out for use to another. If I need a heart transplant, without one I will die, and you're the only person available who has a proper match, can the law force you to give up your heart against your will so that I may live? My right to continue living does not trump your right to use your own heart as you see fit, correct?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Conjoined twins is an interesting case. Here's a story about one set which includes statistics as to the survival rate for separation surgeries (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0CE3D9133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63). It also says that the health for both boys in this situation has been greatly improved, albeit the risks with the surgery, with which the parents decided to go through.
Like abortion, all of these things you suggest are not "black and white". Drug use is almost always a personal choice, whether prescribed or illegal. So is prostitution (BTW, I support the legalization of prostitution so that sex workers can receive the care they need and deserve with fear of prosecution). Self mutilation and eating disorders can go on for years without being detected and/or treated, and I believe people are institutionalized when they are perceived as a threat to themselves or others. Again, these people are born and not completely dependent on another person's body system for survival, so they're different from fetuses.
My view is that abortion ends a pregnancy, and a potential life. Later in pregnancy, when viability is an issue, I would support a woman's right to choose to have the baby removed via c section and have it taken care of artificially until it can be adopted out. That should be an option, and hopefully science will be able to make more advances in that field so that maybe one day it will be more widely available.
It might very well be your view that pregnancy ends a potential life, but as I have shown you, that is scientifically incorrect. It's some people's view that Jews aren't human -- that doesn't make it biologically true. The conjoined twin thing is hypothetical -- what would you say in that case? It's interesting, you get to trump a woman's bodily automony if she has an eating disorder (which dangers herself alone) but not when she's pregnant and that acutally affects someone else.
If you die b/c I didn't give you an organ that's one thing, if you die b/c I killed you that's another. In abortion babies don't die b/c organs aren't donated to them, they die from having their brain sucked out their skull or being scalded by saline or chopped into pieces.

reply from: Lexxy

And as I have pointed out to you several times, Jews or slaves or any other born people differ from fetuses because they are not 100% dependent on one specific woman.
And by your logic, a woman refusing to allow a fetus to use her organ systems is killing the fetus, right? So if you refuse to give me the organ, that's the same as killing me, no?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Abortion is not the killing of a baby by refusing organ support, it's the killing of a baby by having him burned by saline or chopped into pieces. Refusal to donate an organ (a passive act) isn't the same as thea active acting of chopping someone up. If I resfuse to give you a liver and you're dying of cirhossis, that's what killed you. It's not the same as if I sucked your brain from your skull.

reply from: faithman

Might be imposible. baby killing skanks don't have brains, just blobs of baby killing tissue.

reply from: yoda

(My post obviously got lost in the flood of posts addressed to you, so I'm reposting it.)
<sigh> Here we go again.......
Lexxy, welcome to the forum, and thanks for the kind words. As to the "one thing you wanted to point out/and the reason why you registered", let me first say that this forum exists, and most of the prolife movement exists, to stop the slaughter of unborn babies..... period. We're not here to enter into any "compassion contests" with you or anyone else.
For the sake of this "debate", let's stipulate that the personal criticism you make against us, and any other personal criticism you or the other proaborts on this board want to make are 100% true and undeniable. Where does that leave us? How does that affect our goal of preventing the slaughter of unborn babies? How does that make it more or less moral to kill unborn babies for economic or social reasons?
You see, we're not here to defend ourselves against your personal criticisms, in fact most of us consider that to be nothing more than a distraction from our stated goal. So as far as I'm concerned, go ahead and lay us out...... rip us to shreds..... tear our reputation apart and leave it in tatters........ we have no time for that debate. We're trying to save babies.

reply from: yoda

You are partly responsible for that which you support, just as all supporters of capital punishment are partly responsible when innocents are executed. You cannot escape that responsibility.
Is that all you see? You do not see a tiny baby torn into pieces, surrounded by it's own blood and gore? All you see is "the end of a pregnancy"? I'd say that was a rather "selective vision" process you have going there.

reply from: yoda

That's a kind of a "punch-list" of proabort lies.
One, there is NO SUCH THING as a "potential human being". I've read many, many scientific resources and textbooks, and that term does NOT appear in ANY of them, as you probably already know, right? That's simply a proabort lie that is spread about without any effort at documentation....... probably because there IS NO documentation for it. According to every dictionary that has a definition of "human being", it is defined as "any member of the species Homo sapiens".... so unless you have some "documentation" that EXCLUDES unborn babies from our species, I'm afraid they ARE ALREADY human beings!
Two, "rights" are a political/legal concept which has absolutely zero to do with biological classification, which you probably also already knew, right?
And three, "dependency" has absolutely zero to do with "privileges" or "autonomy", which are also political/legal concepts, and which you probably also knew, right?
And fourth, and last....... a fetus cannot be a "part" of a woman's body, unless a pregnant woman can be both male and female, have two of every organ and every body system, have two different DNA codes and blood types at the same time, be both sick and healthy at the same time, be of two different ages at the same time, be of two different races at the same time, and be both alive and dead at the same time. Do you really think all that is possible?

reply from: yoda

Is that what you see when you look at a photo of an aborted baby? Does a "potential life" have little legs, little arms, a little head and body, and a lot of blood and gore?
Or are those just "potential" arms and legs, head and body, and blood and gore?
What's the difference between "potential" blood and gore and the real stuff?

reply from: ladybug

No.. because its not my fault your organs are failing..... it would be my fault I got pregnant. I did not cause your organs... I dont have that responsibility, now if you were in dire need and it could save your life and I was a match of course I would take your case into serious consideration. However your arguement is a mute point because your comparisons are not linear. I have heard that arguement come from pc's all the time and its so incredibly ridiculous. I dont have a responsibility to you unless I caused your problems, and then like I said there are situations that if I were to come in the picture as a match, etc that would be in indefinante consideration depending on the situation.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Pro-Life II: The Violinist and the Painter
Filed by: Justin on Monday, November 14, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
For a brief overview of the Pro-Life position, read this article first.
Defending abortion from the standpoint of protecting a woman's right to choose has advantages over denying the personhood of the fetus. You do not have to relinquish support for unalienable rights for all humans, and you can protect wanted babies with the full spectrum of human rights while still granting women freedom to abort the unwanted.
It might seem obvious that the fetus's right to life trumps the woman's right to liberty, but that has not been conceded by abortion supporters. Their case was most powerfully advanced by ethicist Judith Jarvis Thompson in her famous 1971 essay, "A Defense of Abortion." But as we shall see, that argument is fatally flawed.
The Violinist and the Painter
Thompson fully concedes the personhood of the fetus (if only for the sake of argument) and defends abortion by denying parental obligation. She uses a parable in which a violinist has a kidney disorder. You are the only person in the world with the correct blood type to help him, so the Society of Music Lovers kidnaps you and hooks you up to the violinist. Now it might be nice if you decided to allow yourself to be hooked up, Thompson argues, but you certainly don't have to. Even though the violinist has a right to life, it does not give him the right to keep you hooked up onto the machine with him.
The flaw with Thompson's parable is that it is more like rape than a typical pregnancy: you are kidnapped and hooked up to the violinist against your will (we will discuss rape in the third article of this series). But what if the violinist became dependent upon you as the result of your freely chosen action?
Suppose you are an avant-garde painter who works with a special paint that has toxic fumes (you wear a respirator for your own safety). Now suppose some of the paint fumes leaked out of your house and into the street. The violinist inhaled some fumes while driving by and became sick with a kidney disorder. It is your fault that the violinist is sick. You didn't intend to make him sick - you only wanted to paint. But you are responsible for the consequences of your actions, even the unintended consequences. If being hooked up to him for nine months is the only way to cure him, then you have the moral duty to do so.
The general principle is that if a freely chosen action puts another person into a position of dependency, then you take on a debt to that person until they are no longer dependant. Babies are dependant upon their parents from conception until adulthood. It follows directly from the very act of making a baby that parents owe their child a debt. This debt can only be redeemed by providing care for that baby until it reaches adulthood.
Burglars and Butterfly Catchers
Thompson recognizes the flaw in her violinist defense and attempts to forestall rebuttals with the analogy of a burglar. Suppose you opened a window and a burglar came in. Even though you opened the window it is clearly not your fault, and the burglar has no right to be in your house. If babies were capable of voluntarily deciding whether or not they wanted to be conceived her analogy might have merit. But of course that is not how it works. Unlike burglars, babies do not have free will when it comes to deciding to be conceived. The only way they can enter the world is by being forced in by their parents (unintentionally or not).
A better analogy would be an accidental kidnapping. Suppose you had a giant butterfly net that you liked to throw from your house. It is so big that a person could fit inside it. Some of your throws go out into the street, where they could potentially reel in someone who has not already freely decided to enter your property against your will. If you do catch someone then you clearly do not have the right to kill them. You do have the right to then ask them to leave. But suppose your accidental victim couldn't? Suppose he broke his legs while trapped in the net and he is too heavy to lift? Not only does your accidental victim have a right to be in your house, but he even has a right to receive medical care, food and water from you until he is able to safely leave your house and walk around on his own power.
Contraception
The original burglar analogy was for a pregnancy when there is no contraception - the window is open. Thompson extends her analogy by stating that if you put bars on your windows then the burglar definitely has no right to your house. But the burglar analogy still does not fit - the burglar is still using free will in a way that an unborn baby can not.
To return to the painter and the violinist, if the painter installed a ventilation system designed to keep the paint fumes from leaving the house, but some left anyways. The painter would still be responsible for the damage to the violinist. To use the analogy of the butterfly net, if you built a fence around your property but the net broke through and captured someone, you would still be responsible for that person. More generally, taking steps to protect against an undesirable potential outcome of your actions does not absolve you of responsibility should that outcome occur.
Pregnancy due to Rape
Pregnancy due to rape is much easier to resolve; it fails almost all of the double effect tests: unlike tubal pregnancies there is no pathology that is being treated, it is a normal pregnancy. Thus the act is directly killing. The killing is intended and not foreseen (unlike the terminally ill mother, the rape victim would not want to choose to wave the magic wand to bring the baby back). And the good (being unburdened by a pregnancy) does not outweigh killing.
Now let's consider Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist analogy. It is actually an analogy for pregnancy due to rape because a) you were kidnapped and b) you did not make the violinist get sick. Jarvis is correct that you are entitled to walk away from the violinist, but you are not allowed to kill him. Apply the double effect tests. In the case of walking away the good effect is not being kidnapped, the bad effect is not providing help that you are under no obligation to apply (the analogy due to pregnancy due to rape). But if you kill the violinist you have to weigh not being kidnapped versus killing.
source irrationalknowlege.com

reply from: Lexxy

<sigh> Here we go again.......
Lexxy, welcome to the forum, and thanks for the kind words. As to the "one thing you wanted to point out/and the reason why you registered", let me first say that this forum exists, and most of the prolife movement exists, to stop the slaughter of unborn babies..... period. We're not here to enter into any "compassion contests" with you or anyone else.
For the sake of this "debate", let's stipulate that the personal criticism you make against us, and any other personal criticism you or the other proaborts on this board want to make are 100% true and undeniable. Where does that leave us? How does that affect our goal of preventing the slaughter of unborn babies? How does that make it more or less moral to kill unborn babies for economic or social reasons?
You see, we're not here to defend ourselves against your personal criticisms, in fact most of us consider that to be nothing more than a distraction from our stated goal. So as far as I'm concerned, go ahead and lay us out...... rip us to shreds..... tear our reputation apart and leave it in tatters........ we have no time for that debate. We're trying to save babies.
Sorry, I did forget to respond to this, so thank you for reposting it.
I'm not entirely sure how you want me to respond to that. Surely it is obvious from my posts here so far that I'm not interested in tearing your reputation apart? If I was going to do that I would be spending this time picketing pro life events and protests. I've already explained that I want to learn more about your position and that as a "guest" in your "house" on this forum, I don't want to be rude and give out ad hominem attacks. I'm sure pro lifers are well aware of how badly this reflects on one's character and points during debate, no?

reply from: Lexxy

That is exactly right.
The difference is that one is wholly dependent upon another for survival, and the other is born.

reply from: Lexxy

Shiprahagain and yodavater,
Let me try a different approach. If you consider that life begins at conception, then when does life begin in a cloned animal (human or otherwise)? Conception does not occur when the new zygote is created, as the set of chromosomes is identical to that taken from another being.
I am aware that we have not cloned humans yet but with current research the reality of cloning human tissue is coming closer.
Could it be that the answer to when life begins is more a question of personal belief or religious faith, than one of science?

reply from: Lexxy

Well, what if the conception was a result of rape? Intercourse was not intentional and neither was pregnancy. I realize that most pro lifers are against abortion even in these cases but for the sake of my argument (in comparison to forced organ donation) what do you say?

reply from: Lexxy

concerned parent,
Yes, I do privilege the born over fetuses. That is a part of being pro choice. The necessity of abortion is an unfortunate reality in the world that is not so friendly or conducive to single motherhood.
The law, in the United States and Canada as well as other places, privileges the born over fetuses as well.

reply from: Lexxy

Other members of this forum have already asked me these questions and I have answered them in this thread. But, I'll humour you...
Yes, it's an issue of autonomy. Women must have the right to sovereignty over their bodies, and this includes during pregnancy. Obviously, according to the law, people cannot just "do whatever they like". But the fetus isn't recognized by law because its having rights would trump those of the woman who already lives in the world, has rights and responsibilities of her own, and must be willing to carry the fetus to term. And I don't just feel this way because I am a woman - there are plenty of men who are pro choice also. For the record, I would likely never choose abortion for myself in this stage in life (relatively close to when I plan to marry my long term partner and have children with him - since some might ask why not, this is the reason) but I would never prevent another woman from making such a choice about her body.
The right decision about her body is what she feels is the right thing to do given the current circumstances. The woman has to live in that body, she gets to decide what happens to it.
If a woman plans a pregnancy and "wants" the fetus, it is no more recognized by the law than any unwanted fetus. If she miscarries there is no death certificate issued nor any other such formal recognition by the law, correct?

reply from: Lexxy

I addressed this right in the post that you linked to - bottom line, I don't believe abortion should be made illegal because of the risk of sex selective abortion just yet. Fetal gender testing is not widely enough available to warrant making abortion illegal across the board - and this doesn't even begin to address the fact that women will still seek abortions for sex selective purposes, regardless. Our society hast to change and value females as much as males for this to change...
Consider it illogical if you want, it doesn't make it less valid than your position
(ETA clarification)

reply from: Lexxy

I'm sure you know that a zygote/embryo/fetus is 100% dependent on one specific woman for its survival. This marks an important difference between it and a born child or a husband, because they have their own bodily autonomy/rights. A spouse or child can take care of him/herself, or be cared for by anyone else.
Obviously it's not only women who have rights, it's that women have the right to make decisions about their bodies.
If I tie a rope to you and lower you over a ledge, you will be "100% dependent on one specific person for your survival." So, may I let go of the rope, thus allowing you to plummet to your death?
An unborn child has "autonomy" as well. The mother can not control her child, even in utero. "Rights" are another matter. The issue is whether the child should have the same basic human rights afforded to every other class of human being, not whether it currently does. To speak of "rights" in this way as part of an argument for abortion is tantamount to saying "that's what the law says, so it must be just." What if everyone took that position on women's right to vote? "Hey, women don't have the right to vote, therefore men are justified in continuing to deny it to them." Such an "argument" does not even begin to address the morality or justice of laws that deprive entire classes of human being of rights taken for granted by others.
Re: the rope example, that's not the same thing. Firstly, my existence does not hinder your freedom or your ownership of your body - you did not have to capture and tie me up the first place (I can't think of any equivalent hard case for this, can you?) You have already violated my bodily right not to be held against my will by suspending me on that rope. I am a born person with rights according to the law, so if I plummet and die it would be considered murder.
There's a good reason why fetuses don't have rights, and that's because if they were awarded the "right to life" that right would trump that of the woman's to ownership of her own body. To go along with your voting analogy, not everyone in society is entitled to vote. In most western countries, children under the age of 18 cannot cast votes. So should a fetus be able to cast votes? To take this analogy further and go along with the "potential life" concept that I already brought up, should a fetus be afforded rights given to any particular group because it might be a part of that group one day? Should a fetus be entitled to welfare or a pension because it might one day live in poverty or live past the age of 65? A fetus is a potential human being, just the way that I am a potential senior.

reply from: Lexxy

No, she doesn't. That's why adoption, a favourite choice for pro lifers, works. If a woman refuses to raise a child that she has carried to term, it may be cared for by another individual. Here we are talking about dependence and bodily autonomy (I can see you setting me up for admitting that I support neglect of children). The point is that anyone who needs care (newborn, child, disabled individual, frail senior citizen) can receive that help from any willing person, rather than one specific individual

reply from: Lexxy

Well, isn't it just par for the course when abortion supporters want to talk only about the mothers and completely ignore the children who are the real victims of abortion!
I must admit that I'm not overly impressed with the whole "if we make it harder for women to "safely and legally" kill their unborn children, this will inconvenience those who wish to do so" argument. I see making it "difficult" for women to act on such desires as a good thing... Nope, I must admit this line of reasoning does not have the desired effect on me. I find it difficult to sympathize with women because they are having difficulty finding "safe" ways to kill their children...
Call me what you like - I support a variety of choices and therefore I am pro choice. Abortion is not the only choice. Keeping the baby and adopting it out are equally valid choices. Abortion should remain safe and legal for women who need it.
Re: your comments about the pro choice movement and women. Yes, we care about women who are already born, sentient, recognized by law human beings, and their rights to control their own bodies.
Re: "safe and legal" abortion - it has nothing to do with how convenient abortion is or isn't. Abortion is never convenient. It is a difficult choice to make. Provide me with proof of one woman who has received physical and emotional pleasure from an abortion and I'll reconsider whether abortion is particularly convenient. You missed my point entirely - what I said was that if there are no safe and legal abortions available, women will still seek them regardless. The difference is that they will be much more dangerous and may result in the ending of the pregnancy and the woman's life (which may even deprive already born children of their mother, among other things).

reply from: Lexxy

That is completely different from what I said. My argument is based on the fact that a fetus is completely physically dependent upon its mothers organ systems (circular, digestive and waste among others) to survive, while a born child is not. If a mother and her born child die, they will not both die because the mother's organ systems stopped functioning for herself and the child, because the child has its own, independently functioning organ systems.

reply from: Lexxy

And peoples' individual moralities differ as widely as religious beliefs. For some, carrying an abortion conceived under such circumstances as rape might be acceptable. For others, terminating a pregnancy may be a terrifically difficult, albeit the right, choice. Like I have mentioned before in this thread, the issue is not black and white. Even murder charges are not black and white, there are gradations like first/second/third degree and manslaughter. For some women, abortion may represent the lesser of two evils. Implying that we can't trust most women to make the right choice and to criminalize abortion on these grounds is like prohibition of alcohol because some people cannot be trusted to make sound decisions about their use of it and may drive drunk resulting in injury and death.

reply from: Lexxy

Why? Because the unborn are less developed? What's the difference between killing a child one minute before it exits the womb and killing it one minute after? Do you support late term abortions? If not, all your arguments about location (in the womb) justifying abortion go out the window, right?
I have explained my views on late term abortions elsewhere in this thread in response to questions that Shiprahagain asked. I concur that this is more difficult moral ground because some of the reasons for having an abortion in the first place are less valid or inapplicable. If and when technology allows, perhaps fetuses can be removed prematurely and nutured in artificial uteri. However I don't believe it should be criminalized at any stage now, since we do not have technology advanced enough to do that.

reply from: Lexxy

Please explain for me the difference between a human being and a "potential human being." Are you implying that an entity can begin it's existence as something other than a human being, then later become one? That would be quite a trick, wouldn't it? Only two things can conceivably be human, a human being, or a part of a human being. Surely you will not contend that an unborn child is part of the mother?
A potential human being is just that - potential. It does not yet have all of the characteristics of a human being: ability to survive on its own and sentience among others. Even though it has a unique set of DNA its organ systems are dependent upon the womans' thus, it is indeed part of the mother.
Debating with you has certainly kept me on my toes but it's time for bed... I'll be back to continue tomorrow

reply from: ladybug

Well, what if the conception was a result of rape? Intercourse was not intentional and neither was pregnancy. I realize that most pro lifers are against abortion even in these cases but for the sake of my argument (in comparison to forced organ donation) what do you say?
Still it has happened to your body... you are exactly right. even if you are raped I am fully prolife. I have my own personal views on being raped. Wherein most cases I strongly believe it can be helped in most women, I know that in most cases it cannot. Unfortunately on my part it does then become my religious point of view that takes on this arguement whereas it is wrong. But I also believe that in the "organ donor" case, if I was the only match to you it would be morally wrong for me not to donate...
As for the cloning argument I dont believe in that either. To be honest I know God has given us the ability to use all of the technology that has been created, but I also know that Satan has alot to do with it as well and think we are taking things lately WAY too far.... that definantly sets the stage for another topic.

reply from: yoda

Actually, your opening post seemed to focus on doing exactly that.... saying that stating your personal criticism (of us) was your "reason for registering here". I do hope you noticed that we didn't take "the bait".

reply from: faithman

What about womb gay rights? Should a woman be allowed to kill a child because it is geneticly gay? Are we to allow the genetic flaw of fagdom to be an excuse for killing a pre-born?

reply from: yoda

That is exactly right. The difference is that one is wholly dependent upon another for survival, and the other is born.
And that would be morally significant because.........??????
Let me get this straight.... you see a picture of a torn, mutilated corpse of a tiny baby, covered with blood and gore, and you think "Oh that is okay because that particular baby wasn't born yet and was still dependent upon it's mother"....????? Can you really deceive yourself by doing that sort of mental gymnastics? Is it really possible that anyone could approve of tearing a tiny baby limb from limb on the perfectly insane justification that "It was unable to be independent of it's mother"?????
Is that really possible?
Life does not "begin" in modern times, it is a continuum. The egg and the sperm are alive before fertilization in a natural reproductive process, and the egg is alive when the genetic material is inserted in a cloning process. Both eggs constitute a new life form when they begin to grow with their new DNA codes.

reply from: yoda

And one of those "privileges" is permission for the born to kill the "fetuses".
My, that's quite a "privilege"... no wonder you dress it up with a nice little euphemism..... I'd be ashamed to call it what it is, too.

reply from: yoda

And yet....... you offer no rationale as to why the mere fact of being a "dependent" individual is a "moral defect" which justifies being killed.
WHY is temporarily being totally dependent upon your mother for your existence such a horrible moral defect? WHY does it justify your mother killing you?
WHAT is it about total temporary dependence that is so disgusting to you that you would approve of killing all such people in that category?
Is temporary total dependence such a "weakness" that you consider such people too disgusting to survive? WHY do you have such hatred and disgust for such people?

reply from: yoda

I'm still waiting for you to stop LYING about what constitutes a "human being", and produce some DOCUMENTATION for this MYTHICAL "potential human being" creature you keep harping on about....
Waiting.......
Waiting.....
Waiting....
Waiting.......

reply from: faithman

Let's say that a country considered a whole neiborhood of folk as inconvieniant, and napalmed them into non existance. But folk in another neiborhood had rights. It is all about realestate. If you are out of womb, rights. In the womb, wrong neiborhood. Go figure?

reply from: MC3

People like LEXXY always try to appear oh-so-reasonable and oh-so-intelligent with their concession that the unborn is a "potential" human life. Of course, the reality is that only through mind-numbing stupidity could someone suggest that when human sperm and human eggs unite they produce something that is only "potential" human life.
In the first place, if the word "potential" is suggesting that the unborn is only potentially alive, that is easily disproved. Even in the earliest stages of pregnancy, sonograms show movements and heartbeats that do not belong to the woman. Whatever else the fetus is, it is impossible to logically argue that it is not, at least, alive.
Therefore, when they say "potential" they must be referring to the word human. But for that to be accurate, a fetus inside a woman's body would have to have the potential of becoming either a human being or some other form of life. Perhaps a parrot or a spider. I am personally unaware of such a thing having ever occurred, and that causes me to conclude that the fetus is a living human being because that is the only thing it can be.
Now, if I am wrong about everything I said so far, I'm sure LEXXY can straighten us out. So tell us, LEXXY, if the unborn is only "potentially" human, what else does it have the potential to become? I realize that in your little world it has the potential to become a corpse, but that's not an answer to my question. Even when people like you turn them into bloody and dismembered corpses, they still have to be the bloody and dismembered corpses of something. So what is it?
And before you say it, if your anticipated dance centers around the issue of "development," I remind you that human beings develop throughout their entire lives. A fetus is less developed than a newborn just as a child is less developed than an adult. But being less developed than an adult does not mean that a child is any less a human being. Therefore, logical reasoning makes development a moot point.
So again, LEXXY, please give us the benefit of your wisdom and guide those of us in the great unwashed masses toward a better understanding of the biological and physical realities of this matter. You say that the human fetus is only a potential human being. Therefore, we can only assume that you know what else - besides a corpse - a human fetus has the potential of becoming. So enlighten us, and please be specific. We are counting on you.

reply from: nykaren

Okay, for the sake of those who have a problem understanding the simplest of terms - survival is indeed a matter of being able to live outside the womb. Will it make it easier for you if I say "able to live on one's OWN outside the womb". Does that simplify for the pro-lifers here the meaning of survival? There is a huge difference between a child that can be born alive and sustain life on its OWN, then receive treatment for a disease and live, say, a few hours or days or weeks or months - and one that when removed from the womb has no chance of survival ON ITS OWN, as with babies like Sam for whom there is no medical help. The only "survival" there, is the bit of life that is still in the baby FROM the mother's system. When that bit of life is used up, the baby stops breathing, the heart stops beating, and any other funtioning systems shut down on their own. The baby dies a peaceful and natural death.

reply from: faithman

Okay, for the sake of those who have a problem understanding the simplest of terms - survival is indeed a matter of being able to live outside the womb. Will it make it easier for you if I say "able to live on one's OWN outside the womb". Does that simplify for the pro-lifers here the meaning of survival? There is a huge difference between a child that can be born alive and sustain life on its OWN, then receive treatment for a disease and live, say, a few hours or days or weeks or months - and one that when removed from the womb has no chance of survival ON ITS OWN, as with babies like Sam for whom there is no medical help. The only "survival" there, is the bit of life that is still in the baby FROM the mother's system. When that bit of life is used up, the baby stops breathing, the heart stops beating, and any other funtioning systems shut down on their own. The baby dies a peaceful and natural death.
You would make a good Roman. Birth em, then abandon them on the wall to die, and be eaten by wild beast.

reply from: ladybug

so WHY can you NOT wait until you have a natural birth????????? you're supposedly a Christian woman so I'm not even sure why this is an issue to you unless you completely dont trust God and his Own works. why are you fighting the natural life and death of a gift and lesson that has been given to you? Is the pain so unbearable of your daughter that she cannot even move? is she paralyzed??? even then i dont understand why its so imporant you go against everything you supposedly believe in... how do you defend this against your christian background, not medical?????

reply from: Lexxy

You know what? Forget it. I tried to debate you, never once resorted to ad hominem attacks, (a courtesy which was not returned, as can be seen in this thread in numerous places) and just tried to show you that while the decision to abort is difficult, it is necessary to keep it legal (which is directly linked to the OP's topic of discussion). You just can't accept that I admit a fetus is human, but that abortion must remain legal. I'm sorry, Faithwithoutworks... but I will have to respectfully agree to disagree, since most people here don't' seem to be willing to grasp that these two things are not mutually exclusive.
I had joined this forum after seeing posts by people like Shiprahagain and Jaysonsmom in various topics, who demonstrated concern about a woman and her choices and showed true compassion. To those individuals (especially Shiprahagain, who showed respect towards me despite our widely differing viewpoints) I thank you for engaging me and for teaching me more about the pro life position.
As for the rest of you, I think I learned all I need to know (and more) about your position. If you'll excuse me, I'll be turning off the computer and getting back to putting together protests against the GAP displays at my campus and ensuring that women can safely enter health clinics without being harassed, called Hitler, called murderers, being told they are going to hell, and being told they have blood on their hands. Laugh, make remarks and feel smug amongst yourselves that I am gone - but think about how it will look to potential pro lifers reading the forums that your "victory" came from calling me names and bullying me - rather strong tactics for those who are so convicted that they are in the right, no?
nykaren,
I applaud you for your courage in posting about your difficult situation here. I hope this all works out in the best possible way for you and your family. Sam will know he is loved in the short time he gets to spend with you. Your family will be in my thoughts and I wish you all the best.

reply from: nykaren

::::::::::No, what you sound like to me is young and idealistic and that is a good thing.::::::::::

reply from: ladybug

nykaren could you please reply to my previous post.. i really am curious about that issue

reply from: nykaren

But you have the right to force your choice of death on the child.
I would not have chosen or forced death on his child or anyone else's. That's preposterous. For Sam, the choice is not "death", either, as even some of the pro-lifers here have pointed out to you.

reply from: nykaren

Lexxy, It's nice to see a new voice speaking out here. You make a good point with your question about what other parents would do if it were their daughter. Would they use the same worn rhetoric and fierce righteous anger then as they do for my child? Perhaps they will say yes, they would, but unless they've been there, they can't know. At least I hope that is the case because I would hate to see any parent look away from a child's pain and need for medical care, even one who is 30 and married 10 years.
Some of what you've said here, I can't agree with, but I sure admire your way of getting your point across. I have trouble stating things in a way that will not be misconstrued and called lies. That's very frustrating.
I hope you keep posting. I'm enjoying hearing you share your thoughts.
Karen

reply from: nykaren

Ladybug, that may be what this is about for you, but it's certainly not an accurate assessment of what's happened with my daughter. As I mentioned, she was being denied medical care. You believe what she is going thru is simply "uncomfortable"? Do you spend most of 24 hours doubled over in pain for "uncomfortable"? And her child is "ill"? ILL??? Sam has a fatal disease, not a runny nose! As for your comment "and you have to know when you have sex...", let me tell you something. My daughter and her husband have had 5 miscarriages before my granddaughter was born and one since then (before Sam). You really have a lot of nerve saying what she should feel or "know". She's a much stronger and decent woman than you can ever hope to be.

reply from: nykaren

Okay, for the sake of those who have a problem understanding the simplest of terms - survival is indeed a matter of being able to live outside the womb. Will it make it easier for you if I say "able to live on one's OWN outside the womb". Does that simplify for the pro-lifers here the meaning of survival? There is a huge difference between a child that can be born alive and sustain life on its OWN, then receive treatment for a disease and live, say, a few hours or days or weeks or months - and one that when removed from the womb has no chance of survival ON ITS OWN, as with babies like Sam for whom there is no medical help. The only "survival" there, is the bit of life that is still in the baby FROM the mother's system. When that bit of life is used up, the baby stops breathing, the heart stops beating, and any other funtioning systems shut down on their own. The baby dies a peaceful and natural death.
You would make a good Roman. Birth em, then abandon them on the wall to die, and be eaten by wild beast.
Definitely. Yep. You read into my words whatever you like.

reply from: yoda

That's what it's all about for you, isn't it? All you want to debate is the personality of the various debaters, right? You really could care less about debating the issue of the killing of a healthy baby by a healthy mother for financial or social reasons, true? Well, of course it's true.... since to all proaborts there is no "baby" to be concerned about, just a "lump", right?
Without answering any of our objections to your positions? Hmm... okay, there are no proabort answers to our objections.
Here's a thought: When you go back to put together your "protests", why not include a protest against those awful folks who display pictures of dead, mutilated, bloody corpses of baby fur seals in Newfoundland?
Aren't you concerned about the "harassment" of those poor, innocent fur seal hunters who club the baby seals to death?

reply from: ladybug

Ladybug, that may be what this is about for you, but it's certainly not an accurate assessment of what's happened with my daughter. As I mentioned, she was being denied medical care. You believe what she is going thru is simply "uncomfortable"? Do you spend most of 24 hours doubled over in pain for "uncomfortable"? And her child is "ill"? ILL??? Sam has a fatal disease, not a runny nose! As for your comment "and you have to know when you have sex...", let me tell you something. My daughter and her husband have had 5 miscarriages before my granddaughter was born and one since then (before Sam). You really have a lot of nerve saying what she should feel or "know". She's a much stronger and decent woman than you can ever hope to be.
the point of that was not for you to pick through like you tell all of us that pick through your ramblings.. it was to point out that you are going against God's plan. My question that I want you to answer is how does your request to induce labor go with your Christian beliefs... is is Christian to you? is it not christian to you?
its not the details of the pain and fatal illness, its your request based on your beliefs that im concerned with

reply from: Shiprahagain

That is exactly right.
The difference is that one is wholly dependent upon another for survival, and the other is born.
If you believe that the unborn are potential life you must cite a scientific source.

reply from: Shiprahagain

A doctor backs up why our view that life begins at conception is right. http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html Let's put it this way, if when life begins is a question of belief, if I believe your life has not yet begun can I kill you?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Well, what if the conception was a result of rape? Intercourse was not intentional and neither was pregnancy. I realize that most pro lifers are against abortion even in these cases but for the sake of my argument (in comparison to forced organ donation) what do you say?
I addressed this in an earlier post.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Say for instance the world isn't friendly to single motherhood (which is less and less true with the scores of single women who elect to be single mothers.) Shouldn't the single mothers of born kids be able to kill their children too?

reply from: nykaren

Thanks, Lexxy. I hate to see you go, but your assessment of the treatment here is right on. They will twist your words and berate you and spew their venom at anyone who has the nerve to disagree. They will most likely delete this whole discussion, I can't imagine they'd want people seeing their true colors.
And an FYI to anyone who is interested, Sam was induced over the weekend. It was a normal delivery (someone, I've no idea who at the moment, posted about the terrible pain of induced delivery and I assure you that is not true at all). The medical staff where Sam was born were incredible and compassionate, and Hospice was with us every step of the way all day. Sam was 4 lb. 8-1/2 oz., 16-1/2 inches long and had the sweetest little cry. When his big sister sang to him, he responded with that cry, and I know she will cherish those moments. I was able to hold him for a few minutes. He has a lot of dark black hair and is adorable. His face was peaceful and he was not in pain. He lived for 63 minutes and his life was a blessing to all who met him during that short time. He died peacefully, in his mother's arms and with his family all gathered around.
Also, on induced delivery, it is a normal procedure and no more difficult than a spontaneous birth. Sam's big sister was induced at 40 weeks because my daughter had not gone into full labor then either.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I addressed this right in the post that you linked to - bottom line, I don't believe abortion should be made illegal because of the risk of sex selective abortion just yet. Fetal gender testing is not widely enough available to warrant making abortion illegal across the board where isn't it widely available?- and this doesn't even begin to address the fact that women will still seek abortions for sex selective purposes, regardless.really? cite this. Our society hast to change and value females as much as males for this to change... Already pointed out, sex selective abortion is often a cause of the devaluation of women and making abortion illegal would cause women to be valued.
Consider it illogical if you want, it doesn't make it less valid than your position
(ETA clarification)
Here's the thing -- you believe that women's bodily autonomy trumps all things until femicide gets too bad -- in other words, until something else you value trumps women's bodily autonomy. In other words, women's bodily autunomy is the most important thing until it conflicts with another social good YOU treasure.

reply from: ladybug

well im really happy that you got to spend time with your grandson.. i still would like to you know your position religiously which you have yet to address

reply from: Shiprahagain

That is completely different from what I said. My argument is based on the fact that a fetus is completely physically dependent upon its mothers organ systems (circular, digestive and waste among others) to survive, while a born child is not. If a mother and her born child die, they will not both die because the mother's organ systems stopped functioning for herself and the child, because the child has its own, independently functioning organ systems.
Nope. Abortion is legal all 9 months of pregnancy while babies have been known to survive outside the womb even earlier that 6 months into pregnancy.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'm glad you got to keep him for 63 minutes, and I'm sorry for your loss. I have to ask though, if you were able to induce him and spend time with him alive as the law is, what would be the purpose of changing it? As for the pain of inducing labor -- just like with any kind of labor, that varies woman to woman.

reply from: nykaren

Ladybug, that may be what this is about for you, but it's certainly not an accurate assessment of what's happened with my daughter. As I mentioned, she was being denied medical care. You believe what she is going thru is simply "uncomfortable"? Do you spend most of 24 hours doubled over in pain for "uncomfortable"? And her child is "ill"? ILL??? Sam has a fatal disease, not a runny nose! As for your comment "and you have to know when you have sex...", let me tell you something. My daughter and her husband have had 5 miscarriages before my granddaughter was born and one since then (before Sam). You really have a lot of nerve saying what she should feel or "know". She's a much stronger and decent woman than you can ever hope to be.
the point of that was not for you to pick through like you tell all of us that pick through your ramblings.. it was to point out that you are going against God's plan. My question that I want you to answer is how does your request to induce labor go with your Christian beliefs... is is Christian to you? is it not christian to you?
its not the details of the pain and fatal illness, its your request based on your beliefs that im concerned with
Oh, yes, of course!! What you said wasn't what you really meant? I responded to your comments and now you don't REALLY want to talk about that.
My Christian beliefs do not support abortion. I've said, what, maybe a thousand times, that I don't support abortion. What you fail to understand is that this was a medical situation. It was induced labor. It was not an abortion. The positions stated here to the contrary are "opinions" of what constitutes abortion. People have posted to this thread calling me filthy names. They have accused me of lying because of my wording of a few sentences. They have said I'm not a nice or decent person. Of course not! Heavens, I've disagreed with them and they know precisely what God Himself would say in any situation! How dare I question THEIR authority. You folks have set yourselves up as God. There is only black and white and it is defined by YOUR perimeters. Those of you who claim to be godly use Him as a copout for your flimsy logic and make up fairytale stories to prove points that without them are flimsy at best.
My relationship with God is fine, thank you. As I mentioned a time or two, a lot of prayer went into this situation, especially after people popped up calling it an abortion at the last minute before the procedure was to be done. And fyi, the assumption was made by some here that my daughter is a Christian because I am. No, she is not. Neither is her husband. But they are fine, upstanding people, wonderful parents, and would never dream of treating anyone the way they have been treated by the pro-life faction they've encountered during this ordeal.
The following is from an e-mail sent to me a few days ago by the head of NY state's PRO-LIFE Catholic movement:

"However, it does not sound like abortion is the proper medical procedure here, nor that abortion law should even be considered. Inducing labor and performing an abortion are two very different procedures, from both a moral perspective and a legal one. Normally, when labor is induced all efforts are made to help the child survive. In the case of abortion this is not true. From what you say, it seems that the possibility of Sam's survival would not really be any better taking him to full term as opposed to inducing labor now, and either way, I don't believe the Church -- or the law -- would find that objectionable."
Perhaps you folks should try coming out of the dark ages?
Karen

reply from: nykaren

The law was used to keep my daughter from being induced when doctors recommended it at 24 weeks. The law has put my daughter thru the hell of not only losing a child but being called a baby-killer, murderer, etc., by pro-life activists. Yes, she finally was induced, but only after changing hospitals, where the lawyer's assessment was that Roe vs. Wade overrules the NY state law and makes it unenforcable. However, as long as that NY law is on the books, it will be used against other women.
I understand what you're saying about labor. My point was that someone had made the comment that my daughter must really want to get rid of this baby if she would go thru the horrors of inducing. I did not want that comment to stand as true. It's just one more falsehood and scare tactic.
Thanks for your condolences.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Had you induced Sam at 24 weeks would he have lived more than an hour?
Oh, there's a reality show you might want to see if you can catch it. It's called Run's House and it's about the retired rapper/Christian reverend "Reverend Run" and his family. Anyways, on one episode he and his wife lose their baby after one hour b/c she was born with her organs on the outside of her body. Run decided to let the camera's follow the family through their greif to help others with similar losses. I think the Christian approach of that episode, as well as the wise advice Run gives his other children might be a comfort to you at this time and your family. You can find out more at mtv.com

reply from: yoda

"Most likely"? It hasn't happened before, so what makes you think you're so special?
Keep a stiff upper lip, and all that.... we aren't here to serve as an emotional support group for people who want to talk about killing babies. We're here to talk about what's wrong (or right, if you can come up with it) about killing those babies. This isn't about the emotional well-being of the posters here, it's about the slaughter of innocent little babies. Check the name on the door, and stop your whinning.
No big surprise there. The baby's dead (and felt no pain, according to you), and everyone except the baby will live happily ever after, right? That's how just about every proabort story with a "happy ending" does end, right?

reply from: yoda

Wow....... just wow...... three or four days of emotional turmoil and all you had to do was "change hospitals"???
My, oh my....... no wonder you're "no longer prolife"..... why, those awful prolifers FORCED you to change hospitals, didn't they???
How awful!!

reply from: faithman

"Most likely"? It hasn't happened before, so what makes you think you're so special?
Keep a stiff upper lip, and all that.... we aren't here to serve as an emotional support group for people who want to talk about killing babies. We're here to talk about what's wrong (or right, if you can come up with it) about killing those babies. This isn't about the emotional well-being of the posters here, it's about the slaughter of innocent little babies. Check the name on the door, and stop your whinning.
No big surprise there. The baby's dead (and felt no pain, according to you), and everyone except the baby will live happily ever after, right? That's how just about every proabort story with a "happy ending" does end, right?
Colors? What true colors? I am for womb gay rights, SSSSSOOOOO can I have pink? PPPLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!

reply from: MC3

Has anyone noticed that when I challenged LEXXY on her "the-fetus-is-potential-life" drivel, on her very next post she announced that she was fleeing the forum? Apparently, the rule that pro-choice lies and distortions are to be accepted without question is still in effect.
She ends her "I'm-outta'-here" post with the explanation that she is leaving because of name-calling and bullying. She is lying. Read my post (the one to which she was responding) and you will find that I did indeed ridicule her "potential-life" argument. After all, it is pretty laughable. However, you will find not one example of either name-calling or bullying. My conclusion is that, in LEXXY's little world, the rest of us are supposed to just accept her loopy arguments at face value.
I also think it is curious that NYKAREN was gone from the forum almost the entire time LEXXY was here, but reappeared the moment she left. Of course, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
In any event, LEXXY / NYKAREN / WHOEVER YOU ARE, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

reply from: nykaren

Wow....... just wow...... three or four days of emotional turmoil and all you had to do was "change hospitals"???
My, oh my....... no wonder you're "no longer prolife"..... why, those awful prolifers FORCED you to change hospitals, didn't they???
Three or four days? Where have you been???? Nope, we weren't forced by anyone to change hospitals, it just seemed like a good idea for my daughter to have necessary medical treatment after 2 months of being denied it. The suggestion actually came from Hospice. They are, if I'm not mistaken, pro-life?
How awful!!

reply from: nykaren

Obviously, I can't answer that any more than you can. I do believe that we had more time at 34 weeks than we'd have had at 40. Thanks for that info, I will check it out.

reply from: nykaren

Ladybug, that may be what this is about for you, but it's certainly not an accurate assessment of what's happened with my daughter. As I mentioned, she was being denied medical care. You believe what she is going thru is simply "uncomfortable"? Do you spend most of 24 hours doubled over in pain for "uncomfortable"? And her child is "ill"? ILL??? Sam has a fatal disease, not a runny nose! As for your comment "and you have to know when you have sex...", let me tell you something. My daughter and her husband have had 5 miscarriages before my granddaughter was born and one since then (before Sam). You really have a lot of nerve saying what she should feel or "know". She's a much stronger and decent woman than you can ever hope to be.
In order for emotional appeals to be effective, you must have a modicum of credibility. Needless to say, your attempts to appeal to the emotions of readers should have little or no effect at this point.
The same might be said for you.

reply from: nykaren

Thanks, Lexxy. I hate to see you go, but your assessment of the treatment here is right on. They will twist your words and berate you and spew their venom at anyone who has the nerve to disagree. They will most likely delete this whole discussion, I can't imagine they'd want people seeing their true colors.
And an FYI to anyone who is interested, Sam was induced over the weekend. It was a normal delivery (someone, I've no idea who at the moment, posted about the terrible pain of induced delivery and I assure you that is not true at all). The medical staff where Sam was born were incredible and compassionate, and Hospice was with us every step of the way all day. Sam was 4 lb. 8-1/2 oz., 16-1/2 inches long and had the sweetest little cry. When his big sister sang to him, he responded with that cry, and I know she will cherish those moments. I was able to hold him for a few minutes. He has a lot of dark black hair and is adorable. His face was peaceful and he was not in pain. He lived for 63 minutes and his life was a blessing to all who met him during that short time. He died peacefully, in his mother's arms and with his family all gathered around.
Also, on induced delivery, it is a normal procedure and no more difficult than a spontaneous birth. Sam's big sister was induced at 40 weeks because my daughter had not gone into full labor then either.
Wow, good thing you don't have any credibility left to lose! You said the whole point of your post was to encourage change in the law that would allow your daughter to have labor induced, now you are saying it was done, even though the law you objected to would not allow it!
Also, induced labor at term is not the same as inducing labor prematurely. Induced labor abortions are indeed more difficult for both the mother and child than carrying the pregnancy to term, and inducing labor prematurely in order to abort a pregnancy is certainly not a "normal" procedure. I suspect you are attempting to intentionally mislead readers.
Gee, your compassion and condolences are so much appreciated.
If you have read all of what I've posted here, you will see that lawyers interpret the laws in different ways. And no, I am not misleading anyone. I've just come from watching my daughter going thru induced labor at 34 weeks, and inducing labor is quite normal and I can say from what she has told me that it was painful, of course, but not anything more than she experienced when induced at full-term.

reply from: ladybug

ok.. once again ill ask the question because YOU dont seem to understand what I'm asking.... plain and simple in inducing labor for your daughters benefit.... does that coincide with your beliefs or not.. you read way too much into questions. Do your religious beliefs support the induction in labor or not?

reply from: nykaren

YES. What don't you understand, sweetie? Because this is a medical situation and is NOT an abortion (have I mentioned that before?), my religious beliefs support it totally. Is that beyond your comprehension?? Try reading it v-e-r-y
s-l-o-w-l-y.......

reply from: nykaren

Of course, you can say anything. In your case, however, such a claim would be easily substantiated by your own contradictions, as well as the many posters who have made it clear they are aware of them. Don't be fooled by the diehards who continue to address you congenially as if they were affording you the "benefit of the doubt." Few on this forum are actually buying your story at this point.
Whether you buy my story or not is of no concern whatsoever to me. Facts are facts. Your stupidity does not change them.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Obviously, I can't answer that any more than you can. I do believe that we had more time at 34 weeks than we'd have had at 40. Thanks for that info, I will check it out.
Forgive me for being persistent, but I'm really trying to understand. Did a medical doctor tell you that you would have had more time at 34 weeks or is this just your belief? If it's just your belief, I don't see why the law would need to be changed.

reply from: nykaren

Obviously, I can't answer that any more than you can. I do believe that we had more time at 34 weeks than we'd have had at 40. Thanks for that info, I will check it out.
Forgive me for being persistent, but I'm really trying to understand. Did a medical doctor tell you that you would have had more time at 34 weeks or is this just your belief? If it's just your belief, I don't see why the law would need to be changed.
Yes, medical doctors at both hospitals told us that the sooner Sam was delivered, the more chance we would have of time with him alive outside the womb. The doctors ALL were in favor of inducing because of that and the pain my daughter was in.

reply from: nykaren

Of course, you can say anything. In your case, however, such a claim would be easily substantiated by your own contradictions, as well as the many posters who have made it clear they are aware of them. Don't be fooled by the diehards who continue to address you congenially as if they were affording you the "benefit of the doubt." Few on this forum are actually buying your story at this point.
Whether you buy my story or not is of no concern whatsoever to me. Facts are facts. Your stupidity does not change them.
LOL, if you keep losing your cool and attempting to insult me, you risk losing even the sympathy you might have gained by presenting yourself as a poor victim of abuse at the hands of the "evil pro-lifers."
LOL. Hey, you're human. Why is it that stating facts make me a "poor victim"? I certainly don't see myself as that. My daughter doesn't see herself as that either. I'm sorry you do. Part of the problem with a forum such as this is that none of us can SEE where the other is coming from. Words on paper are inadequate.

reply from: nykaren

Obviously, I can't answer that any more than you can. I do believe that we had more time at 34 weeks than we'd have had at 40. Thanks for that info, I will check it out.
Forgive me for being persistent, but I'm really trying to understand. Did a medical doctor tell you that you would have had more time at 34 weeks or is this just your belief? If it's just your belief, I don't see why the law would need to be changed.
Yes, medical doctors at both hospitals told us that the sooner Sam was delivered, the more chance we would have of time with him alive outside the womb. The doctors ALL were in favor of inducing because of that and the pain my daughter was in.
Right. Are these the same doctors who told you "Sam" had "0% chance of survival" and that "the outcome will be the same regardless of when 'Sam' is delivered?" (obviously implying that "Sam" would be stillborn whether labor was induced or not)
That was NOT obviously implying that Sam would be stillborn. Those are your words, an inaccurate assumption. You saw what you wanted to see and attacked. As I've explained numerous times, they were saying that Sam had a fatal disease and could not live on his own outside the womb. Another example of my words being twisted by your interpretations. As I've stated repeatedly, the doctors said we had more chance of having him born alive if he were delivered early. Did you miss that?? These doctors all knew he would die shortly after birth. They wanted my daughter and her family to have the joy of having a live baby, if only for a few minutes. And YOU would deny them that. WHY would you not want us to have that? What is there that would make you respond so cruelly to the desires of a mother and father to meet a child who would die soon after birth? As it turned out, he met his family and was surrounded by love, and passed away in the arms of loved ones. I've made it plain that I'm against frivolous abortions, but yet you feel the need to play God and decide what would have been best for Sam and his parents and sister. This was induced labor and not an abortion. Did you read what I posted from the head of NY's pro-life Catholic organization? Hey, why don't you just change your name from "concerned parent" to "GOD ALMIGHTY"?

reply from: faithman

Obviously, I can't answer that any more than you can. I do believe that we had more time at 34 weeks than we'd have had at 40. Thanks for that info, I will check it out.
Forgive me for being persistent, but I'm really trying to understand. Did a medical doctor tell you that you would have had more time at 34 weeks or is this just your belief? If it's just your belief, I don't see why the law would need to be changed.
Yes, medical doctors at both hospitals told us that the sooner Sam was delivered, the more chance we would have of time with him alive outside the womb. The doctors ALL were in favor of inducing because of that and the pain my daughter was in.
Right. Are these the same doctors who told you "Sam" had "0% chance of survival" and that "the outcome will be the same regardless of when 'Sam' is delivered?" (obviously implying that "Sam" would be stillborn whether labor was induced or not)
That was NOT obviously implying that Sam would be stillborn. Those are your words, an inaccurate assumption. You saw what you wanted to see and attacked. As I've explained numerous times, they were saying that Sam had a fatal disease and could not live on his own outside the womb. Another example of my words being twisted by your interpretations. As I've stated repeatedly, the doctors said we had more chance of having him born alive if he were delivered early. Did you miss that?? These doctors all knew he would die shortly after birth. They wanted my daughter and her family to have the joy of having a live baby, if only for a few minutes. And YOU would deny them that. WHY would you not want us to have that? What is there that would make you respond so cruelly to the desires of a mother and father to meet a child who would die soon after birth? As it turned out, he met his family and was surrounded by love, and passed away in the arms of loved ones. I've made it plain that I'm against frivolous abortions, but yet you feel the need to play God and decide what would have been best for Sam and his parents and sister. This was induced labor and not an abortion. Did you read what I posted from the head of NY's pro-life Catholic organization? Hey, why don't you just change your name from "concerned parent" to "GOD ALMIGHTY"?
So you are going to make room for CP at the god trough? The way you talk, you are the only one who has the smarts to play god.

reply from: nykaren

Obviously, I can't answer that any more than you can. I do believe that we had more time at 34 weeks than we'd have had at 40. Thanks for that info, I will check it out.
Forgive me for being persistent, but I'm really trying to understand. Did a medical doctor tell you that you would have had more time at 34 weeks or is this just your belief? If it's just your belief, I don't see why the law would need to be changed.
Yes, medical doctors at both hospitals told us that the sooner Sam was delivered, the more chance we would have of time with him alive outside the womb. The doctors ALL were in favor of inducing because of that and the pain my daughter was in.
Right. Are these the same doctors who told you "Sam" had "0% chance of survival" and that "the outcome will be the same regardless of when 'Sam' is delivered?" (obviously implying that "Sam" would be stillborn whether labor was induced or not)
That was NOT obviously implying that Sam would be stillborn. Those are your words, an inaccurate assumption. You saw what you wanted to see and attacked. As I've explained numerous times, they were saying that Sam had a fatal disease and could not live on his own outside the womb. Another example of my words being twisted by your interpretations. As I've stated repeatedly, the doctors said we had more chance of having him born alive if he were delivered early. Did you miss that?? These doctors all knew he would die shortly after birth. They wanted my daughter and her family to have the joy of having a live baby, if only for a few minutes. And YOU would deny them that. WHY would you not want us to have that? What is there that would make you respond so cruelly to the desires of a mother and father to meet a child who would die soon after birth? As it turned out, he met his family and was surrounded by love, and passed away in the arms of loved ones. I've made it plain that I'm against frivolous abortions, but yet you feel the need to play God and decide what would have been best for Sam and his parents and sister. This was induced labor and not an abortion. Did you read what I posted from the head of NY's pro-life Catholic organization? Hey, why don't you just change your name from "concerned parent" to "GOD ALMIGHTY"?
So you are going to make room for CP at the god trough? The way you talk, you are the only one who has the smarts to play god.
Nope, I've never been into playing God, faithman. Just being a wife and mom and grandma. I don't have any right to play God, and neither do you. And there's a huge difference between smarts and the wisdom that comes through the years and by being a mature Christian.

reply from: 4given

Okay.. a "mature Christian" would reflect that in their faith in God alone.. I don't want to judge. I struggle w/ that.. I am actually a compassionate and loving person, but also strong in my belief in God and His teachings. The book of Revelations speaks of the end days and the "murdering of the fruit of the womb" That frightens me! Also that you claim to be a follower of Christ and His teachings, and still choose to not be pro- the-life God has given! That is my problem with you. You can't just decide in an instance or over time that not being pro-life is just okay with you. That defines you! Whether or not you can support the pro-life movement or not, how can you submerge your wandering mind in the squalor of the beast? Abortion isn't what God has ordained.. You know that if you ever truly believed in Him and His teachings.. and if you ever truly were pro-life. I know you must be exhausted as I am w/ this arguement. I guess I am saying a "mature Christian" would not be on the sidelines, thus be included w/ those that have ill-respect for the precious God-given life.. You can not be a follower of Christ and abort or support the slaughter of His own. You would know that if you served God and had a relationship- a personal relationship w/ Him. Ask Him to guide you into His way.. ask Him for His thoughts on abortion. He will reveal it to you. Then join us in the center of a much needed womb-child revolution! We need our country back.. My children need to have a future! It is a soul sacrifice here. It is who you are before a Living God that matters. Just please ask Him to guide you into His intentions and will for your life.. Before you question someone else's relationship w/ God, take a look at yourself.. We all, as Christians need to strive daily to be as He wants us to be, and I apologize if my passion for the innocent has left you feeling uncomfortable.. but again I know God called me to be a voice for the unborn, and I am still human... but I love and serve God and thusfore desire to fight for Him and for righteousness sake. I pray you will come to that realization as well..

reply from: faithman

Obviously, I can't answer that any more than you can. I do believe that we had more time at 34 weeks than we'd have had at 40. Thanks for that info, I will check it out.
Forgive me for being persistent, but I'm really trying to understand. Did a medical doctor tell you that you would have had more time at 34 weeks or is this just your belief? If it's just your belief, I don't see why the law would need to be changed.
Yes, medical doctors at both hospitals told us that the sooner Sam was delivered, the more chance we would have of time with him alive outside the womb. The doctors ALL were in favor of inducing because of that and the pain my daughter was in.
Right. Are these the same doctors who told you "Sam" had "0% chance of survival" and that "the outcome will be the same regardless of when 'Sam' is delivered?" (obviously implying that "Sam" would be stillborn whether labor was induced or not)
That was NOT obviously implying that Sam would be stillborn. Those are your words, an inaccurate assumption. You saw what you wanted to see and attacked. As I've explained numerous times, they were saying that Sam had a fatal disease and could not live on his own outside the womb. Another example of my words being twisted by your interpretations. As I've stated repeatedly, the doctors said we had more chance of having him born alive if he were delivered early. Did you miss that?? These doctors all knew he would die shortly after birth. They wanted my daughter and her family to have the joy of having a live baby, if only for a few minutes. And YOU would deny them that. WHY would you not want us to have that? What is there that would make you respond so cruelly to the desires of a mother and father to meet a child who would die soon after birth? As it turned out, he met his family and was surrounded by love, and passed away in the arms of loved ones. I've made it plain that I'm against frivolous abortions, but yet you feel the need to play God and decide what would have been best for Sam and his parents and sister. This was induced labor and not an abortion. Did you read what I posted from the head of NY's pro-life Catholic organization? Hey, why don't you just change your name from "concerned parent" to "GOD ALMIGHTY"?
So you are going to make room for CP at the god trough? The way you talk, you are the only one who has the smarts to play god.
Nope, I've never been into playing God, faithman. Just being a wife and mom and grandma. I don't have any right to play God, and neither do you. And there's a huge difference between smarts and the wisdom that comes through the years and by being a mature Christian.
So how did you avoid all the wisdom and become a death skank? Where does a mature christian find permission to destroy the pre-born image of Christ? From what I can see, you are neither wise or a christian.

reply from: nykaren

It is, I might remind you, my relationship with God that has been under attack here. I love and serve God also, but do not believe what my daughter did is an abortion. I KNOW it was not. God has given me peace of mind on that. But yet I am attacked here, called names, called a liar, and so on. Can't you understand I am not for abortion?? I am a loving and compassionate person also. I am at peace with the decision that brought Sam into this world early and allowed him a natural passing into the arms of Jesus. If I were on the sidelines, would I have come here? Can't you see that this law needs to be changed? My daughter was being denied medical treatment while other women were being allowed to abort in the first and second trimester for whatever reasons. No restictions on them whatsoever. My daughter, in a heartbeat, would take one of those babies. I do NOT want abortion on demand but I DO want protection for those cases where there is no hope for a child, and the mother is in excruciating physical pain.

reply from: nykaren

Obviously, I can't answer that any more than you can. I do believe that we had more time at 34 weeks than we'd have had at 40. Thanks for that info, I will check it out.
Forgive me for being persistent, but I'm really trying to understand. Did a medical doctor tell you that you would have had more time at 34 weeks or is this just your belief? If it's just your belief, I don't see why the law would need to be changed.
Yes, medical doctors at both hospitals told us that the sooner Sam was delivered, the more chance we would have of time with him alive outside the womb. The doctors ALL were in favor of inducing because of that and the pain my daughter was in.
Right. Are these the same doctors who told you "Sam" had "0% chance of survival" and that "the outcome will be the same regardless of when 'Sam' is delivered?" (obviously implying that "Sam" would be stillborn whether labor was induced or not)
That was NOT obviously implying that Sam would be stillborn. Those are your words, an inaccurate assumption. You saw what you wanted to see and attacked. As I've explained numerous times, they were saying that Sam had a fatal disease and could not live on his own outside the womb. Another example of my words being twisted by your interpretations. As I've stated repeatedly, the doctors said we had more chance of having him born alive if he were delivered early. Did you miss that?? These doctors all knew he would die shortly after birth. They wanted my daughter and her family to have the joy of having a live baby, if only for a few minutes. And YOU would deny them that. WHY would you not want us to have that? What is there that would make you respond so cruelly to the desires of a mother and father to meet a child who would die soon after birth? As it turned out, he met his family and was surrounded by love, and passed away in the arms of loved ones. I've made it plain that I'm against frivolous abortions, but yet you feel the need to play God and decide what would have been best for Sam and his parents and sister. This was induced labor and not an abortion. Did you read what I posted from the head of NY's pro-life Catholic organization? Hey, why don't you just change your name from "concerned parent" to "GOD ALMIGHTY"?
So you are going to make room for CP at the god trough? The way you talk, you are the only one who has the smarts to play god.
Nope, I've never been into playing God, faithman. Just being a wife and mom and grandma. I don't have any right to play God, and neither do you. And there's a huge difference between smarts and the wisdom that comes through the years and by being a mature Christian.
So how did you avoid all the wisdom and become a death skank? Where does a mature christian find permission to destroy the pre-born image of Christ? From what I can see, you are neither wise or a christian.
Well, your ignorance and judgemental attitude is your problem, sir, not mine. I pity you and would not want to be you when we stand before God in judgement.

reply from: faithman

Gotta give it to ya. You got a lot of grit to talk about God's judgment, and then advocate the destruction of His preborn image. A pro-death skank evoking God's judgment. Snicker snicker. Gotta love it.

reply from: nykaren

Can you honestly be so ignorant to say that I advocate abortion at this point?

reply from: faithman

Can you honestly be so ignorant to say that I advocate abortion at this point?
Well, you know how thick headed us pro-lifers are. We believe in saving babies, and exposing death skank she wolves in sheeps wool. You started this mess with the statement that you are pro-choice. Prochoice means you advocate abortion, even for the little womb gays that will never wear pink because of evil people like you.

reply from: 4given

Can you honestly be so ignorant to say that I advocate abortion at this point?
Well, you know how thick headed us pro-lifers are. We believe in saving babies, and exposing death skank she wolves in sheeps wool. You started this mess with the statement that you are pro-choice. Prochoice means you advocate abortion, even for the little womb gays that will never wear pink because of evil people like you.
Faithman! Pink is a color.. I might have to take you or anyone else out that implied my child was gay because of a color.. I am sure you would look handsome in pink.. it is popular on the golf course.. I can't get my boys to wear it though! Why are boys afraid of pink? Do you have something to do w/ that?

reply from: nykaren

Can you honestly be so ignorant to say that I advocate abortion at this point?
Well, you know how thick headed us pro-lifers are. We believe in saving babies, and exposing death skank she wolves in sheeps wool. You started this mess with the statement that you are pro-choice. Prochoice means you advocate abortion, even for the little womb gays that will never wear pink because of evil people like you.
I never made such a statement. And nah, thick-headed doesn't do you justice, faithman. You're way past that. And much as I'm enjoying your idiotic chatter, sweetie, it's past midnight here in NY and I have a busy day tomorrow. Maybe before I log on again, you'll figure out the answer to whether Jesus loves gays. Probably not, but I'll check in a day or two and see.

reply from: faithman

Can you honestly be so ignorant to say that I advocate abortion at this point?
Well, you know how thick headed us pro-lifers are. We believe in saving babies, and exposing death skank she wolves in sheeps wool. You started this mess with the statement that you are pro-choice. Prochoice means you advocate abortion, even for the little womb gays that will never wear pink because of evil people like you.
Faithman! Pink is a color.. I might have to take you or anyone else out that implied my child was gay because of a color.. I am sure you would look handsome in pink.. it is popular on the golf course.. I can't get my boys to wear it though! Why are boys afraid of pink? Do you have something to do w/ that?
I love pink, and wear it all the time. It goes along with womb gay rights too.

reply from: faithman

Can you honestly be so ignorant to say that I advocate abortion at this point?
Well, you know how thick headed us pro-lifers are. We believe in saving babies, and exposing death skank she wolves in sheeps wool. You started this mess with the statement that you are pro-choice. Prochoice means you advocate abortion, even for the little womb gays that will never wear pink because of evil people like you.
I never made such a statement. And nah, thick-headed doesn't do you justice, faithman. You're way past that. And much as I'm enjoying your idiotic chatter, sweetie, it's past midnight here in NY and I have a busy day tomorrow. Maybe before I log on again, you'll figure out the answer to whether Jesus loves gays. Probably not, but I'll check in a day or two and see.
Jesus has a love for them, but just like all sinners, the wrath of God abides on them until they repent. You really need to repent of the skankdom you have stunk this thread up with before you close your eyes for the last time and meet God face to face.

reply from: 4given

You really need to repent of the skankdom you have stunk this thread up with before you close your eyes for the last time and meet God face to face.
You may want to take some romancing classes.. that is what you say after the 2nd date! Or is it the 3rd.. I don't remember.. This thread has fueled her agenda, huh? I am tired of it! And Lexxy.. her tea-party pal.. Let's move on! Please!.. Oh, am I being rude again?

reply from: JaysonsMom

These threads are becoming ridiculous and very childish.

reply from: MC3

To: LEXXY / NYKAREN / WHOEVER YOU ARE:
I became a Christian at age 12 and am now approaching 60. My question is: how mature do I have to get until I achieve the "smarts and the wisdom that comes through the years" you describe? It seems like almost 50 years ought to be long enough. I guess that, somehow, I missed the part where being a "mature Christian" means defending the legalized mass extermination of defenseless children.
Let's recap.
You came on this forum and tried to pass yourself off as a "former pro-lifer" who had seen the error of her ways. As justification for this supposed enlightenment, you tell us this tragic story of your daughter's troubled pregnancy and how we cruel and heartless pro-lifers were contributing to her pain. Meanwhile, even though we have no way of knowing whether this yarn is true or not, it was not hard to figure out that your story about once being pro-life was a complete fabrication. That certainly casts real doubt on the "troubled pregnancy and baby Sam" saga.
After being exposed as a liar, you next take on this condescending wiser-and-smarter-than-thou attitude and suggest that the rest of us would be baby-killers too if we were simply as mature a Christian as you. Then, in a pathetic attempt to back up your story, you tell us about a response you claim to have gotten from, in your own words, the head of "New York state's pro-life Catholic movement." The problem is, no such organization exists.
Oops.
Look, let's just cut to the chase here.
Regarding this "mature Christian" nonsense, I have no idea how mature you are and no interest in finding out. What I do know is that you are pro-choice which, by definition, means you cannot be a Christian.
Among several concepts that are fundamental to Christian doctrine are that (a) God is the author of life and (b) He is incapable of making mistakes. From those beliefs, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that when life exists in the womb, it is God's will that it be there. Given that support for legal abortion denies both of these realities, by definition, it is incompatible with Christian belief.
People who claim to be both pro-choice and Christian are, basically, asserting three things. The first is that life is not a right inherited from God but a privilege bestowed by human beings who can withhold it if they "choose" to do so. The second is that God is neutral on whether a child He created is brutally torn limb from limb. Finally, they are saying it is possible to reject the innocent new lives which God creates without rejecting God Himself. From a Christian perspective, these arguments are absurd.

The bottom line is, a Christian cannot be pro-choice about the intentional destruction of innocent human life any more than they can be pro-choice about rape, robbery, slavery, incest, child abuse, etc.
Like your claim to be pro-life, your claim to be a Christian is a fraud.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

NYKAREN
the fact you are talking about a baby Living outside the womb independantly being so important shows the abortion mentality you hold, since that is exactly what the pro-aborts argue.
Birthing Sam Prematurely kills sam sooner.
Clear enough?
Sam is ALIVE in the womb. Where God has him and wants him.
Since you won't listen to reason I will just be blunt.
I love you in the way my God says I should, and you are his child. But so is sam, and you are killing sam. In that way I have no respect for you, the blood of your grandchild is on your hands and I am sorry for you.
Your intentions are emotional and selfish.
Sam is alive in the womb, you want to deprive him of that life to have a few minutes with him outside the womb, hence depriving him of months of life.
I'm glad you got to see him..but imagine when you will see that face on judgement day.
Who knows,I'm not God, Maybe God won't hold this situation too harshly, maybe HE will. Either way He probably will bring it up and sam will be right there..
and you STILL (which is common of you) haven't responded to my other posts from way back around page 11 or 12, I was hoping you were just behind and not intentionally ignoring them...

reply from: faithman

How can one say they love the Lord Jesus Christ, then turn around and advocate the destruction of His pre-born image? Am I the only one who sees a conflict of interest here?

reply from: faithman

You may want to take some romancing classes.. that is what you say after the 2nd date! Or is it the 3rd.. I don't remember.. This thread has fueled her agenda, huh? I am tired of it! And Lexxy.. her tea-party pal.. Let's move on! Please!.. Oh, am I being rude again?
Apropiatly so. Rude is too kind for bortheads. A wall and a blind fold works for me.

reply from: yoda

Aren't you a little "color confused"? Isn't purple the "gay color"? Wasn't the purple Tele-tubby gay?

reply from: yoda

Beats me, I have no idea what their views are. So, how did you find your blanket condemnation of the entire "prolife movement" if that's how it went down?

reply from: yoda

Odd timing, all right.... she spewed out a whole laundry list of proabort lies, and then flew the coop when challenged on all of them. Sort of a "hit and run" attack, I guess...... I'm still waiting for a link to a source that describes a "potential human being"....... must be some sort of metaphysical creature, I suppose.

reply from: yoda

Not only that, some posters are taking up nearly a whole page because they are too lazy to cut and paste their posts, and are posting many, many lines of "air" between quotes.... I just scroll past such obscenities.

reply from: ladybug

YES. What don't you understand, sweetie? Because this is a medical situation and is NOT an abortion (have I mentioned that before?), my religious beliefs support it totally. Is that beyond your comprehension?? Try reading it v-e-r-y
s-l-o-w-l-y.......
dont call me sweetie, im not your child, thats very rude. I didn't say it was an abortion. Ok, I'll try to put this into perspective for you: in my CHRISTIAN beliefs... I am against in your situation inducing labor early. God obviously had a plan for that child. I would have accepted the fact that unfortunately he was only put on this earth for a small time to teach me something and for whatever reason he couldn't stay but had to go back Home. Therefore, I would have cherished every minute I had with my child up until the NATURAL birth of a child I knew couldn't stay. If God had wanted her to have the baby before the full term...it would have happened, naturally. I really think you need to talk to God and even though He is someone to be feared He is forgiving and that little Sam of yours knew he wasn't going to be here very long. He sacrificed himself for some reason and I really hope you and your family can find out why.... maybe it was to be closer to God... it seems as if you may have fallen away. Im not trying to be judgemental, but you keep saying everyone is rude to you whereas you are just the same. You are not courtesy at all and treat all of us as if we are your children. Its not appreciated and wish that you could speak with us instead of at us. I have really been trying to figure out what God might be trying to teach you in this situation and the only thing I can think of is faith in his Works and patience with him.... you have had neither. at least not as much as you could have had. You didn't give your whole self to Him and maybe the next tribulation in your life will lead you differently. I know that you still love him, hopefully, and hope maybe your daughter can find Him as well. Its not too late for you to show her and her husband His ways. Maybe that was the meaning of this tragedy in your lives... but you'll never know unless you try.

reply from: nykaren

I was off-line for 2 days and I don't know what questions you are referring to. Most of what was here when I came back was directed at Lexxy. If you'd like to repeat your questions and they are actually questions I haven't answered already, I will answer them when I get time.
I have no fear of judgement day, but I'd sure like to be around when you get yours. And knowing I will spend eternity with that precious child and the babies my daughter miscarried gives me joy even now. God is in control of what has happened with Sam and has been since day one. Of course, you don't agree, but that doesn't matter.

reply from: ladybug

By the way... you keep saying you didn't condone or induce your daughters pregnancy as an abortion... how far along was she though? I know she wasn't 63 min away from her due date... therefore sam died early.. therefore an abortion. you killed a child early. before his time... that is how that is defined as an abortion. and actually if you want to get technical.. you killed him outside the womb, so we could consider this outright murder if we wanted, but that's a little harsh. also..
*~*~*~*~*****you keep arguing she didn't have an abortion!!!! then... why did you put "former pro-lifer"****~*~*~*~ <-------- answer that last question specifically please, i dont want to have to repeat myself 3 times like previously.

reply from: faithman

Aren't you a little "color confused"? Isn't purple the "gay color"? Wasn't the purple Tele-tubby gay?
When you mix pink with blue you get purple.

reply from: nykaren

Beats me, I have no idea what their views are. So, how did you find your blanket condemnation of the entire "prolife movement" if that's how it went down?
I have stated clearly and repeatedly my views on abortion. My "condemnation", as you call it, is of the black and white view of the issue that can't see the difference between abortion and inducement for medical reasons.
And I notice there is no problem with anyone here with mis-statements that YOU make, such as the one about my daughter suffering for 2 or 3 days. An outright lie by you, and not a peep out of anyone, or an apology from you.

reply from: faithman

Notice how death skanks tell so many lies that they can not keep up with them? SSSOOO now that they killed the child, we are suposed to feel all sorry for them. I don't feel sorry for ya skank, I feel that you are sorry. A sorry excuse for womanhood, and humanity. You want to advocate the distruction of a child, then accuse us of being cruel? What a farce.

reply from: nykaren

Lexxy, I believe, identified herself as an atheist. You are wrong on several other counts as usual. I am a Christian and you certainly are in no position to say I'm not. Your position is one of hatred and judgement. Worry about you own eternal fate, sir. I know mine.

reply from: ladybug

then what are you..catholic, baptist, non denominational? please once again answer this question: if you are a "former prolifer" that means you are prochoice... but if your daughter didn't have an abortion, then why are you "formerly prolife"

reply from: Shiprahagain

Lexxy, here's what I don't get. How could Sam have survived for 63 min outside the womb if induced at 34 wks when many babies can't survive outside the womb at all at that age? Also, if all ppl in your situation have to do is change hospitals, then why does the law need to be changed -- as is the prolife ppl can change hospitals and the abortion ppl are still prohibited. Thirdly, is this really the best way to handle your greif? Why be on the forum instead of cuddling your grandaughter or being with your sona and daughter-in-law?

reply from: faithman

Lexxy, I believe, identified herself as an atheist. You are wrong on several other counts as usual. I am a Christian and you certainly are in no position to say I'm not. Your position is one of hatred and judgement. Worry about you own eternal fate, sir. I know mine.
You are christian in name only skank. How in the world can you call yourself christian, then advocate the destruction of His pre-born image? When you advocate death, then eternal life is not in you. You are a pro-abort punk mouthed death skank, and you are not fooling anyone here but yourself. You are a sorry dispicable human being. You deserve nothing but disdain and contempt.

reply from: nykaren

I am a non-denominational Christian.
No that does not mean I am pro-choice. It is not, as you believe, a black and white issue. I cannot totally support either side. I've stated my position over and over on that.
And again, the inducement of Sam was denied for 10 weeks by a law that is sometimes used to prevent medical procedures. It needs to be changed. The pro-life agenda, as I've seen it here and elsewhere, is by a huge percentage opposed to that change. I said long ago here, if a pro-life bill is introduced that will protect babies from frivolous abortions and also give women in situations such as my daughter's, needed medical care under guidelines included to prevent abuse of that provision, it would be a good law. I've not seen any indication of that being an option from a pro-life standpoint.

reply from: faithman

I am a non-denominational Christian.
No that does not mean I am pro-choice. It is not, as you believe, a black and white issue. I cannot totally support either side. I've stated my position over and over on that.
And again, the inducement of Sam was denied for 10 weeks by a law that is sometimes used to prevent medical procedures. It needs to be changed. The pro-life agenda, as I've seen it here and elsewhere, is by a huge percentage opposed to that change. I said long ago here, if a pro-life bill is introduced that will protect babies from frivolous abortions and also give women in situations such as my daughter's, needed medical care under guidelines included to prevent abuse of that provision, it would be a good law. I've not seen any indication of that being an option from a pro-life standpoint.
That is because you have death skank scales on your eyes. You use the old pro abortion tactic of "hard case" stories to justify killing children. Go back to planned Parenthood. They accept death skank false christians.

reply from: ladybug

figures... thought you were nondenominationl. that's explains why your daughter's not christian. not putting a stance on you, but when was the last time you heard of a catholic family with an aetheist kid?
if you are not for complete and total LIFE among babies, then you are for the choice whether they are killed or not. you cannot be both. IF you were prolife previously as you have stated, you would know that. If you disagree with some of the laws advocated my prolifers, you should understand that in trying to bar those laws, they open a gateway into allowing so many other abortions. The prolife movement is about taking baby steps.. (hmm, how ironic?).... to saving every child possible. If the law you are trying to get rid of is a stair step to getting rid of other proCHOICE laws.. then it needs and HAS to stay. Everything has a domino effect. That why the drug laws in the nation are so ridiculous yet the lawmakers feel the need to keep them enforced. You know you spend more time in jail for getting caught smoking pot/having it on you then if you were to assault/kill someone????? but the lawmakers feel that if they allow even a weeks worth of pot on someone it will lead to more and more drug trafficing. see how this works??? even if we allow the smallest amount of abortions, it will turn into what it is now, slaughter. have you ever heard of "if someone takes an inch, they'll take a mile?"

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hey now -- I'm non-denominational And there are a LOT of ppl raised Catholic who completely turn from God.

reply from: Adia

Hey that's a sad way to think!! All non-denominational are not alike. In fact many non-denominational were once Catholics.

reply from: ladybug

not all. im sorry... i just.... its really frustrating to hear karen say she's christian, and she's not prochoice... and talk the talk.. but then everything she is arguing for is NOT christian at all.... I have read almost all of your posts and they are inspiring to say the least but it is frustrating to hear her speak like that. Almost as if your friend has turned their back on you. Being a Christian isn't just a label, its a community of people who have come together because of their beliefs... Not all Christians believe the exact same, but that is the basis. IT is as if Karen has turned her back on us, yet still wants to be a part of "the group"

reply from: 4given

Likewise I am as well. (A non-denominational Christian)It is about a personal relationship w/ God. All of my siblings (13 of us in all) were reared in a Christian home by God-fearing, God-loving Christian parents.. every family has their struggles.. 2 of my brothers are drug addicted, my 1/2 sister lost custody of 3 of her children because of her unGodly ways, My brother has been in and out of prison for the last 7 years.. even on parole now, he is high on heroin everyday. I guess my point is such.. It is a personal choice. Granted children have a much lower risk I think of falling into a life of sin, destruction and poor choices if they have been reared in a Christian home or a home that promotes morals and the preservation of innocent life! A Christian however would never support abortion. It is against God and His teachings.

reply from: Adia

don't feel fustrated.........ever one does what karen does. When I look at myself I do some things that are not so christian myself as do we all. And to say she has turned her back well I am not quite sure of that. There is a reason why Karen keeps coming back here....but for what every reason is still unclear.

reply from: ladybug

well i have to get out.. but will be back later to see how everything is going.... God Bless....

reply from: MoonLady

"Hey that's a sad way to think!! All non-denominational are not alike. In fact many non-denominational were once Catholics."
So true!! Where I live, some of the largest, most active and/or most conservative churches are non-denominational. Since when do you have to be Methodist, Lutheran or whatever to be a Christian?
Recently the church where I was raised, "Fairview Manor Church of God" changed its name to simply "Fairview Manor Church." But it's still associated with the Churches of God in North America. And a neighboring church, "Manor Church of the Brethren" is now "Manor Church." But they still teach the same theology. Older members of both churches are quite upset about the changes.
Also, I know for sure that of the dozens of Catholics I knew when I was growing up, most are no longer Catholic - they have joined the "Bible" churches. We have plenty of churches with "Community", "Bible", "Lord", "Prayer", etc. in their names but no connection to any denomination.
Besides, the way one idiot here acts, I'd rather die than belong to his "Christian" church which apparently teaches hatred, name-calling and intolerance to anyone unlike themselves.

reply from: MC3

LADYBUG:
I hear the anguish in your writing but you need to get a grip on your emotions. You are being manipulated and dragged under by NYKAREN's lies.
First, she did not turn her back on you because she was never your friend to begin with. Second, she was never pro-life and was never part of "the group" as you described it. Third, if she was ever a Christian she is not now.
I sincerely appreciate the pro-lifers here who, like you, have tried to deal with her as if she is what she says she is. You are, without a doubt, far nicer and more patient than me. But surely, even the nicest of you must have concluded by now that she is a complete fraud and undeserving of your respect.
The fact is, with each passing post it becomes increasing clear that NYKAREN - and whatever alter-egos she is using today - is just another garden-variety pro-choice liar. Nothing more, nothing less.
And by the way, I would not be too quick to take theological advice from MOONLADY. She is one of NYKAREN's fellow travelers who is trying to make us believe that they can support legal abortion and be a Christian at the same time.

reply from: faithman

If justice, and security for the womb child is not the number one priority, then we fall victim to those with a sob story to tell. The scripture tells us to not despise the crying of a child when we chastise them. Never fall prey to the whining of a Pro-abort skank when they are getting a whipping. They asked for it, and deserve it. Mercy is extended to the truely penatent. If one is truely sorry for killing kids, or advocating killing kids, and their works line up with their words, then I am all for mercy. We can ill afford to be nice to monsters as long as they continue to kill the womb child. A mom was resently in the news for strangling her 2 year old son. She is in jail on capital murder charges. Every woman who willingly goes to planned parenthood to slaughter a womb child deserves to be in the cell with her. As laong as we allow ourselves to be doop by pro-abort skank hard case stories, the womb child is put at risk for a horrible death. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, lose sight of that. To much is riding on this issue to be decieved by pro-abort skanks with a hard luck story.

reply from: yoda

Sure we can. We just question the "medical reasons" you are giving as justifications for early delivery. It's just common sense that any baby will probably do better if it's allowed to gestate to full term, so some of us think that a real threat to life ought to be the reason for an early delivery.
Wow, you sure killed THAT strawman! Since I never mentioned your daughter, why should I apologize? No, I was referring to all the "suffering" all of us did listening to you right here online! ;D

reply from: nykaren

I'm not Lexxy, I'm Karen. But to answer your question, his heart was very strong. He lived as long as he could without lungs. And I see your point, but not all women would have the option of a different hospital as we do in a large metropolitan area. As for time with my family, my granddaughter has slept over several nights thru this and been with us when her mom and dad had appts, etc., and we have spent a lot of time with them as well. This morning, our granddaughter went with us to visit her great-grandma in the nursing home, as she does most every week. The other grandma demands equal time, too. My daughter and her family live across the street so we have been together most of the time thru this at either their place or ours. We're a close family.

reply from: yoda

Is that what keeps drawing you back here? Feel a need to be among your peers?

reply from: nykaren

Was it you who scolded me for being rude?? It's allowed here for you and most of the others, of course.

reply from: faithman

Was it you who scolded me for being rude?? It's allowed here for you and most of the others, of course.
I don't ask anybodies permission to be rude to a death skank. And last time I checked, you were "allowed" to post anything you wanted. No body is deprived of a voice here. You would just prefer that some were. People can scold all they want. That is their right. You can spew your 30 year mantras of child killing, then try to persuade us that you ared christian. No one has stopped you in your exersise of self delusion. But you do make it easy to practise scoffing, and I for one would like to thank you for being such an easy target. Keep up the good work skank, it's been great sport.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'm not Lexxy, I'm Karen. But to answer your question, his heart was very strong. He lived as long as he could without lungs. And I see your point, but not all women would have the option of a different hospital as we do in a large metropolitan area. As for time with my family, my granddaughter has slept over several nights thru this and been with us when her mom and dad had appts, etc., and we have spent a lot of time with them as well. This morning, our granddaughter went with us to visit her great-grandma in the nursing home, as she does most every week. The other grandma demands equal time, too. My daughter and her family live across the street so we have been together most of the time thru this at either their place or ours. We're a close family.
So Karen, instead of fighting to change a law others might abuse -- why not raise awareness of different hospital options -- as inducement is already legal under the law. Also, you might want to talk to your ethics board about being too incompetent to refer you to the other hospital sooner.

reply from: nykaren

Raising that awareness is something I certainly will be working to do. That will be of help to at least some, till the law can be changed. And the ethics panel is not in place to help my daughter find a place to have the procedure done, it was their job to approve or disapprove. They did their job. I certainly would not expect them to step forward and go against the hospitals they represent once a legal decision was made.

reply from: nykaren

Very well said. I wonder which denomination that is, don't you? It sure isn't even remotely Biblical.

reply from: nykaren

Actually, it's been quite an interesting study in human behavior. I guess I've found it fascinating - listening and wondering how far some of these folks will go - in particular the ones who profess to be Christians. If I were to follow their thinking of what a Christian is, they couldn't possibly be because no one could hate as they do and still profess to be following Christ.

reply from: faithman

Very well said. I wonder which denomination that is, don't you? It sure isn't even remotely Biblical.
where in the bible does it say thou shalt kill thy grandson skank? I doubt you spend too much time in scripture.

reply from: nykaren

Very well said. I wonder which denomination that is, don't you? It sure isn't even remotely Biblical.
where in the bible does it say thou shalt kill thy grandson skank? I doubt you spend too much time in scripture.
Thank you for proving my point so quickly. I knew I could depend on you to do so. So which denomination is that anyway?

reply from: faithman

Actually, it's been quite an interesting study in human behavior. I guess I've found it fascinating - listening and wondering how far some of these folks will go - in particular the ones who profess to be Christians. If I were to follow their thinking of what a Christian is, they couldn't possibly be because no one could hate as they do and still profess to be following Christ.
I will go pretty far to expose lying death skanks such as yourself. You are the hater. You are the one who has no problem killing the womb child when the mood hits you, or the situation gets too tough. You are the one who advocates the destruction of the pre-born image of Christ. You are the one who hates God's authority over life and death, and have tried to usurp it.

reply from: nykaren

Before I turn in for the night - I noticed earlier some posts concerning the letter I'd received and posted a portion of. Naturally, some said I made it up. That's fine, I expect no better from you. As to the comments about not sharing a name, I certainly would not want to be responsible for having someone who e-mailed me privately harrassed by you kind folks. I don't expect you to understand that, you don't have the scruples for that. One of the comments also was that there is no such group. That's odd since I didn't give the name of the group, only what they are. And yep, the head of that group does answer e-mails. I haven't seen any more posts about that, but did not want to be accused of having ignored those posts.
I'm still waiting for responses from a few folks here, but I'm sure those will be forthcoming. I likely won't be on here for a few days other than to answer my private messages.

reply from: ladybug

the "group" they were referring to was about being a Christian community. mc3 put it best that I really may have given you too much credit, I have asked many questions about how your beliefs justify your thoughts and actions and you cannot and since have pretty much refused to back up those thoughts and actions. why is it that you want our opinions on things yet when you contradict yourself you cannot defend yourself at all except for dancing around each and every question??????

reply from: faithman

Actually, it's been quite an interesting study in human behavior. I guess I've found it fascinating - listening and wondering how far some of these folks will go - in particular the ones who profess to be Christians. If I were to follow their thinking of what a Christian is, they couldn't possibly be because no one could hate as they do and still profess to be following Christ.
You are right. No one could hate the womb child as much as you do and be a follower of Christ. You are the hater. You are a sorry excuse for a grandmother who would advocate the intended murder of a pre-born grandson. You are the one who does not pray for a mirical, and takes life and death into your own hands. You make a mockery out of God and His word, then accuse others of being hatful, and unbiblical, and yet all you have posted here is unbilical hate.

reply from: faithman

Very well said. I wonder which denomination that is, don't you? It sure isn't even remotely Biblical.
Seeings how you brought the Bible up.........Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

reply from: Adia

Actually, it's been quite an interesting study in human behavior. I guess I've found it fascinating - listening and wondering how far some of these folks will go - in particular the ones who profess to be Christians. If I were to follow their thinking of what a Christian is, they couldn't possibly be because no one could hate as they do and still profess to be following Christ.
I will go pretty far to expose lying death skanks such as yourself. You are the hater. You are the one who has no problem killing the womb child when the mood hits you, or the situation gets too tough. You are the one who advocates the destruction of the pre-born image of Christ. You are the one who hates God's authority over life and death, and have tried to usurp it.
Ok did I just miss read this..........or did you just include me under the title of death skanks.........b/c I don't rember saying i agreed with Karen

reply from: faithman

Actually, it's been quite an interesting study in human behavior. I guess I've found it fascinating - listening and wondering how far some of these folks will go - in particular the ones who profess to be Christians. If I were to follow their thinking of what a Christian is, they couldn't possibly be because no one could hate as they do and still profess to be following Christ.
I will go pretty far to expose lying death skanks such as yourself. You are the hater. You are the one who has no problem killing the womb child when the mood hits you, or the situation gets too tough. You are the one who advocates the destruction of the pre-born image of Christ. You are the one who hates God's authority over life and death, and have tried to usurp it.
Ok did I just miss read this..........or did you just include me under the title of death skanks.........b/c I don't rember saying i agreed with Karen
Are you a pro-abort?

reply from: Adia

I would say no but it seems to me that you just included me in that group under one of your comment. When all I was saying there may be another reason why karen keeps coming back to this fourm b/c she sure the hell is not learning anything

reply from: faithman

When you click on quote, the whole post is displayed. I unapologeticly call bortheads death skanks. If you are not pro-choice, then I did not call you a death skank.

reply from: Adia

Like I said I think I had just miss read what you were saying, and did want to put my foot in my mouth before I made a retort to your comment. Just a simple mistake Faith man

reply from: faithman

That is what I suspected.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Wait wait wait.
You would love to by at MY judgement day..
You say that as if you think I will be damned..And you LIKE that idea.
How Christian of you! Nice. Maybe you are just getting senile and losing your grasp on your underlying messages..Maybe you are just getting senile in general!
(I'm sorry, if you speak down to me, I won't hold back from doing the same.)
Also, you condoned and advocated the killing of your grandchild, what have I done that I should fear judgement?
Now, I do fear judgement, because NONE of us knows what God deems the line to be for each one of us, therefor NONE of us (Even you, thought you like to claim you can) can claim we know where our judgement lies. (I dare you to say you didn't claim to know how you will be judged.)
Then you Proceed to dismiss MC3's arguements by attacking him personally (The same way every other baby-killer on here does) and ignore his arguements. Probably because you cannot refute them, though you will have some other reason.
What IS black and white is your total disreguard for the fact the law you want would condone abortions. You are probably to senile to remember all of us telling you that the laws you want will be abused by pro-aborts like yourself to do 'frivilous' abortions.
You either will NOT stand for anything that can possibly condone abortion (Pro-life)
Or you will find excuses to condone some abortions (You, Pro-choice).
As for your family being close..well you know the old Christian saying : "The Family that slays together stays together"...Oh wait...I think its something along those lines......

reply from: faithman

slays together stays together....snicker snicker....thats a good one.

reply from: faithman

Very well said. I wonder which denomination that is, don't you? It sure isn't even remotely Biblical.
Seeings how you brought the Bible up.........Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

reply from: nykaren

Ladybug, That's not the message I was referring to. It was one about there being no such group as the NY pro-life catholic group. And my answer was that he can't say that when he doesn't even know the name of the group. To give that info here would lead to them being treated as crudely as I've been. You folks find enough ways to do that with no help from me, I'm sure.
Ladybug, I have answered your questions and everyone else's here. You won't be happy till my answers agree with what you personally believe. That's not going to happen, so what is the point? I answered your question about how my Christian beliefs justify my stand on my daughter's pregnancy and Sam's birth. You don't like that answer, so you want a different one? Sorry but it's an honest answer and the only one you'll get. Harrassing me for a better one just doesn't make any sense.

reply from: nykaren

On the judgement day for those who have accepted Christ as savior, no one will be damned. Please don't read more into words than is there. We will be judged for our actions and our works as followers of Christ, and awarded crowns based on that judgement. You will answer for your works and I will answer for mine, plain and simple. You'll maybe be able to stand before Him and say "I saved babies" and that is wonderful, but He will also be concerned with sins of the heart and the tongue. I would love to see you explain the hatred you have either been responsible for or condoned here and elsewhere. Take for instance your comment that "the family that SLAYS together stays together". And of course Faithman, another "Christian" here (though I notice he's not willing to share the denomination he's with) found that hilarious. Do you believe you and he will not be held accountable for such a cruel comment??

reply from: faithman

On the judgement day for those who have accepted Christ as savior, no one will be damned. Please don't read more into words than is there. We will be judged for our actions and our works as followers of Christ, and awarded crowns based on that judgement. You will answer for your works and I will answer for mine, plain and simple. You'll maybe be able to stand before Him and say "I saved babies" and that is wonderful, but He will also be concerned with sins of the heart and the tongue. I would love to see you explain the hatred you have either been responsible for or condoned here and elsewhere. Take for instance your comment that "the family that SLAYS together stays together". And of course Faithman, another "Christian" here (though I notice he's not willing to share the denomination he's with) found that hilarious. Do you believe you and he will not be held accountable for such a cruel comment??
BOY!! you shure swallowed a theological lie!!! Show me in the scripture where it says accepting christ as savior is salvation. It is not. Surrendering to Him as Lord is the only way of salvation. But at least we know now why you are a false christian. It is false christianity to say christ is savior, then take the power of life and death into your own hands. Those who have surrendered to the Lordship of Christ would not have a grandson murdered, they would have trusted in God's will for the child. Or are you trying to tell us that it was God's will that you would partisipate in the murder of Sam?

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

On the judgement day for those who have accepted Christ as savior, no one will be damned. Please don't read more into words than is there. We will be judged for our actions and our works as followers of Christ, and awarded crowns based on that judgement. You will answer for your works and I will answer for mine, plain and simple. You'll maybe be able to stand before Him and say "I saved babies" and that is wonderful, but He will also be concerned with sins of the heart and the tongue. I would love to see you explain the hatred you have either been responsible for or condoned here and elsewhere. Take for instance your comment that "the family that SLAYS together stays together". And of course Faithman, another "Christian" here (though I notice he's not willing to share the denomination he's with) found that hilarious. Do you believe you and he will not be held accountable for such a cruel comment??
I read no further into it then anyone with basic intelligence would.
The intent behind your words were crystal clear.
Many who have accepted Christ as their savior will be damned. You can't just accept Jesus and then go sin unrepentantly.
Absoultely, my heart and toung are not and never have been pure.
But I made every attempt at the start of this to be kind to you.
Sadly you immidiately started being rude to US from the start.
You say we are harassing you to get the answers we want.
Yet you knew that very few people would agree with your stance here, and so when they didn't you got mad. You got rude. Condescending.
I have made every friendly intelligent attempt to tell you
SAM WAS ALIVE IN THE WOMB. EXACTLY THE SAME WAY HE WAS ALIVE OUT OF THE WOMB.BY FORCING HIM OUT OF THE WOMB EARLY YOU DEPRIVED HIM OF MONTHS OF HIS LIFE$.
I also made every friendly intelligent attempt to tell you that
THE LAW YOU WANT WILL ALLOW PRO-ABORTS TO FIND LOOPHOLES AND COMMIT ABORTIONS.
You completely ignore those points repeatedly, and act like they were never said.
The Family that Slays together Stays together, maybe it was rude. But you certainly haven't been the most charitable person in how you speak of others here. And how easily you dismiss those that present valid arguements to your points.
You also Question my faith by saing "Faithman, another 'Christian' here" and continuing along you way.
Did you not Dismiss my early arguements because you felt I had questioned your faith? Why indeed you did. So you can Dismiss others Faith but you own cannot be questioned?
My dear friend, YOU are the one who refused to trust God to deliever sam in His own time for His own perpose. You are the one who didn't trust God for a miracle or whatever His purpose for sam might have been.
Yet you question MY faith because I used some harsh words?
People using friendly words to pro-aborts (Which you say you aren't, yet you would enact laws that would allow abortions) is what has allow the pro-aborts to keep their death-hold on america. And until we do anything nessicary to end that death-hold then the killing of unborn children will NOT stop.
I Have made it clear, I will respond in a friendly intelligent way to any who act friendly and intelligent towards me. What I will not do is act friendly to a person who is "Formerly Pro-life" (You should know better) who even then wont treat me with respect and intelligence.
No Karen, I don't think I will get away without being judged for my harsh tounge, but If it ever ONCE gets something through someones head, then any number of days in purgatory will be worth it. And If I save one child through the honest truth, and God still deems it worthy of damnation, Then Alright. I'd rather not be damned, but I don't think the way I am going about things to save the unborn will merit damnation.
I try to keep my cool, but you aren't too condusive to a cool calm intelligent respectful debate.
Everything is your way, or we are wrong. and If we are wrong, its probably because we aren't as expierienced as you or aren't as strong a Christian as you.
I apologize for any insult I've given that actually has bothered you, though I doubt there are any. I think you bring up the rude words to try to make people feel bad for saying them. I'm repentant of sins because they hurt God, not because they make a pro-choicer uncomfortable.

reply from: MC3

In an earlier post, I warned the people on this forum not to be too quick to take theological advice from MOONLADY. Needless to say, the same goes for NYKAREN. Both claim to be Christians and say that being a Christian is not incompatible with supporting legalized abortion. They are obviously liars, but the only thing we can't tell for sure is whether they are lying to themselves or lying to us.

reply from: faithman

I think they are self deluded. Easy believism has given them a false sence of security.

reply from: faithman

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

reply from: faithman

On the judgement day for those who have accepted Christ as savior, no one will be damned. Please don't read more into words than is there. We will be judged for our actions and our works as followers of Christ, and awarded crowns based on that judgement. You will answer for your works and I will answer for mine, plain and simple. You'll maybe be able to stand before Him and say "I saved babies" and that is wonderful, but He will also be concerned with sins of the heart and the tongue. I would love to see you explain the hatred you have either been responsible for or condoned here and elsewhere. Take for instance your comment that "the family that SLAYS together stays together". And of course Faithman, another "Christian" here (though I notice he's not willing to share the denomination he's with) found that hilarious. Do you believe you and he will not be held accountable for such a cruel comment??
For your informatin skank, I do not believe denominations are of God, and I don't belong to one.

reply from: 4given

I didn't find that comment inappropriate. The Pro-Choice family does exactly that.. even in support of abortion- it is the support of the slaying of a precious life. I like that slogan, and likely will use it myself! It isn't rude by any means. It is truthful. I know this because I have engaged my neighbors and now find there's no more wine-tasting invites for me..Stating their group opinion helped me realize not to have friendly associations w/ anyone-unless I know first where they stand on abortion. The soccer mommies all too quickly morphed into this putrid mass of toxicity- as all abortion supporters have become to me. I wish I had thought of that myself when we were "discussing". It has a nice ring!

reply from: faithman

Oh gosh!! we may be having an infuence on ya. How dare we tell the death skanks the truth! It is not "fashonable to know and advocate the truth!!!

reply from: faithman

On the judgement day for those who have accepted Christ as savior, no one will be damned. Please don't read more into words than is there. We will be judged for our actions and our works as followers of Christ, and awarded crowns based on that judgement. You will answer for your works and I will answer for mine, plain and simple. You'll maybe be able to stand before Him and say "I saved babies" and that is wonderful, but He will also be concerned with sins of the heart and the tongue. I would love to see you explain the hatred you have either been responsible for or condoned here and elsewhere. Take for instance your comment that "the family that SLAYS together stays together". And of course Faithman, another "Christian" here (though I notice he's not willing to share the denomination he's with) found that hilarious. Do you believe you and he will not be held accountable for such a cruel comment??
I read no further into it then anyone with basic intelligence would.
The intent behind your words were crystal clear.
Many who have accepted Christ as their savior will be damned. You can't just accept Jesus and then go sin unrepentantly.
Absoultely, my heart and toung are not and never have been pure.
But I made every attempt at the start of this to be kind to you.
Sadly you immidiately started being rude to US from the start.
You say we are harassing you to get the answers we want.
Yet you knew that very few people would agree with your stance here, and so when they didn't you got mad. You got rude. Condescending.
I have made every friendly intelligent attempt to tell you
SAM WAS ALIVE IN THE WOMB. EXACTLY THE SAME WAY HE WAS ALIVE OUT OF THE WOMB.BY FORCING HIM OUT OF THE WOMB EARLY YOU DEPRIVED HIM OF MONTHS OF HIS LIFE$.
I also made every friendly intelligent attempt to tell you that
THE LAW YOU WANT WILL ALLOW PRO-ABORTS TO FIND LOOPHOLES AND COMMIT ABORTIONS.
You completely ignore those points repeatedly, and act like they were never said.
The Family that Slays together Stays together, maybe it was rude. But you certainly haven't been the most charitable person in how you speak of others here. And how easily you dismiss those that present valid arguements to your points.
You also Question my faith by saing "Faithman, another 'Christian' here" and continuing along you way.
Did you not Dismiss my early arguements because you felt I had questioned your faith? Why indeed you did. So you can Dismiss others Faith but you own cannot be questioned?
My dear friend, YOU are the one who refused to trust God to deliever sam in His own time for His own perpose. You are the one who didn't trust God for a miracle or whatever His purpose for sam might have been.
Yet you question MY faith because I used some harsh words?
People using friendly words to pro-aborts (Which you say you aren't, yet you would enact laws that would allow abortions) is what has allow the pro-aborts to keep their death-hold on america. And until we do anything nessicary to end that death-hold then the killing of unborn children will NOT stop.
I Have made it clear, I will respond in a friendly intelligent way to any who act friendly and intelligent towards me. What I will not do is act friendly to a person who is "Formerly Pro-life" (You should know better) who even then wont treat me with respect and intelligence.
No Karen, I don't think I will get away without being judged for my harsh tounge, but If it ever ONCE gets something through someones head, then any number of days in purgatory will be worth it. And If I save one child through the honest truth, and God still deems it worthy of damnation, Then Alright. I'd rather not be damned, but I don't think the way I am going about things to save the unborn will merit damnation.
I try to keep my cool, but you aren't too condusive to a cool calm intelligent respectful debate.
Everything is your way, or we are wrong. and If we are wrong, its probably because we aren't as expierienced as you or aren't as strong a Christian as you.
I apologize for any insult I've given that actually has bothered you, though I doubt there are any. I think you bring up the rude words to try to make people feel bad for saying them. I'm repentant of sins because they hurt God, not because they make a pro-choicer uncomfortable.
Your theology is just as screwed up as hers. Once one has surrendered their life to the Lordship of Christ, there is nothing left to lose. If you can lose salvation, it is not salvation based on the Lord Jesus Christ, it is a false salvation based on the works of men. We are not born again of our own will. [john 1:12-13]. The way of salvation is to die. We lose our life or we can not have the life of Christ. [Matthew 16:24-26] If we have given ourselves completely to Christ as Lord, there is nothing left to lose.

reply from: 4given

Oh gosh!! we may be having an infuence on ya. How dare we tell the death skanks the truth! It is not "fashonable to know and advocate the truth!!!
It has been a learning experience indeed..
IF THE CAP FIT- LET THEM WEAR IT!

reply from: MoonLady

Faithman, you say you are not of any denomination. Do you attend services or simply read your Bible at home? I've noticed that you normally write carelessly but every Bible quote is perfectly written, as if you are copying them directly from the Good Book. Have you not bothered to memorize as do many Christians?
Examples:
Your own writing: "Mercy is extended to the truely penatent. If one is truely sorry for killing kids, or advocating killing kids, and their works line up with their words, then I am all for mercy. We can ill afford to be nice to monsters as long as they continue to kill the womb child. A mom was resently in the news for strangling her 2 year old son. She is in jail on capital murder charges. Every woman who willingly goes to planned parenthood to slaughter a womb child deserves to be in the cell with her. As laong as we allow ourselves to be doop by pro-abort skank hard case stories, the womb child is put at risk for a horrible death. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, lose sight of that. To much is riding on this issue to be decieved by pro-abort skanks with a hard luck story."
Your Bible quotes: "Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction."
You also occasionally use phrases that sound distinctly Catholic, but your Biblical quotes appear to be from the King James translation. Are you actually two people? Or just one body with multiple personalitie?
Are you willing to disclose the demonination in which you were raised? Or were you raised without religion in the home and discovered it as an adult?
Please spare me your usual insults. I am simply intellectually curious about where your Biblical knowledge and scriptural interpretations originated (as well as your personal religious beliefs) because they are often diametrically opposed and unlike anything I've ever heard.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Moonlady why don't you look up the part of the Bible that allows parents to kill their kids....

reply from: faithman

How are they diametrically opposed ? Spare Insults? No can do skank. I am not religious, and I do not believe in interpreting the Bible. I believe in the Bible defined. I have a strongs concordance, a King James Bible, and the promise of the Holy Spirit to teach me. My "religious heritage" is a non issue. I can argue against abortion from a totally secular position, but once someone brings up the scriptue, then it is fair game. I meet with Christians on a daily basis as the scripture encourages us to do.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Moon lady : Good Grammar : "You also occasionally use phrases that sound distinctly Catholic, but your Biblical quotes appear to be from the King James translation. Are you actually two people?"
Bad : "Or just one body with multiple personalitie?"
So I ask
Are you two people?
Or just one body with multiple personalities?
Now, being a bit more searious...
I think Faithman's pretty straight forward consistant with his religious beliefs...
So Its not too hard to know..
And one can be a single person with a single personality and still quote the Bible properly..One should always take special care when Qupting the Word of God.

reply from: ladybug

Ladybug, That's not the message I was referring to. It was one about there being no such group as the NY pro-life catholic group. And my answer was that he can't say that when he doesn't even know the name of the group. To give that info here would lead to them being treated as crudely as I've been. You folks find enough ways to do that with no help from me, I'm sure.
Ladybug, I have answered your questions and everyone else's here. You won't be happy till my answers agree with what you personally believe. That's not going to happen, so what is the point? I answered your question about how my Christian beliefs justify my stand on my daughter's pregnancy and Sam's birth. You don't like that answer, so you want a different one? Sorry but it's an honest answer and the only one you'll get. Harrassing me for a better one just doesn't make any sense.
then answer this one (you haven't answered yet) if you do not condone abortions why are you "formerly prolife"

reply from: ladybug

another thing.... we can argue about being"good christians" or "bad christians" , Im not really sure why you care if Faithman reads the King James Verison or the NiV, or the Teen Catholic Bible.... the Word of God is the Word of God. The 10 Commandments are all the same and if I'm up on religion here... uh... it says Thou Shalt Not Murder.... pretty sure.... Karen do you disagree? surely not! you're Christian... I will have to find it in my Bible when I get someone to watch my girls, but I know for sure there is something in there about taking things into your own hands instead of letting God handle things. Hmm... surely you wouldn't disagree if I quoted them either. by the way your group of ny catholic whatever it is.. if it existed, you would show us how... we're not afraid of citing our sources because we are prepared to be harassed by all of the baby killers of the world. We know how to defend ourself with God on our side or not. Surely you're not scared of having to defend yourself or the group you refer to either, correct?

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

Ummm... I think you missed the entire point of my post...
I was basically saying a lot of people don't pay attention to spelling or grammar when just posting something, but when quoting the word of God one should always make an attempt to be correct and show reverence and respect...

reply from: ladybug

I was talking to my mom today, I had left this forum up at her house and she read nykaren's first post on this topic. She said she felt so terrible for the pain that she feels for a daughter and that maybe the reason she is having such trouble is the admitting of it being an abortion. My mom said that if she were in her position she wouldn't want to induce early labor knowing what it really is... but she can see how from a "hurting mother's" pov it would be hard to admit that inducing labor is shortening your child's life. And knowingly shortening your child's life in the womb is abortion.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

There are different types of translations: word for word literal translations, sentence by sentence translations, paraphrases.
The basis of today's translations are different. The Catholic Bibles accept apocryphal books; the "Received Text" (King James Version) does not. Since the mid-1800s, modern translations such as the NIV are based heavily on just two of the oldest extant Greek New Testament texts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus)
My personal preferences are the word for word translations and the "Received Text". I also use the newer translations based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I totally shun the apocryphal books and the looser paraphrase and sentence by sentence translations (where the translators' own biases can enter in). An example of a paraphrase is the Living Bible translation.
Literal word for word translations that I recommend are the King James Version (KJV), New King James Version (NKJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV). Be careful not to confuse the NASB with the Catholic (NAS) New American Standard. Catholics place their trust in the Latin Vulgate (written in Latin) as the basis for all modern translations rather than the Greek Texts (Greek was the language used in the original New Testament books).
Because the King James is difficult to understand (1611 English), I now read the NASB and ESV almost exclusively (even though those two are built on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). I consider the King James the final authority for accuracy.
As for the statement, "The Ten Commandments are all the same....", the Protestant and Catholic views of the Ten Commandments are a little different. Protestants consider "You shall make no graven images" the third commandment. Catholics do not consider that a seperate commandment, they divide what Protestants consider the tenth commandment on coveting into two seperate commandments.

reply from: Teresa18

I have been following this thread. First of all, regarding Lexxy, I was going to respond, but Shipra, CP, and MC3 did such a great job addressing her arguments in support of abortion, that I didn't feel there was anything I could add. Ultimately, she wound up with the same fate as many of the pro-aborts here. They can't logically back up their position and defend their points, so they leave and run off to a place full of pro-aborts that will welcome them in with open arms after those horrible pro-lifers were mean to them.
KAREN,
I'm glad to hear that your family got to spend 63 minutes with Sam outside the womb before he passed. I know those are minutes that your family will forever cherish. I am sorry for your loss.
Moving on, I still think we disagree regarding tactics. You think the way to help people in similar situations is to liberalize abortion law. I disagree. One thing we can say for sure about the abortion industry, give them an inch, and they will take a mile. Read what Concerned Parent posted on page 22. It is obvious the induced labor is used as a form of abortion and a way to skirt the abortion laws. There is no way that you will be able to find a law that will not expand abortion to affect many, innocent children. I supported induction in your daughter's case. I will get to why in a little while.
Let's look at this first scenario. A mother decides later in her pregnancy that she does not wish to be pregnant any more. She no longer wants to carry the child. She doesn't even want to raise the child. So, she goes ahead and has labor induced. Unfortunately, the child is not developed enough, and as often happens, does not receieve medical care. Ultimately, the child dies. That could happen quite frequently with a more liberal abortion law. I can say it would save people from making the trip to Tiller's place in Kansas.
Here is a second scenario. A mother begins to feel discomfort later in her pregnancy. Perhaps she has depression, anxiety, aches, pains, nausea/vommitting, a kidney stone, vericose veins, or even something very horrible like cancer. It is at this point she decides that she no longer wants to carry the child due to those circumstances. I sympathize with her pain, but remember, none of these things (except the cancer - I'll get to that) are actually affecting the child. Labor is induced. Unfortunately, the child is not developed enough and dies. Depending on the mother's wishes, the child may or may not recieve adequate medical care after birth. I will say it is possible that the cancer can affect the child. If the cancer itself can't, treatments like chemo and radiation can. At this point, doctors need to decide if the child is far enough along to survive when induced in comparison to risking the child to the chemo and/or radiation. Sometimes doctors abort or induce early because the mother has to have therapy. However, it is not right to kill one person directly to save another person. Therefore, they should treat the mother for the cancer and attempt to save both lives. If the child is born ill or dies, that is sad but necessary. It would be wrong to point blank kill the child.
Scenario 3 arises when a child is diagnosed with some sort of medical condition later in the pregnancy. The child is deemed to possibly have severe illness or deformities that will affect him/her throughout life or possibly result in little time outside the womb or a stillbirth. Therefore, the mother decides to induce. Now, in this scenario the mother is healthy or healthy enough. Several things can happen. A)The child could end up being perfectly healthy or have something minor due to a doctors mistake but die due to being born too early. B)The child may have just had an illness or deformities. He/she could have lived with that illness or deformities, but he/she is now gone because the parents didn't wish to care for the child. C)The child is induced early. He/she dies, but he/she would have had a longer life is permitted to continue to term inside the womb.
The fourth scenario is the scenario that you described. The mother is having severe discomfort, and the child is severely ill or deformed and will not live at all or very long outside the womb. Note, doctors must be certain that the child is indeed severely ill or deformed. The child is induced, but his/her lifespan outside the womb is not affected, and the life in the womb was not good.
The last and fifth scenario is where it would be necessary to induce labor in order to save the child.
Note that I support induction always in the fifth scenario and on a case by case basis in the fourth scenario. I do not support induction in scenarios 1-3. It would be my guess that scenario five is already legal. It would be hard to change laws put in place to preserve life to only include the rare and extreme cases of scenario four. You'd have to get mixed up with the pro-aborts in order to do this. That is the equivalent of getting mixed up with the devil. They are going to want more than the inch you want. They are going to want the mile. Your law may get passed, but it may lead to the deaths of a lot of children. Is that really worth it to you?
Here is my advice to you. Pray very hard for women in difficult situations like your daughter's. Changing a law is only going to lead to more deaths. Work to save women and children dealing with Potter's Syndrome. Find an organization. Better yet, work with your daughter, and start your own. You can raise awareness, get donations, and support research to treat and maybe even cure this syndrome. Pray for the success of this.

reply from: faithman

Ummm... I think you missed the entire point of my post...
I was basically saying a lot of people don't pay attention to spelling or grammar when just posting something, but when quoting the word of God one should always make an attempt to be correct and show reverence and respect...
One can find the Bible on line, and can copy and paste the word correctly, and acuratly. That way I can avoid my well advertised bad spelling and gramer. I don't really try to spell well, and I think most can figure my meaning without much trouble. I am very careful with the word though. One word added, or left out, can change the meaning of a whole passage. I prefer the KJV, because it is one of the most scholarly works of all time, and has been the mosts trusted english version of the last 400 years. I also like the New Jeruselem bible. I believe that Jesus Christ is God Almighty in human flesh, was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on a cross for the sin debt of adam that passed upon all men at the fall, laid in a grave for 3 days, and was raised by the power of the Spirit on resurrection day. I believe that all man kind was born totally depraved, in which there is no good thing. I believe that salvation only comes to those who surrender to the wooing soverin grace of the Father, thru the power of the Spirit, in the revelation of the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am not OSAS. I am once surrendered, nothing left to lose. Man is not born again of his own will. The free will of man must be surrendered to the Lordship of Christ. The Bible very clearly teaches that one must die, in order to live. We are not saved by the cross, we are killed by the cross. We are born again by the power of the resurrection. The true mystical experiance of salvation in Christ is death burial, and ressurection into a new spiritual creature. When one truely surrenders to Christ, they have become something brand new. They will have a whole new set of desirers, and priorities. False evangalism has dooped many into thinking they can get some fire insurance, without change. The Gospel demands change. This is the problem of so called pro-choice christians. If one has truely surrendered to Christ, and the Spirit dwells in them, then the Spirit will convict the child of God of sin. No one can tell me that they Know christ, and turn around and say it is OK to destroy His pre-born image. No Biblically literate Christian can ignore the fact that Jesus became as one of us at conception. The scripture tells us that Christ was a Son when the blessed virgin Mary concieved of the Spirit. When you abort one of the least of us, you have aborted Christ. Anyone who has trusted Christ, and studied His word, and are led of the Holy Spirit, are pro-life. You don't have to be a Christian to be Pro life, but you do have to be pro-life if you are a true Christian.

reply from: nykaren

I never said anything about any versions of the Bible. I have ones I prefer but have not mentioned that here, I've no idea where you got that. And as I said before, I have no problem with defending my stand, but certainly will not expose anyone else to the hatred on this forum. If I were afraid of defending myself, I'd have been gone long ago, don't you think?

reply from: 4given

Very well said! I agree 100%. There is absolutely no such thing as a pro-choice Christian!

reply from: nykaren

Ladybug, I've answered that several times. I will no longer call myself prolife because I do not agree with the prolife stand on induced labor in cases such as Sam's. I've also explained that I'm not pro-choice, either. You choose not to believe me, but that's your problem. As I said, hounding me for an answer you like better isn't going to do any good. Saying I'm prolife while not supporting their full agenda would be like saying I'm a Christian but not believing the entire Bible. And yes, I realize that comment sets me up for you and all others here to remind me that I'm of course not a Christian, and don't believe the entire Bible. I am and I do, so spare me the sermons. And yes, I do believe "thou shalt not kill". Sam experienced a normal delivery induced for medical reasons, and an hour later died a natural death. That is a fact. You obviously have an opinion on that fact that differs from mine. You are welcome to your opinion, that's your right obviously. But that does not change the facts.

reply from: faithman

Ladybug, I've answered that several times. I will no longer call myself prolife because I do not agree with the prolife stand on induced labor in cases such as Sam's. I've also explained that I'm not pro-choice, either. You choose not to believe me, but that's your problem. As I said, hounding me for an answer you like better isn't going to do any good. Saying I'm prolife while not supporting their full agenda would be like saying I'm a Christian but not believing the entire Bible. And yes, I realize that comment sets me up for you and all others here to remind me that I'm of course not a Christian, and don't believe the entire Bible. I am and I do, so spare me the sermons. And yes, I do believe "thou shalt not kill". Sam experienced a normal delivery induced for medical reasons, and an hour later died a natural death. That is a fact. You obviously have an opinion on that fact that differs from mine. You are welcome to your opinion, that's your right obviously. But that does not change the facts.
I am glad a death skank no longer lies and calls themself pro-life. Now. oh great wise one, tell use what part of the Bible did God make such a big mistake, that you count it unworthy of belief?

reply from: MoonLady

GodsLaw2Live - Thank you for your excellent post on the variety of Biblical translations available. It clearly shows how many sources were and are used for the various Bibles.
I was raised on the King James version, which can be somewhat obtuse due to its archaic terms. I do not use the newer translations because, to the best of my knowledge, they were not translated directly from the original languages in which the Bible was written. Of course, neither was the KJV, but it is what my church used and I am not a scholar of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or any of the ancient languages.
However, I do speak a language other than my native English and am well aware of the differences in word meanings due to countries, regions and slang. I believe it is impossible to find the actual words of Biblical writers ANYWHERE or to interpret them "correctly." Christ himself was a native speaker of Aramaic - do any of you know ANYONE who reads or speaks that language? Of course not.
One only has to be a Protestant attending Catholic mass to realize that the two groups do not use the same words for the Lord's Prayer. Debts? Trespasses? "For thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory forever, Amen?"
Does one of the Commandments say, "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder?"
Now, I hope you understand my questions to Faithman. What he reads and quotes really DOES matter.

reply from: ladybug

what im trying to get you to admit is that inducing labor early is ending your childs life early, therefore abortion. you condone abortion. period... thats what im trying to get you to admit yet you refuse. if you condone the early termination of ones life (not the natural deaths from God) then you support abortion. I dont know why its so hard for you to see this. I keep asking you because maybe one of these times you will stop dancing around the question. I can imagine how hard of a thing it is to admit that you are killing your own grandson despite he would have had a natural death anyways for your own comforts.... it would be hard for me to admit it to. However, I never would have to because I wouldn't kill my own child so that I could be without pain.

reply from: nykaren

Faithman, what part of don't you understand?

reply from: nykaren

Ladybug, I am fully aware of what you want me to say. I do not agree with your opinion on this issue. Why is it so difficult to see that? I am not dancing around the question. I am answering it honestly and repeatedly. If induced labor is a choice you would never make under any circumstances, that is YOUR choice. That's great. I'm certainly not saying you should make a choice you would not be comfortable with. I do not condone abortion. Again, you call me a liar each time I say that. Should I call YOU a liar because you say I KILLED my grandson?? It's an untruth, ethically and medically, and in every other way, but you persist in saying it.

reply from: faithman

don't you understand?
The one with out spiritual understanding, is the one staring at you in the mirror.

reply from: nykaren

don't you understand?
The one with out spiritual understanding, is the one staring at you in the mirror.
You can insult me till you're blue in the face, Faithman. It does not change my salvation or relationship with God or understanding of His Word.
It has become somewhat amusing, actually.

reply from: nykaren

I posted NY State's abortion law some time back. It does not allow 3rd trimester abortions except to save the life of the mother. How that stands up against Roe vs. Wade is seen differently by different lawyers and in different cases. But the law is on the books as part of NY State's penal law and is the law that was cited to prevent my daughter's induced labor.

reply from: nykaren

Thanks for the condolences. I agree with you on the scenarios as to when abortion (or induced labor) is and isn't an option. You said it all much better than I could have. And I DO understand what you are saying about changing the law. But why not put your efforts toward ENFORCING a law that covers all 5 of those scenarios, rather than leaving the women in scenario #4 to suffer? Obviously, prayer is the first line of defense in any life situation for a Christian, and raising awareness and working for a cure for these illnesses is important. But for me, that stops short of helping those women who are being caught in the middle.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

KAREN
Please RESPOND TO MY POSTS.
The only thing I can guess from your constant skipping of my posts is that you cannot soundly prove them wrong.
Now, maybe you can, but if you could I would think you would respond.
And I don't think I just missed the response..because you did this before from my post back from the early 11-14ish pages.

reply from: nykaren

On the judgement day for those who have accepted Christ as savior, no one will be damned. Please don't read more into words than is there. We will be judged for our actions and our works as followers of Christ, and awarded crowns based on that judgement. You will answer for your works and I will answer for mine, plain and simple. You'll maybe be able to stand before Him and say "I saved babies" and that is wonderful, but He will also be concerned with sins of the heart and the tongue. I would love to see you explain the hatred you have either been responsible for or condoned here and elsewhere. Take for instance your comment that "the family that SLAYS together stays together". And of course Faithman, another "Christian" here (though I notice he's not willing to share the denomination he's with) found that hilarious. Do you believe you and he will not be held accountable for such a cruel comment??
I read no further into it then anyone with basic intelligence would.
The intent behind your words were crystal clear.
Many who have accepted Christ as their savior will be damned. You can't just accept Jesus and then go sin unrepentantly.
Absoultely, my heart and toung are not and never have been pure.
But I made every attempt at the start of this to be kind to you.
Sadly you immidiately started being rude to US from the start.
You say we are harassing you to get the answers we want.
Yet you knew that very few people would agree with your stance here, and so when they didn't you got mad. You got rude. Condescending.
I have made every friendly intelligent attempt to tell you
SAM WAS ALIVE IN THE WOMB. EXACTLY THE SAME WAY HE WAS ALIVE OUT OF THE WOMB.BY FORCING HIM OUT OF THE WOMB EARLY YOU DEPRIVED HIM OF MONTHS OF HIS LIFE$.
I also made every friendly intelligent attempt to tell you that
THE LAW YOU WANT WILL ALLOW PRO-ABORTS TO FIND LOOPHOLES AND COMMIT ABORTIONS.
You completely ignore those points repeatedly, and act like they were never said.
The Family that Slays together Stays together, maybe it was rude. But you certainly haven't been the most charitable person in how you speak of others here. And how easily you dismiss those that present valid arguements to your points.
You also Question my faith by saing "Faithman, another 'Christian' here" and continuing along you way.
Did you not Dismiss my early arguements because you felt I had questioned your faith? Why indeed you did. So you can Dismiss others Faith but you own cannot be questioned?
My dear friend, YOU are the one who refused to trust God to deliever sam in His own time for His own perpose. You are the one who didn't trust God for a miracle or whatever His purpose for sam might have been.
Yet you question MY faith because I used some harsh words?
People using friendly words to pro-aborts (Which you say you aren't, yet you would enact laws that would allow abortions) is what has allow the pro-aborts to keep their death-hold on america. And until we do anything nessicary to end that death-hold then the killing of unborn children will NOT stop.
I Have made it clear, I will respond in a friendly intelligent way to any who act friendly and intelligent towards me. What I will not do is act friendly to a person who is "Formerly Pro-life" (You should know better) who even then wont treat me with respect and intelligence.
No Karen, I don't think I will get away without being judged for my harsh tounge, but If it ever ONCE gets something through someones head, then any number of days in purgatory will be worth it. And If I save one child through the honest truth, and God still deems it worthy of damnation, Then Alright. I'd rather not be damned, but I don't think the way I am going about things to save the unborn will merit damnation.
I try to keep my cool, but you aren't too condusive to a cool calm intelligent respectful debate.
Everything is your way, or we are wrong. and If we are wrong, its probably because we aren't as expierienced as you or aren't as strong a Christian as you.
I apologize for any insult I've given that actually has bothered you, though I doubt there are any. I think you bring up the rude words to try to make people feel bad for saying them. I'm repentant of sins because they hurt God, not because they make a pro-choicer uncomfortable.
Excuse me but some here such as faithman were calling me names and being nasty long before I even remotely stooped to their level. Actually, I still have not and hope I never do. And exactly how do you expect me to respond when the same questions are asked of me over and over, and ANSWERED over and over, and asked still again? I have been accused of making up this story. I have been accused of being Lexxy. There's not much I haven't been accused of.
I did not intend to question your faith, only the way you live it out through your words. I have been completely judged by many here and told I am not a Christian. Period. Case closed. Because I disagree with you and others about Sam being "aborted", "murdered", "killed", and so on, I am told I am not a Christian. And you talk about my posts not being conducive to reasonable friendly discussion?? And you are the one who talked about MY judgement as though it would somehow be worse than yours.
I have responded kindly to those who have at least had the decency to allow for a difference of beliefs and opinions without calling me filthy names and I will continue to do so. I will NOT rehash answers I've given time and time again. I will not respond kindly to things such as your cruel "the family who slays together..." comment. And yes, you said you realize that was rude. I accept what I guess was maybe meant to be an apology.
I have been accused of wanting sympathy. Nope. My life is blessed beyond words by having had Sam even for a short time. I do not want sympathy, but a bit of human kindness might be appropriate all around, don't you think?
I am constantly called a pro-abort in spite of stating my beliefs to the contrary. I am constantly called a liar when I answer honestly.
I have responded to the comments concerning the law allowing pro-aborts too much freedom. If not to you, then to others. I have responded to your insistance that Sam was alive in the womb and we should be happy with that. I know that life in the womb IS LIFE and inducing shortened that. I have posted WHY I believe that was the right thing to do.
I did not come to this forum with the intention of offending anyone. I was jumped all over because my wording varied from time to time. I was made out to be a liar and a killer. And yes, it did make me defensive and I did not always respond in a kind way.
As for MC3, go back and read his posts to me. No, I do not have much respect for him. He's acted like I was some dangerous evil species of life to be avoided. It makes any of his opinions now a bit difficult to take after all his warnings to others "not to be taken in" by me.
I'm not sure what you would have me say or what you would like me to answer that I haven't. It seems to me we've pretty much covered it all, and then some.

reply from: yoda

Ah, but you have assured us that the "induced labor" you sought was NOT an abortion...... my, my, such confusion.......

reply from: MoonLady

Karen, it's a darn shame that for every intelligent, thinking, reasonable, open-minded person here, there are a dozen nitwits. You have a tough hide, that's for sure, to take all the abuse that has been dumped on you. You have my sympathy.

reply from: faithman

To bad the womb child is not better equiped to take the abuse of abortion, huh skank?

reply from: ladybug

Ladybug, I am fully aware of what you want me to say. I do not agree with your opinion on this issue. Why is it so difficult to see that? I am not dancing around the question. I am answering it honestly and repeatedly. If induced labor is a choice you would never make under any circumstances, that is YOUR choice. That's great. I'm certainly not saying you should make a choice you would not be comfortable with. I do not condone abortion. Again, you call me a liar each time I say that. Should I call YOU a liar because you say I KILLED my grandson?? It's an untruth, ethically and medically, and in every other way, but you persist in saying it.
if you (or your family.. or the doctors) whoever didn't kill your grandson then who did? God?... no... God's plan would obviously have taken your grandson's life whenver your daughter either went into labor naturally. however YOUR family's CHOICES terminated his LIFE early.... Sam could have been with your family longer had you not taken his life away

reply from: faithman

don't you understand?
The one with out spiritual understanding, is the one staring at you in the mirror.
You can insult me till you're blue in the face, Faithman. It does not change my salvation or relationship with God or understanding of His Word.
It has become somewhat amusing, actually.
I don't waist enough breath on death skanks for my face to turn blue. It really takes very little effort to expose liers.

reply from: nykaren

This is not entirely true from where I stand. I have not called you any names, nor made any value judgments about your personal beliefs, yet you have called me ignorant, stupid, and pigheaded, and refused to address 90% of the issues I have raised.
Page 1 - People like you should stay away from IV bottles.
Page 2 - I also find it interesting that a child's grandmother would call him "Sam" in one instance, but in other cases refer to him as "this child."
Oh, and are you really saying you came here for "help" now? I didn't get that from your original post, or any of your responses. What exactly did you need "help" with? It looks like you just came here to trash pro-life to me....
Page 3 - There may be a lot here that some fail to understand. The whole point seems to have been to gain sympathy and attempt to convince others that mothers should be allowed to abort pregnancies when the kid is just going to die anyway. I encourage everyone to read between the lines here.
Page 5 - Yeah, it's frustrating for you I know, but "you can fool some of the people some of the time....."
Anybody can simply claim some anonymous specialist said so, but we have no way of knowing whether you might have simply misunderstood, if in fact you have really spoken with any PDK specialist.

reply from: nykaren

Thanks, Moonlady. Only a dozen? lol

reply from: nykaren

Ah, but you have assured us that the "induced labor" you sought was NOT an abortion...... my, my, such confusion.......
Yes, you are definitely confused. What I was stating was from NY state law.

reply from: faithman

Thanks, Moonlady. Only a dozen? lol
I didn't think my wit was all that dim.

reply from: nykaren

I posted NY State's abortion law some time back. It does not allow 3rd trimester abortions except to save the life of the mother. How that stands up against Roe vs. Wade is seen differently by different lawyers and in different cases. But the law is on the books as part of NY State's penal law and is the law that was cited to prevent my daughter's induced labor.
No, you have not posted "NY State's abortion law." You posted the definitions of terms. The fact remains that Federal law allows abortion, including by inducing labor, at any time during pregnancy for "medical reasons," which has been ruled to include mental health, effectively making it impossible for literally any conceivable "reason" to be excluded. No state can enact a law that prohibits inducing labor. The only change in NY law that might have effected the scenario you have described would be if they attempted to force doctors and hospitals to abort pregnancies by inducing labor. Only hospital policy would prevent them from inducing labor unnecessarily, not NY law. By your own admission, your daughter allegedly found a different hospital to perform the procedure. The law had nothing to do with it. You obviously either have no understanding of the issue you are arguing, or your story was not true to begin with. You have repeatedly suggested that you believe the law should not interfere in "medical decisions." Apparently many of your fellow abortion supporters have this same opinion, as evidenced by proposal of S. 5829 R.
http://www.womenshealthcollaborative.org/PositionPapers/RHAPPmemoOfOpp.pdf

reply from: nykaren

I posted NY State's abortion law some time back. It does not allow 3rd trimester abortions except to save the life of the mother. How that stands up against Roe vs. Wade is seen differently by different lawyers and in different cases. But the law is on the books as part of NY State's penal law and is the law that was cited to prevent my daughter's induced labor.
No, you have not posted "NY State's abortion law." You posted the definitions of terms. The fact remains that Federal law allows abortion, including by inducing labor, at any time during pregnancy for "medical reasons," which has been ruled to include mental health, effectively making it impossible for literally any conceivable "reason" to be excluded. No state can enact a law that prohibits inducing labor. The only change in NY law that might have effected the scenario you have described would be if they attempted to force doctors and hospitals to abort pregnancies by inducing labor. Only hospital policy would prevent them from inducing labor unnecessarily, not NY law. By your own admission, your daughter allegedly found a different hospital to perform the procedure. The law had nothing to do with it. You obviously either have no understanding of the issue you are arguing, or your story was not true to begin with. You have repeatedly suggested that you believe the law should not interfere in "medical decisions." Apparently many of your fellow abortion supporters have this same opinion, as evidenced by proposal of S. 5829 R.
http://www.womenshealthcollaborative.org/PositionPapers/RHAPPmemoOfOpp.pdf
What you have posted is not the law yet. Obviously, it is not a desirable solution to cases such as my daughters, because it is a pro-choice law, but there seems to be none better forthcoming from the pro-life side in NY. Pro-lifers have, as far as I can see, abandoned the cases which are not frivolous.

reply from: nykaren

Ladybug, I am fully aware of what you want me to say. I do not agree with your opinion on this issue. Why is it so difficult to see that? I am not dancing around the question. I am answering it honestly and repeatedly. If induced labor is a choice you would never make under any circumstances, that is YOUR choice. That's great. I'm certainly not saying you should make a choice you would not be comfortable with. I do not condone abortion. Again, you call me a liar each time I say that. Should I call YOU a liar because you say I KILLED my grandson?? It's an untruth, ethically and medically, and in every other way, but you persist in saying it.
if you (or your family.. or the doctors) whoever didn't kill your grandson then who did? God?... no... God's plan would obviously have taken your grandson's life whenver your daughter either went into labor naturally. however YOUR family's CHOICES terminated his LIFE early.... Sam could have been with your family longer had you not taken his life away
Again...Sam had a normal delivery and a natural death. He'd have been in the womb longer but most likely would not have lived as long when born. I wish you could comprehend what that 63 minutes were like, the love and peace in that room where Sam lived out his short life.

reply from: 4given

Less than a dozen "nitwits"..... But who is to judge?
But you can't fool all the people all of the time.. so them you see the light. You have to stand up for your (their.. the unborn) rights! ( credit to CP for "You can fool some people some of the time...: and also to the honorable Bob Marley by the way)

reply from: nykaren

you're right, who's to judge....it's a dozen, give or take a few.

reply from: faithman

Ladybug, I am fully aware of what you want me to say. I do not agree with your opinion on this issue. Why is it so difficult to see that? I am not dancing around the question. I am answering it honestly and repeatedly. If induced labor is a choice you would never make under any circumstances, that is YOUR choice. That's great. I'm certainly not saying you should make a choice you would not be comfortable with. I do not condone abortion. Again, you call me a liar each time I say that. Should I call YOU a liar because you say I KILLED my grandson?? It's an untruth, ethically and medically, and in every other way, but you persist in saying it.
if you (or your family.. or the doctors) whoever didn't kill your grandson then who did? God?... no... God's plan would obviously have taken your grandson's life whenver your daughter either went into labor naturally. however YOUR family's CHOICES terminated his LIFE early.... Sam could have been with your family longer had you not taken his life away
Again...Sam had a normal delivery and a natural death. He'd have been in the womb longer but most likely would not have lived as long when born. I wish you could comprehend what that 63 minutes were like, the love and peace in that room where Sam lived out his short life.
It is not normal to induce labor, and it is not natural for children to be evicted from their sanctuary. Tell us oh great christian, does the god you claim to serve do miracles? Isn't it an act of faith to trust him with stuff? And you never answered my question as to what part of the bible did god make a mistake in writting?

reply from: nykaren

Ladybug, I am fully aware of what you want me to say. I do not agree with your opinion on this issue. Why is it so difficult to see that? I am not dancing around the question. I am answering it honestly and repeatedly. If induced labor is a choice you would never make under any circumstances, that is YOUR choice. That's great. I'm certainly not saying you should make a choice you would not be comfortable with. I do not condone abortion. Again, you call me a liar each time I say that. Should I call YOU a liar because you say I KILLED my grandson?? It's an untruth, ethically and medically, and in every other way, but you persist in saying it.
if you (or your family.. or the doctors) whoever didn't kill your grandson then who did? God?... no... God's plan would obviously have taken your grandson's life whenver your daughter either went into labor naturally. however YOUR family's CHOICES terminated his LIFE early.... Sam could have been with your family longer had you not taken his life away
Again...Sam had a normal delivery and a natural death. He'd have been in the womb longer but most likely would not have lived as long when born. I wish you could comprehend what that 63 minutes were like, the love and peace in that room where Sam lived out his short life.
It is not normal to induce labor, and it is not natural for children to be evicted from their sanctuary. Tell us oh great christian, does the god you claim to serve do miracles? Isn't it an act of faith to trust him with stuff? And you never answered my question as to what part of the bible did god make a mistake in writting?
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it, faithman. And yes, I do believe in miracles, the 63 minutes he gave us was one. Yes, it is an act of faith to trust Him with stuff. I trusted Him to guide us in making this decision. And I DID answer your question. I believe the Bible in its entirety - I never said God had made a mistake in it. That was you who said that. I've no idea why. Seemed like a pretty dumb comment to me. And you, oh holy one, are the great Christian. I am simply a sinner saved by grace.

reply from: nykaren

I'd have thought so, too, but apparently not.

reply from: faithman

Ladybug, I am fully aware of what you want me to say. I do not agree with your opinion on this issue. Why is it so difficult to see that? I am not dancing around the question. I am answering it honestly and repeatedly. If induced labor is a choice you would never make under any circumstances, that is YOUR choice. That's great. I'm certainly not saying you should make a choice you would not be comfortable with. I do not condone abortion. Again, you call me a liar each time I say that. Should I call YOU a liar because you say I KILLED my grandson?? It's an untruth, ethically and medically, and in every other way, but you persist in saying it.
if you (or your family.. or the doctors) whoever didn't kill your grandson then who did? God?... no... God's plan would obviously have taken your grandson's life whenver your daughter either went into labor naturally. however YOUR family's CHOICES terminated his LIFE early.... Sam could have been with your family longer had you not taken his life away
Again...Sam had a normal delivery and a natural death. He'd have been in the womb longer but most likely would not have lived as long when born. I wish you could comprehend what that 63 minutes were like, the love and peace in that room where Sam lived out his short life.
It is not normal to induce labor, and it is not natural for children to be evicted from their sanctuary. Tell us oh great christian, does the god you claim to serve do miracles? Isn't it an act of faith to trust him with stuff? And you never answered my question as to what part of the bible did god make a mistake in writting?
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it, faithman. And yes, I do believe in miracles, the 63 minutes he gave us was one. Yes, it is an act of faith to trust Him with stuff. I trusted Him to guide us in making this decision. And I DID answer your question. I believe the Bible in its entirety - I never said God had made a mistake in it. That was you who said that. I've no idea why. Seemed like a pretty dumb comment to me. And you, oh holy one, are the great Christian. I am simply a sinner saved by grace.
You point blank said you do not believe in all of the bible. and there is no such thing as a"saved sinner". If one is saved they are no longer sinners, the bible calls them saints. When one is born again, old things a past away, behold all things have become new. With such screwed up theology, it is little wonder that you believe it is a miracle to drug a mother to expell a child to die. Then have the gaul to call it normal and natural. God did not call anyone to participate in the murder of a child. If you want to kill babies, at least do not hide behind God to do it. And don't cheapen grace by your stupid theology.

reply from: nykaren

Excuse me? THAT is certainly a lie.

reply from: faithman

Ladybug, I've answered that several times. I will no longer call myself prolife because I do not agree with the prolife stand on induced labor in cases such as Sam's. I've also explained that I'm not pro-choice, either. You choose not to believe me, but that's your problem. As I said, hounding me for an answer you like better isn't going to do any good. Saying I'm prolife while not supporting their full agenda would be like saying I'm a Christian but not believing the entire Bible. And yes, I realize that comment sets me up for you and all others here to remind me that I'm of course not a Christian, and don't believe the entire Bible. I am and I do, so spare me the sermons. And yes, I do believe "thou shalt not kill". Sam experienced a normal delivery induced for medical reasons, and an hour later died a natural death. That is a fact. You obviously have an opinion on that fact that differs from mine. You are welcome to your opinion, that's your right obviously. But that does not change the facts.
I am glad a death skank no longer lies and calls themself pro-life. Now. oh great wise one, tell use what part of the Bible did God make such a big mistake, that you count it unworthy of belief?

reply from: nykaren

Try reading all 3 sentences together, idiot.

reply from: faithman

So please tell us what part of the bible tells us to drug a mother to exspel a womb child, so it can die? And just how is that normal and natural?

reply from: nykaren

This is not entirely true from where I stand. I have not called you any names, nor made any value judgments about your personal beliefs, yet you have called me ignorant, stupid, and pigheaded, and refused to address 90% of the issues I have raised.
Page 1 - People like you should stay away from IV bottles.
Page 2 - I also find it interesting that a child's grandmother would call him "Sam" in one instance, but in other cases refer to him as "this child."
Oh, and are you really saying you came here for "help" now? I didn't get that from your original post, or any of your responses. What exactly did you need "help" with? It looks like you just came here to trash pro-life to me....
Page 3 - There may be a lot here that some fail to understand. The whole point seems to have been to gain sympathy and attempt to convince others that mothers should be allowed to abort pregnancies when the kid is just going to die anyway. I encourage everyone to read between the lines here.
Page 5 - Yeah, it's frustrating for you I know, but "you can fool some of the people some of the time....."
Anybody can simply claim some anonymous specialist said so, but we have no way of knowing whether you might have simply misunderstood, if in fact you have really spoken with any PDK specialist.
I did not post the statement about IV bottles, so I can take no responsibility for that, and I make no apology for honestly expressing my skepticism regarding the many inconsistencies in your testimony. I am not responsible for the statements you have made that have detracted from your credibility. I have not called you any names, but merely pointed out inconsistencies. Once more, I make no apologies for doing so, and continue to insist that you have given me no choice but to conclude that you are either very confused, or have not been completely honest.
For someone who has neither the time or energy to address the issues I've raised, and who has also said she would not respond to me again, you certainly did not hesitate to read back over this thread looking for any statement I made that might be interpreted as less than congenial.....
The truth of the matter is that I have been involved in disputes with fellow pro-lifer's in the past over the way others have been treated on this forum, and I have been quick to insist that all posters should be given the benefit of any doubt that exists as to their integrity. I accept the possibility that you might simply not fully understand the issue at hand, and I have not insisted that you have been dishonest, only that your story is not credible. I do not believe I have been disrespectful, since I do not believe honesty is disrespectful just because the truth is offensive to you.
You, on the other hand, have been quite offensive to me. I understand that since you are unable to address the valid points I've raised, it is natural for you to be a little frustrated. I am not offended by your attempts to insult me, but I will not allow you to attempt to play the innocent victim here. It is true that at least two posters have been unnecessarily rude and called you names, but that does not justify your childish attacks against me. My posts have not been sugarcoated like those of a few others, but there is no nice way to tell you that the contradictions you fail to address rob you of credibility.
You have not made a single point that I have not shown to be moot, and the very reason you claim to have abandoned your alleged formerly pro-life views is certainly among them.
Since your house of cards has been toppled, I suppose your only remaining option is to continue to appeal to the emotions of readers by portraying yourself as an innocent victim of abuse at the hands of pro-lifers on this forum, and while there can be no denying that a couple have been downright nasty, you are certainly no sweet little old lady yourself.
I apologize for having attributed the statement on page 1 to you. Your comment about sometimes calling my grandson Sam and sometimes calling him the baby was like it was put out there to begin your attack on me and from there you continued to do so. Whatever I said was wrong, no matter how I said it. You were determined to make me look like a liar so that you could further your agenda. And to be honest, you were on "ignore" from then on up until a few days ago, at the advice of one of the kinder members here.
I have addressed what you consider to be inconsistancies. No matter what I say you are right and I am wrong. There is no having a discussion with you. You simply continue to harrass. A lot like ladybug who tells me I haven't yet answered a question, and when I ask why she keeps having me answer it over and over, says it's becuase she wants me to agree with her.

reply from: nykaren

Ah, yes, never apologize when you're wrong, faithman. You're too much a coward to admit what you were accusing me of was a complete error on your part. Hey, why don't you just take a deep breath and try saying "I'm sorry, Karen".

reply from: nykaren

Ah, so are you saying you support this bill? I know your true agenda can not be simply to make induced labor legal, since it is already legal. I posted the info on this bill because it seemed to line up with your implication that the law should not be involved in a woman's "reproductive choices." I strongly suspect that you have intentionally misrepresented your position. Those who support this bill are persons who object to any restrictions at all on abortion. The SCOTUS gave the states the right to restrict abortion, but those restrictions can not include any qualification that would prevent a woman from seeking abortion for health concerns, which could include anything from a real and immediate danger of death to a perceived potential emotional strain.
It sounds to me like you are actually one of those who wish abortion to be completely unrestricted. As I pointed out in a previous response, NY law obviously did not prevent any hospital from inducing labor as you claimed. Would you have us believe that the same law you claimed must be changed in order to protect women was ignored at a different hospital? Did you not state that your daughter had labor induced at another hospital? Do you not understand that no doctor or hospital can be forced by law to perform elective procedures? Do you not understand that unnecessarily inducing labor is an elective procedure that is performed only in three cases? One is actual physical necessity for the sake of the mother, and the fact that she wants to go ahead and end the pregnancy, thus avoiding continuing discomfort, does not constitute an actual medical emergency. Another is fetal distress, which simply means it sometimes becomes necessary to force an early delivery in order to prevent the death of a child. The third is basically a matter of "cutting losses," and is an unnecessary elective procedure performed on women who are carrying children who are handicapped in some way, and just want to get it over with.
While every hospital will perform an induction that is medically necessary, no hospital can be forced to perform any elective procedure. If a hospital refuses to perform a procedure, one can be certain it was not "medically necessary." To claim that the attending physicians concluded that induction was necessary, but that the hospital refused to allow the procedure, is a contradiction in itself. To claim that "pro-life laws" were the reason they refused, but that these same laws did not prevent another hospital from performing the procedure is obviously another. In conjunction with the many other inconsistencies in your testimony, this is more than enough for any reasonable person to conclude that your story is not credible.
No, I'm not saying I support this bill.
And you are wrong about NY state law. I have posted that law and explained that in some cases, my daughter's included, it is used to stop induced labor in spite of doctors' recommendations and ethics panel decisions. Again, this is the sort of thing I am referring to as harrassment on your part. I post facts, you refuse to believe them. Then you say you've disproved what I've said.
And yes, the law was used by one hospital, as interpreted and decided by a panel of 3 lawyers. Doctors were in the process of scheduling the procedure after it had been approved by the ethics board. The only reason it was not done was legal.
And yes, I understand that no doctor can be forced to perform an "abortion". The doctors involved were preparing to perform induced labor and were stopped by the hospital's lawyers. Twice after that, my daughter was actually admitted and preparations being made by the doctors. Both times the process was stopped because of the law. The doctors were ordered by hospital administration not to touch my daughter because of the risk of legal action against them. Bot times she was in extreme pain and was having contractions, but she was not in full labor. She was sent home, still in extreme pain.
At that point she asked for her records because she had been told that going to another hospital might be an option. She went to that hospital the following morning and was doubled over in pain when she went in, plus was in the middle of a contraction. They had her in a room within 5 minutes and she was examined by 3 doctors. They consulted with their ethics panel and inducing was approved. The hospital lawyer was consulted and did not interpret the law as the lawyers at the first hospital had. He okayed inducing. She was admitted and induced the following morning. This, by the way, was a Catholic hospital.
My daughter, by the way, never went into full labor on her own with her first child. That pregnancy was also induced, when full-term.

reply from: nykaren

Funny you should say so. That is exactly what the nurses and doctors who met him said.

reply from: nykaren

Prematurely induced labor is not a part of a "normal delivery," and the premature death resulting from that intentionally and artificially induced labor is not "natural." I noticed that you are now saying the child "most likely would not have lived as long" if carried to term. Your previous statements seemed to have implied that there was no doubt. Did you read the article I cited that said the majority of babies like "Sam" live for a brief time after birth? This did not include the ones who were delivered prematurely by artificial induction. Did you also read the study that found that about 90% of children were stillborn when labor was induced prematurely after 23 weeks?
Sir, you have your opinion on what is normal and what is not. I do not agree with it and I do believe I have that right. Obviously, none of us including you and your studies can say under which circumstances Sam would have lived longer. Childbirth is not an exact and precise science even in the best of situations. And yes, I read your studies. They deal in averages and statistics. We dealt with a real baby and real sonagrams and tests done by specialists and followed what they gave as their best advice for my daughter and Sam. And not one of us has any regrets. What I have been trying to say from the start is that medical decisions concerning a woman and her baby should be made by doctors and the baby's parents. And that their IS a difference between a third-trimester abortion and an induced pregnancy. And it should not be a LAW that determines the difference, but doctors who are aware of the facts of that particular case. And yes, I understand what you and others have said about the difficulties of changing the law and about it being abused. But do not restrict medical needs of women who need treatment, and do not take away their rights because some women and doctors abuse the law. I am all for working for a law that would prevent frivolous abortion, while still protecting the medical rights of women such as my daughter. Some here have acted from the start like my daughter just wanted to be "rid of" Sam. Nothing could be further from the truth. And no, you may not have actually called me names, but you have by your insinuations called me a liar over and over again.

reply from: yoda

Interestingly, that is exactly what NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other proabortion groups say also.

reply from: faithman

Interestingly, that is exactly what NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other proabortion groups say also.
SSSSSSOOOOO if a doctor, and a mom want to lethally inject a born child in a medical way, that should be alright?

reply from: nykaren

Interestingly, that is exactly what NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other proabortion groups say also.
Obviously I was referring to pregnancies where the child has no chance of living long outside the womb, since that IS what we have been discussing. And yes, those groups DO support that. They also support frivolous abortions, which I do not. So your point is...??

reply from: nykaren

Interestingly, that is exactly what NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other proabortion groups say also.
SSSSSSOOOOO if a doctor, and a mom want to lethally inject a born child in a medical way, that should be alright?
Still waiting for that apology, faithman.

reply from: 4given

Do not hold your breathe NYKaren. I still take issue w/ your "a dozen nit wits give or take a few.." Maybe I should ask for an apology as well, on behalf of my nit-wittedness and the nit witty folks here that commit their lives and time to the saving of human life? Or should I be asking you to apologize to the children that would be ruthlessly slaughtered if the law you promote happened upon their existence? Or maybe the "take a few" meant somehow you were coming around to this side of the fence? Karen, have you seen the video Silent Scream? Please do! It will help you to define what you stand for if anything, or nothing at all. This is not an attack on you personally, just to clarify- I really want you to see the video and engage us some more. I think it will prove to be insightful and may motivate you to put your agenda aside in the realization that it will hurt/kill (if one child) it isn't worth the effort involved. Put your passion into the life God created, not a law that allows even one child to be killed because the circumstances were justifiable under the ammendment you promote. One cannot ask for an ammendment w/ stipulation. It opens the door to further brutality through unconceivable suffering and a horrible (does not even describe) death.

reply from: faithman

Interestingly, that is exactly what NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other proabortion groups say also.
SSSSSSOOOOO if a doctor, and a mom want to lethally inject a born child in a medical way, that should be alright?
Still waiting for that apology, faithman.
I owe no apology to a lying pro-death skanky borthead. But maybe if you are waiting for one, you won't be advocating death for womb children.

reply from: yoda

Interestingly, that is exactly what NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other proabortion groups say also.
Obviously I was referring to pregnancies where the child has no chance of living long outside the womb, since that IS what we have been discussing. And yes, those groups DO support that. They also support frivolous abortions, which I do not. So your point is...??
Perhaps not so obvious is that your "solution" to "your problem" would be to give a green light to all abortions, including frivolous ones. Once you put doctors and parents in charge of whether a baby lives or dies, abortion on demand is the result.
So while you say you "don't support frivolous abortions", you propose a "solution" that would allow them. How very convenient for you.

reply from: nykaren

The sentence you use is taken out of context. No surprise, that's been your method all along.

reply from: nykaren

The comment you refer to was in response to another person's post. And yes, I have seen the silent scream video. It is horrible and I agree no baby should be killed by abortion. I know quite well what I stand for. I've made it plain I hate abortion. And still I'm the bad guy because I also hate what my daughter and other women like her have been thru to receive medical treatment.

reply from: nykaren

Karen has stated numerous times on this thread that one of the reasons they wanted labor induced was because "Sam" would live longer than if he were carried to term, yet now insists that "none of us" can say this is true. If none of us can say this is true, then any of us who does is a liar. I think I've been quite thorough in examining this scenario, and see no point in continuing to go in circles here. Karen continues to insist that NY laws apply to some hospitals, but not others, and apparently feels the many contradictions in her story will be more credible if she simply continues to insist they are. Apparently she feels that denying she has contradicted herself and provided contradictory testimony constitutes addressing the issues I've raised....
I never said the law applies to some hospitals and not others. I said lawyers differ in their interpretation of the law, and of what is induced labor and what is abortion. And you can twist that to say whatever you want but I know there are at least a few here who see exactly what you are doing.

reply from: nykaren

Interestingly, that is exactly what NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and other proabortion groups say also.
SSSSSSOOOOO if a doctor, and a mom want to lethally inject a born child in a medical way, that should be alright?
Still waiting for that apology, faithman.
I owe no apology to a lying pro-death skanky borthead. But maybe if you are waiting for one, you won't be advocating death for womb children.
Faithman, you are a coward and a sorry excuse for a man. Your response confirms that. And you have a very twisted view of the Bible and God's love for mankind. And since you insist on being crude and disgusting, let me also add that your Bible study is not being led by the Holy Spirit. Quite the opposite, actually. Satan's gotta be thrilled with the work you've become.

reply from: 4given

Karen, the issue is w/ changing a law that may lead to the opening of a door where frivilous abortions can take place. That is the bottom line. That is my issue w/ you. You saw the video? Isn't it heart wrenching? I actually became physically ill. Can you understand why an ammendment to this law will make it more likely for other laws protecting the unborn to be under similar threat?

reply from: nykaren

Yes, it is heartwrenching and sickening. And yes, I understand your position. There is no easy answer to the problem, because women such as my daughter deserve protection as well. What would you do if it were your daughter?? Just ignore her rights? And yes, it is her right to receive medical treatment and to recieve it in a timely manner without the harrassment of pro-life activists. We can argue forever as to whether the induced labor was best for her and Sam. I know it was, and you apparently know quite the opposite. I respect your desire to protect unborn babies. But it isn't the black and white issue it's made out to be here.

reply from: nykaren

Karen has stated numerous times on this thread that one of the reasons they wanted labor induced was because "Sam" would live longer than if he were carried to term, yet now insists that "none of us" can say this is true. If none of us can say this is true, then any of us who does is a liar. I think I've been quite thorough in examining this scenario, and see no point in continuing to go in circles here. Karen continues to insist that NY laws apply to some hospitals, but not others, and apparently feels the many contradictions in her story will be more credible if she simply continues to insist they are. Apparently she feels that denying she has contradicted herself and provided contradictory testimony constitutes addressing the issues I've raised....
I never said the law applies to some hospitals and not others. I said lawyers differ in their interpretation of the law, and of what is induced labor and what is abortion. And you can twist that to say whatever you want but I know there are at least a few here who see exactly what you are doing.
Ah, but you said the law needed to be changed because it does not allow inducing labor in the scenario you described, yet later said that another hospital agreed to induce labor. Obviously, the fact that another hospital performed the procedure with no legal consequences reaffirms my contention that the procedure is not prohibited by law as you claimed. If attorneys advised the first hospital that they might be liable civilly, that is not the same thing as a legal prohibition. Frankly, we have only your word that this was the case to begin with, and you have shown yourself not to be credible. At any rate, since you insist that your purpose is to change the law so that prematurely inducing labor is legally allowed, and it is already allowed by law, I am forced to conclude that you are either very confused, or have intentionally misrepresented your motives here.
Do you want the law to say that hospitals must be forced to perform elective procedures? That is the only real change that might have effected the scenario you presented...
I've addressed these issues already and really don't see the point in explaining it to you again, CP. I am neither confused nor a liar. You are welcome to whatever conclusions you want to make, that's your privilege.
You want the last word in all of this? Fine, you got it.

reply from: 4given

Yes, it is heartwrenching and sickening. And yes, I understand your position. There is no easy answer to the problem, because women such as my daughter deserve protection as well. What would you do if it were your daughter?? Pray! Just ignore her rights? Her rights have been protected though, have they not? And yes, it is her right to receive medical treatment and to recieve it in a timely manner without the harrassment of pro-life activists. What harrassment did she receive? How was she personally harrassed? We can argue forever as to whether the induced labor was best for her and Sam. I know it was, and you apparently know quite the opposite. I actually did not comment on that issue Karen, as I was trying to show respect for the situation I understood and the pain you expressed the family was going through. I didn't have to comment. So many others covered the majority of my thoughts on the situation from both sides of the spectrum. I respect your desire to protect unborn babies. But it isn't the black and white issue it's made out to be here.[/q

reply from: faithman

not black and white? Baby in womb, alive. Baby out of womb dead. Sounds pretty black and white to me. Only a pro death skank would cloud the waters on that.

reply from: yoda

And yet, if you got your wish, the context in which you said those words would not matter. Abortion on demand would still be the result, and apparently you would not care. That renders the context meaningless.

reply from: nykaren

Yes, it is heartwrenching and sickening. And yes, I understand your position. There is no easy answer to the problem, because women such as my daughter deserve protection as well. What would you do if it were your daughter?? Pray! Just ignore her rights? Her rights have been protected though, have they not? And yes, it is her right to receive medical treatment and to recieve it in a timely manner without the harrassment of pro-life activists. What harrassment did she receive? How was she personally harrassed? We can argue forever as to whether the induced labor was best for her and Sam. I know it was, and you apparently know quite the opposite. I actually did not comment on that issue Karen, as I was trying to show respect for the situation I understood and the pain you expressed the family was going through. I didn't have to comment. So many others covered the majority of my thoughts on the situation from both sides of the spectrum. I respect your desire to protect unborn babies. But it isn't the black and white issue it's made out to be here.[/q
Believe me, I prayed and a lot of other people did as well. No, her rights were not protected. It took her 10 weeks to get the medical treatment her doctors and an ethics panel saw as necessary. During that time and since, harrassment included a call made to her hospital room on the day she was originally scheduled to be induced, and an anonymous piece of mail received on the day we buried Sam. Thankfully, my daughter didn't see that. It was full of mis-quoted scriptures, interspersed with the same sort of hateful messages some post here, and pictures of aborted babies.

reply from: 4given

Believe me, I prayed and a lot of other people did as well. No, her rights were not protected. It took her 10 weeks to get the medical treatment her doctors and an ethics panel saw as necessary. Was it because the medical treatment meant labor induction? During that time and since, harrassment included a call made to her hospital room on the day she was originally scheduled to be induced, and an anonymous piece of mail received on the day we buried Sam. Thankfully, my daughter didn't see that. It was full of mis-quoted scriptures, interspersed with the same sort of hateful messages some post here, and pictures of aborted babies. I don't see how that could be justified. The issue again is ammending a law that would open the door for any abortion- as seen in the photographs sent to your family on that day. I didn't realize that her case received so much publicity.

reply from: nykaren

Yes, it was because that treatment would include induced labor and the hospital lawyers had ruled against that. Besides the doctor's assessment that Sam would live longer if birthed sooner, my daughter was in worse pain with each week that went by, till she eventually was in severe pain, unable to sleep, etc. Doctors weren't sure of the source of the pain, but thought it was due to the baby pushing on her intestines and the nerves of the uterus. With no fluid around him, there was no cushioning as in a normal pregnancy. She also has ulcerative colitis and they were concerned about the affect the pressure on the intestines was having on that. We've yet to know what damage was done to her intestines, if any.
Oh, it wasn't highly publicized. There appears to be an inside source at the hospital where she was first being treated. Some of our friends and neighbors were not even aware of the entire situation, but the pro-life activists were. Anonymously of course. A cowardly bunch without names.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. Which perhaps would explain why she finds it "necessary" to refer to herself as a "former prolifer", since no genuine prolifer would even consider opening that door, and causing the deaths of so many more babies.
Personally, I'm relieved that someone who would do that doesn't try to claim to be prolife. We have enough impostors in our ranks as it is now.

reply from: faithman

Don't you see what is realy happening here? This death skank wanted the baby dead, and wanted to force the doctors and hospital to do it. Obviously they got the job done, but now want to throw a fit because some doctors had the moral courge to say no. Death skanks sure get whinny when you won't kill for them. So much for the doctors choice not to kill. Seems like the only ones who have a choice anymore are bortheads.

reply from: nykaren

(duplicate message deleted)

reply from: nykaren

Ah, yes, if all else fails, faithman will call her a liar. How predictable. As I've stated before, every doctor that examined my daughter and saw the sonagrams and test results on Sam, recommended inducing, wanted it done, and were prepared to do it. And the ethics panel agreed it should be done. My daughter was even admitted and told it would be done and then she was suddenly discharged by her doctor who simply said he'd been ordered not to do it after the hospital received a "phone call". She was sent home doubled over in pain.

reply from: faithman

Ah, yes, if all else fails, faithman will call her a liar. How predictable. As I've stated before, every doctor that examined my daughter and saw the sonagrams and test results on Sam, recommended inducing, wanted it done, and were prepared to do it. And the ethics panel agreed it should be done. My daughter was even admitted and told it would be done and then she was suddenly discharged by her doctor who simply said he'd been ordered not to do it after the hospital received a "phone call". She was sent home doubled over in pain.
SSSSOOOO whats the big deal skank? The doctors aren't allowed to change their minds? They don't have choice? They are suppose to been to the will of womb child haters? And ain't it funny how your story constantly changes to try and milk sympathy?

reply from: nykaren

Ah, yes, if all else fails, faithman will call her a liar. How predictable. As I've stated before, every doctor that examined my daughter and saw the sonagrams and test results on Sam, recommended inducing, wanted it done, and were prepared to do it. And the ethics panel agreed it should be done. My daughter was even admitted and told it would be done and then she was suddenly discharged by her doctor who simply said he'd been ordered not to do it after the hospital received a "phone call". She was sent home doubled over in pain.
SSSSOOOO whats the big deal skank? The doctors aren't allowed to change their minds? They don't have choice? They are suppose to been to the will of womb child haters? And ain't it funny how your story constantly changes to try and milk sympathy?
LOL. You're good for a laugh if nothing else, faithman. Such desparation in your posts.

reply from: faithman

That is laughable. You are the one who is totally inconsistant in your posting, and have been shown to contradict your self over and over again. You are the dispicable pro-death skank that has tried to make us believe that you are a "good person" when you are nothing but a depraved lier, trying to justify the slaughter of womb children.

reply from: nykaren

LOL. Go take a deeeeep breath, faithman.

reply from: faithman

LOL. Go take a deeeeep breath, faithman.
Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

reply from: nykaren

LOL. Go take a deeeeep breath, faithman.
Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Uhhh...those words were spoken by Jesus to the Pharisees, who were looking for a reason to condemn Him to death. They hated Him and were upset that He would not condemn the prostitute but instead showed her love and forgave her. They wanted to stone her to death, which is what OT law demanded. A few verses later, at the end of chapter 8, they attempted to stone Him, for loving the sinner. They were of the devil and hated her.
Please post scriptures in context, faithman.

reply from: faithman

You have a lot of nerve to talk about context. And I think one who is persicuting the pre-born image of Christ, and hideing behind false religion to do it is a modern pharisee, and this scripture does apply.....Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

reply from: 4given

Faithman.. In my error I remembered the book of Enoch being in the New Jerusalem Bible. Likely because of of fascinating the stories were.. (the fallen angels and the creation of giants- their offspring) The Apocrapha (sp?), however is. I am relying on my childhood memory of the various stories and teachings. I just wanted to admit to my error in memory, as an early morning Bible study brought up the point.

reply from: faithman

It is in the NJB. The NJB is a modern english catholic bible. I like haveing it so I can see what folk are talking about when it comes to the extra books. The point being, that the rest of it, the books that are the same as the KJV, seem to stay accurate.

reply from: nykaren

Faithman, I will place my trust in the Word of God and not in what you happen to "think". You've shown yourself to have little knowledge of the Bible, only how to "search" it online for verses that, taken out of context, fuel your hatred. The scriptures were not given us for that purpose.

reply from: faithman

Faithman, I will place my trust in the Word of God and not in what you happen to "think". You've shown yourself to have little knowledge of the Bible, only how to "search" it online for verses that, taken out of context, fuel your hatred. The scriptures were not given us for that purpose.
Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

reply from: faithman

And I think it is funny that you make the claim that I have little knowlage, when yopu make the ignorant claim that john 3:16 are the words of Christ when they are not. SSSSSSOOOOOO you prove once again that this scrirture fits you to a T.........Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

reply from: nykaren

And so whose words do you think John 3:16 are??
John 3
1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

reply from: faithman

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Bring your desire to kill womb children to the light and get back to us. ....and I was looking in my pocket bible which does not have the words in red. simple mistake, and one that has been corrected. But my mistake does not change the fact that you are a lier.

reply from: nykaren

You have to have Jesus' words in RED to know He said "For God so loved the world...". LOL. And I'm not sure "who" you mean by coming back to US, the only person God says to come to is Him, and I did that years ago and am still there. I'd say your true "faith" in faithman has been exposed.
And now I'm out of here for today. Have a good one!

reply from: faithman

You have to have Jesus' words in RED to know He said "For God so loved the world...". LOL. And I'm not sure "who" you mean by coming back to US, the only person God says to come to is Him, and I did that years ago and am still there. I'd say your true "faith" in faithman has been exposed.
And now I'm out of here for today. Have a good one!
You have come to a false jesus you have made up in your own mind. No one is a christian who is pro-choice, and advocatres the murder of their own grandchild. You refuse to bring the evil you were in agreement too to the light. Tell us where Jesus says to kill a child if a doctor says so?

reply from: 4given

An error in judgment persay.. or a misunderstanding about who said what, does not in any way discredit any of the service faithman has done for the most pure! Mistakes happen, it does not change a single inclination in reguard to his credibility! He has not stated to have more than a desire to protect the most precious of all- the unborn. Whatever Bible-battling, one feels the need to partake in- It isn't about that. To me it seems the desire to battle the Word for the sake of discrediting the work. The bottom line is, faithman is abrasive at times- well, maybe many times, but his intention is pure. I know that he is here to be the voice of the voiceless, and has earned so much respect from me for standing firm when it comes to that- the bottom line (standing up and standing firm for the sake of the unborn).

reply from: 4given

To avoid an edit: surely he has stated much more than that.. but again, he fights for the right to not be dismembered in a violent and painful way. I can't see a single arguement as to that fact.

reply from: kitarae

Im Sorry to hear about the pain and suffering but, I do not think that the abortion should have happend i agree with most of everyone else. the child should die naturally. & no i do not believe abortion should be performed to save a mothers life because like that one girl stated god has a plan for us all. if its ur time to go he will take you. abortion is murdered anyway you look at it.im only 17 so im not going to sit here and preach about this because i would be getting no where. because people really dont care what teenagers think. but if they let ur daughter go through with that surgery then that means they would have to let every other woman also. that means thousands of innocent lives would be taken.

reply from: nykaren

Hardly an error in judgement, or a misunderstanding, when we're talking about the Christian faith. He previously had mentioned that people use John 3:16 as though it's the only verse in the Bible. He obviously knows the verse, but had a senior moment about who said it? Good try, but I'm not buying it and I can't believe anyone else would either. A Christian doesn't tire of hearing of God's love, nor would a Christian approve of bombing clinics as faithman says he approves of elsewhere in this forum, or present God as a God of hate. Oh, I've no doubt he is a wonderful pro-life activist. That was not my point. His faith was my point - his behavior here on this forum and his approval of violence and his pretended knowledge of the Bible all indicate he isn't what he makes himself out to be. It's people like him who give Christianity a bad name, and I'll call him on it every chance I get. "Works" may get him approval here, but "by grace are we saved through faith" not works "lest any man should boast".

reply from: nykaren

Denying a woman medical treatment to save her life in a pregnancy makes about as much sense as denying a person medical treatment for a serious injury or a disease such as cancer. If a woman chooses to forgo those medical options, that is fine - she has every right to do that - but to force it on her is wrong. Who are you to make another adult's life and death decisions??

reply from: lukesmom

Karen, I am so sorry this is happening to your daughter and your family. This is a difficult situation but one that can also be a "blessing". I know. My son was diagnosed with a terminal condition called Anencephaly. I also have 4 other children that I had to help through this beside the child I had to bury. It is now almost 4 yrs since Luke was born and died. I still grieve but I cherish the short time he lived within me before he died. He lived first and died in God's own time. Carrying Luke was not easy and at times WAS painful, physically and emotionally but I would do it again in a moment if I had to. My son was given life and who was I to take that away from him? My pain was just a short period in my life. Luke's life was also short but it was all he and we had, why shorten it any more? You may say he was in pain, but who are we to know that and if he was what better place to be than cradled in his mothers love?
A terminal prenatal diagnosis is painful. NO ONE can actually understand the pain unless they have lived this but the pain doesn't go away or get better with termination. Grief is grief. Actually of the hundrends of moms I have communicated with, not one single mom who ctt with a poor or terminal diagnosis regrets her decision and hasn't found joy intermingled with the sorrow. I wish I could say that about moms who have terminated in the same situation.
As for siblings, my oldest two are now old enough to hear of how I was "expected" to "terminate" their brother and were horrified about this. Luke was their brother and they love him. All my children came through this very well adjusted and talk about their brother frequently and are proud of him.
Your daughter will get through this and she will grieve and with time she will heal as you all will. Until then I pray for strength for all of you.
God bless, Sue, Luke's mom

reply from: 4given

His faith was my point - his behavior here on this forum and his approval of violence and his pretended knowledge of the Bible all indicate he isn't what he makes himself out to be. It's people like him who give Christianity a bad name, and I'll call him on it every chance I get. "Works" may get him approval here, but "by grace are we saved through faith" not works "lest any man should boast".
Although I understand how you enjoy trying to demean him, and by use of God's Holy Word.. He isn't giving "Christians" a bad name Karen. I know many who are "Christians" and I would contend w/ their understanding of what that means. You don't have to agree with him or believe in his trust and relationship w/ God. It isn't about how you or I perceive him to be. It is about the "works". He is not boastful as you quoted, and I am sure he has spoken of the grace that is through repentance and the rebirth into God's will through the realization of what we once were and the desire to put off the old man and become new. I won't tell you his understanding, but give you his words and understanding as posted in a prior thread..
As christians, one of the most powerful weapons against abortion is prayer. Prayer becomes more powerful when we pray in agreement. We have confidence that our prayer will be answered, as we pray His will. He gave us 66 books of His will for us and the world................. I believe that Jesus Christ is God in flesh, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, judged of Pilot, died on the Roman cross to pay the sin debt of Adam. Rose on the third day, and sits at the right hand of the Father ever making intersession for those who call upon Him in faith. I confess before God and man that Jesus Christ is the Lord of my life. Father God, in the name of Jesus, we ask for the power and understanding of the Holy Spirit to bring into remeberance, the word of life spoken to us by the Lord Jesus Christ [John 14:26]. I surrender my life, and all I indever to do, to the Lordship of Christ [Romans 10:1-13]. I acknowlege [Philemon 6] that Christ lives in me [Galatians 2:20]. I accept that I am a new creature by the power of the resurrection [1 Peter 1:3]. As that new creature,..... I am..... a child of God [Romans 8:16]; a joint heir with Jesus [Romans 8:17]; a new creature [2 corinthians 5:17]; a minister of reconciliation [2corinthians 5:18]; an ambassador of Heaven [2corinthians 5:20]; God's righteousness [2corinthians 5:21]; a son with power [John 1:12]; Washed in the blood [revelation 1:5]; A king and priest [revelation 1:6]; More than a conqueror [Romans 8:37]. As your child Lord, you have promised me Grace in times of trouble. I ask that you divinely influince everthing we do for the ones who bear the image of the pre-born Christ. Strengthen us Father, that we may face the horror of abortion on demand. Give us wisdom to shut the mouths of the bortheads, and dispell thier lies with the truth. Bless and protect those who stand at the clinics. May they have great favor with God and man. Bless and protect the ones who display the truth of abortion accross our land. May the bloody pictures prick hearts, and change minds about killing womb children. Lord we ask that you abundantly bless organizations that make material For the front line activist. We pray Father, that you go before us, and prepare hearts to recieve the truth. Lord help us to simply present the Gospel, and trust in your sovereign grace and love towards man, to convert hearts. We pray this in the only name by which a man must be saved, The Lord Jesus Christ. .....and all in agreement said AMEN !!! [/B
Whatever means you or anyone else may find to attempt to discredit him, whether for the salvation of your personal agenda and satisfaction, does not dispel any personal understanding that I have come to. He has no purpose but to save the unborn child from suffering a horrible, painful death Regardless of how he speaks to you or the words he uses, whether you respect his method, ideas or tactic, the truth is he has no motive other than the saving of human life! And by grace- you need to be looking, aching, trusting in the Blessed blood left for you there Karen. You(as I do) need to see the blood Christ suffered as the blood of the savagely mutilated unborn that are inconveniently a part of the agenda you have here- to try to gain the sympathies of others (You had.. have mine anyway) so that they will bend to a pro-choice propaganda. You have stated you do not condone abortion, but want the attention to remain on this thread where you encourage an ammendment to a law that would allow women to murder their children late into their pregnancies because the mother wasn't "comfortable".. and whatever other reason might sneak in on the wayside.. grumble. I think I made myself clear. His Christianity isn't up for discussion.. the topic should be how a Christian can condone and promote an abortion- there is no such thing as a pro-choice Christian.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

A Christian needs some brains.
God does not condone murder, nore does he condone idle hands when murder is occuring. To kill an abortionist to save an unborn child is no different then If I killed a robber about to kill you.
I'm sure you would not object If I killed a man about to kill you, and the unborn are NO different then you or I.
Who are you to make a point of HIS faith? Who is he to make a point of yours?
I certainly don't think you playing God with your grandchilds life gives Christianity a good name, but No matter my oppinion I cannot make a point of your faith.
Feel free to say what you believe about the depth of his faith, but the idea you can judge it or make a point of it would be like you trying to tell the weight of an elephant without a scale. You can make a guess, and it might sound right, but you are WAY off. And I do NOT believe God gave any of us a faith scale.
Faith Without Works is dead.
Even satan can quote scripture, and he certainly believes in God. That is not enough to save a man, lest even the demons would earn salvation.
A mans faith is justified and proven by his actions, without his actions his faith is simply a piano without keys. you can own a piano without keys, but you certainly will not be any kind of musician. Its not the mere holding of the concept of faith that saves one, but the daily effort put into that faith, the living and spreading of the Gospel.
If I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior but do not stop to give water to a man dying on the side of the road, will I be saved? No, to accept Christ is to accept and live the mission He has given you, and to carry the cross He has given you.
"For as the body without the Spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" JAMES 2:26
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" James 2:14
"Thus also by faith itself, if it does not have works, is dead." JAMES 2:17
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?" JAMES 2:21-22
"You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only." JAMES 2:24
~ rmbowman.com/Catholic/s970913h.htm
Remember Jesus told us that if we love him we will obey his commands.
I never ONCE heard Jesus say that all you have to do is recite some magic words and BAM we are saved.
No. Works will not save you without faith, and they will not damn you. But Faith alone will not save you.
I don't always agree with Faithman, and he probably won't agree with me here.
But reguardless he is using his faith and works to save the unborn, his works prove that his faith is true.
On the other hand the works you do, shortening sams life, and petitioning for another door for abortion certainly does not prove any faith I know of.
And I know, you don't condone abortion. but doesn't mean the laws you want wont allow them. Sadly you refuse to see that, but allowing yourself to be foolishly blind doesn't change the facts. And saying that those magic words were all you needed to save yourself will only make you feel okay about condoning the abortion of sam until judgement day.
As always, I don't presume to say I am 100% correct. but I feel confidant with what I have said, maybe I'm wrong. But I generally go with what the Bible tells me instead of popular oppinion.

reply from: yoda

And yet, if you got your wish, the context in which you said those words would not matter. Abortion on demand would still be the result, and apparently you would not care. That renders the context meaningless.
Now, give us another one of your snappy, witty, meaningless little comebacks so we can all remember who you are.

reply from: nykaren

CP, I'm sorry for your loss.

reply from: nykaren

Sue, Thanks for sharing your story. Condolences on the loss of your son. I admire you for being strong and doing what you knew was the right thing for you, and I'm very proud of my daughter for doing what she knows is the right decision for her and Sam. There's already a lot of joy intermingled in with her sorrow, having had an hour with Sam. And my granddaughter bonded with him in a beautiful way during that time. We've had Hospice to help us in helping her, and they've been a godsend. Sam was buried with her favorite little teddy, because she wanted him to have it. The grief is unimaginable no matter how a child (or grandchild) is lost. Thanks for your prayers. Karen

reply from: nykaren

I've replied to posts here and have made no effort other than that to keep this thread going. And I'm criticized if I don't answer posts directed at me. But I do think the discussion we currently are having would be more appropriately posted in faithman's own thread where he explains that God hates sinners. Okay?
Actually, I DID read faithman's posted prayer before I read his comments on John 3:16. I was not going to mention the prayer, but since you brought it up, it made me feel physically ill to see someone who is so hateful to others invoke the name of Jesus to "rally the troops". You say that a Christian cannot be pro-choice, and I agree. By that same logic, a Christian cannot preach hatred towards people they don't approve of (not only pro-choicers, but gays also) and condone violence such as bombings of clinics. You'd prefer to just overlook those things because he is "saving babies"? I don't agree with that "one outweighs the other" mentality.

reply from: nykaren

A Christian needs some brains.
God does not condone murder, nore does he condone idle hands when murder is occuring. To kill an abortionist to save an unborn child is no different then If I killed a robber about to kill you.
I'm sure you would not object If I killed a man about to kill you, and the unborn are NO different then you or I.
Who are you to make a point of HIS faith? Who is he to make a point of yours?
I certainly don't think you playing God with your grandchilds life gives Christianity a good name, but No matter my oppinion I cannot make a point of your faith.
Feel free to say what you believe about the depth of his faith, but the idea you can judge it or make a point of it would be like you trying to tell the weight of an elephant without a scale. You can make a guess, and it might sound right, but you are WAY off. And I do NOT believe God gave any of us a faith scale.
Faith Without Works is dead.
Even satan can quote scripture, and he certainly believes in God. That is not enough to save a man, lest even the demons would earn salvation.
A mans faith is justified and proven by his actions, without his actions his faith is simply a piano without keys. you can own a piano without keys, but you certainly will not be any kind of musician. Its not the mere holding of the concept of faith that saves one, but the daily effort put into that faith, the living and spreading of the Gospel.
If I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior but do not stop to give water to a man dying on the side of the road, will I be saved? No, to accept Christ is to accept and live the mission He has given you, and to carry the cross He has given you.
"For as the body without the Spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" JAMES 2:26
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" James 2:14
"Thus also by faith itself, if it does not have works, is dead." JAMES 2:17
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?" JAMES 2:21-22
"You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only." JAMES 2:24
~ rmbowman.com/Catholic/s970913h.htm
Remember Jesus told us that if we love him we will obey his commands.
I never ONCE heard Jesus say that all you have to do is recite some magic words and BAM we are saved.
No. Works will not save you without faith, and they will not damn you. But Faith alone will not save you.
I don't always agree with Faithman, and he probably won't agree with me here.
But reguardless he is using his faith and works to save the unborn, his works prove that his faith is true.
On the other hand the works you do, shortening sams life, and petitioning for another door for abortion certainly does not prove any faith I know of.
And I know, you don't condone abortion. but doesn't mean the laws you want wont allow them. Sadly you refuse to see that, but allowing yourself to be foolishly blind doesn't change the facts. And saying that those magic words were all you needed to save yourself will only make you feel okay about condoning the abortion of sam until judgement day.
As always, I don't presume to say I am 100% correct. but I feel confidant with what I have said, maybe I'm wrong. But I generally go with what the Bible tells me instead of popular oppinion.
I totally agree with you that faith without works is dead. Both are necessary in the life of a born-again Christian. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying salvation is a matter of saying a few words and then going on with life as usual. No, we must live our faith. We are also to live our lives as Christ's representatives, surrendered to Him, and following His teachings. All the time, the best way we know how, not just when we feel like it.

reply from: 4given

I've replied to posts here and have made no effort other than that to keep this thread going. And I'm criticized if I don't answer posts directed at me. But I do think the discussion we currently are having would be more appropriately posted in faithman's own thread where he explains that God hates sinners. Okay?
Actually, I DID read faithman's posted prayer before I read his comments on John 3:16. I was not going to mention the prayer, but since you brought it up, it made me feel physically ill to see someone who is so hateful to others invoke the name of Jesus to "rally the troops". You say that a Christian cannot be pro-choice, and I agree. By that same logic, a Christian cannot preach hatred towards people they don't approve of (not only pro-choicers, but gays also) and condone violence such as bombings of clinics. You'd prefer to just overlook those things because he is "saving babies"? I don't agree with that "one outweighs the other" mentality.
The prayer made you physically ill?- His Christianity is between him and God, for whom he will stand alone- solely accountable for his walk on earth, as will you, as will I. Faithman is capable of defending himself, as I am sure you realize, but who you think he is a Christian- or a person, does not change what he does and strives to do for the unborn. So essentially, yes-that outweighs everything else. I don't agree always w/ his choice of words and insults, but I respect his passion.

reply from: 4given

I do not agree with his use of insults and name-calling. But it shows me that he has a deep passion. His passion is what gives birth to anger. It was hard to get used to initially, and I did feel like it was taking away from the work he was doing here as a Pro-lifer and also a Christian. I respect him for being bold and standing firm in defense of the unborn. Maybe he could learn to guard his tongue as we all should do. I don't know. It is between him and God. Because I defend him, it does not mean that I condone all that he says and does.

reply from: 4given

Faithman has redeemed himself w/ all the energy, effort and personal resources he has put into the I AM A PERSON cards. That has helped the cause likely more than we can realize. It (the use of these cards)has potential to save many more babies from being brutally murdered because they are appropriate to use everywhere. Leaving the personality out of it , we can just look at the evidence. The I AM A PERSON card is the right image, with the right message. "It doesn't matter if a loud mouth insulter, fundamentalist hater, agnostic, missionaries to the pre-born, or anyone else uses them, they save babies. Curse the messenger if you must. But it does not diminish the message at all. On the contrary, It proves that this message is usable and effective completely across the full spectrum of this issue. What else has that power?"

reply from: yoda

And yet, if you got your wish, the context in which you said those words would not matter. Abortion on demand would still be the result, and apparently you would not care. That renders the context meaningless.
Now, give us another one of your snappy, witty, meaningless little comebacks.

reply from: faithman

Thanks!!! At least someone gets it.

reply from: 4given

I think many more get it, they just fail to state. The I AM A PERSON cards are and have been effective in the short time I have used them. They draw positive attention, and I believe they should be available for anyone that has a desire, lukewarm or not. They surely don't offend, and education is so very important. I believe in them as a tool for the saving of lives.

reply from: yoda

The more I read of your posts, the more glad I am that you continue to advertise your status as a "former prolifer", even though I sincerely doubt that you ever were a genuine prolifer. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to mistake you for a "present prolifer".

reply from: Reira

Yes, Faithman has a deep passion... And it doesn't bother that many of you one bit that it's hate and not love. Sticks and stones, Faithman. Your juvenile name calling probably fail to impress or inflict on the people you're trying to bait. Did you not learn that in the playground?
'Oh I know he killed his wife because she didn't have dinner ready at the right time but it showed he had a deep passion.'
Joining in with all the wild scenarios and stupidly baiting the resident pro-life troll. Hope you don't mind my party pooping.
Best of luck to Karen and her family. I couldn't imagine being in such a situation where pain and suffering seems to be the only thing there and in store.
Best thing to do is not to think outside the 'Abortion is bad' box in front of many people on this forum. You will be disowned by such people faster than you can explain.
I couldn't possibly say whats right or wrong in such a situation. I wish I could but until God answers my invite to lunch...
Nature is unfair.. Or God, if you would prefer. Sometimes it seems we're allowed to go against nature and Gods will, others it's not... In this case perhaps it is best that the slippery slope of abortion due to pain received by going through pregnancy and the end result isn't tested.. Though your daughters pain in the case you describe is so extreme that it does touch my heart.
Also, though, the child is still her responsibility and she should be allowed to decide whats in his best interests. Even so, I'm afraid if laws were changed, flood gates might open and all sorts of bad things would be allowed to happen.
Alas I'm ill equipped to offer advice or opinion I'm afraid, having only empathy to go by, only a prayer that you, your family and Sam find peace, and my sincere love and best wishes to someone like you who is so caring and brave to come this far for the sake of someone else.
I'm sorry not all of our fellow online prolifers treated you with the respect and decency you deserve.
Reira.

reply from: 4given

Originally posted by: Reira
'Oh I know he killed his wife because she didn't have dinner ready at the right time but it showed he had a deep passion.'
Nonsensical.
Joining in with all the wild scenarios and stupidly baiting the resident pro-life troll. Hope you don't mind my party pooping.

I am unaware of such a thing.

reply from: lukesmom

Yes there is pain and suffering in carrying a child with a terminal diagnosis but I can assure you; there is just as much if not more joy and wonder. I know this is hard to understand. Most people don't understand that but every mom I know that has ctt has experienced this. I would do it all again if I had to.

reply from: JaysonsMom

Welcome to the forum, Reira!
Amy

reply from: 4given

Originally posted by: Reira
Best thing to do is not to think outside the 'Abortion is bad' box in front of many people on this forum. You will be disowned by such people faster than you can explain.
She has already stated she is a former pro-lifer
I couldn't possibly say whats right or wrong in such a situation. I wish I could but until God answers my invite to lunch...
So you do not have an opinion on whether this child should have been delivered early to meet an earlier than anticipated end- No doubt her daughter was uncomfortable, and they understood the grim reality that the child was going to die.. You have no opinion as to whether or not delivering him 10 weeks or so earlier to end his mother's suffering was justifiable?
In this case perhaps it is best that the slippery slope of abortion due to pain received by going through pregnancy and the end result isn't tested.
So you do have an opinion?
Also, though, the child is still her responsibility and she should be allowed to decide whats in his best interests. Even so, I'm afraid if laws were changed, flood gates might open and all sorts of bad things would be allowed to happen.
So she should be allowed to decide what's best- it is her choice, but you don't condone it?
I'm sorry not all of our fellow online prolifers treated you with the respect and decency you deserve.
With all of the double talk, I can't tell if you are for the preservation of life, or for the right to slaughter the unborn.

reply from: faithman

There is a saying that christians are like tea bags, you don't know what kind you got until you add hot water. Just how much of a chance was the Lord given to work a miracle? Wouldn't carrying to term allowed God to do a work? Insted of faith and trust, the ones who should have fought for Sam, abandoned and killed him. That is not an act of faith, but is the fruit of unbelief. Only false christians disparage the bible, and kill thier young.

reply from: yoda

Several of us have concluded that the whole purpose of presenting "such a situation" on this board was to construct just such a hypothesis, Reira. One that would be both extremely rare and very near to the dividing line between something which justified an early delivery and something that did not, and thus, having used a hypothetical situation to cast doubt upon our ability to see the right and wrong of every single situation, we think that karen hoped to stretch that doubt into a broader doubt about the entire abortion issue.
It hasn't worked. We know the difference between a rare borderline medical justification and other much more common social and economic justifications. We aren't that easily fooled.
So go ahead, take your nasty shots at one individual poster as a diversion, and then join karen as she tries to convince us that killing a baby because you want to take an expensive vacation this year is in the "gray area" morally...... we aren't buying any of it.

reply from: nykaren

Reira, Thanks for your kind words and your empathy. Your common sense and prayers are very much appreciated, though I see you're being attacked now for posting it. As for posting outside the "abortion is bad" box and being disowned, it definitely doesn't bother me to be disowned by the few who have done so. There are also some very nice folks here, they are just drowned out by the loud-mouths. I understand what you mean about the laws, but like I've said over and over again, it's not fair to ignore the women who need the law changed, just because some others may abuse it. Punish them, then, not my daughter and others in her situation. That's just my opinion, of course.
God is never unfair. What Sam had is caused, according to the specialists who took care of my daughter, by families "way back when" intermarrying, or having children together through incest or rape or whatever. Can't blame God for that one. My daughter and her husband just both happen to have the recessive gene that came about as a result. There's a 1 in 4 chance of their future children having this. The good news, of course, is that there's a 3 in 4 chance they won't.
We're all at peace with Sam's birth and death, and his short life was such a blessing. Thanks again and welcome to the forum!

reply from: nykaren

Several of us have concluded that the whole purpose of presenting "such a situation" on this board was to construct just such a hypothesis, Reira. One that would be both extremely rare and very near to the dividing line between something which justified an early delivery and something that did not, and thus, having used a hypothetical situation to cast doubt upon our ability to see the right and wrong of every single situation, we think that karen hoped to stretch that doubt into a broader doubt about the entire abortion issue.
It hasn't worked. We know the difference between a rare borderline medical justification and other much more common social and economic justifications. We aren't that easily fooled.
So go ahead, take your nasty shots at one individual poster as a diversion, and then join karen as she tries to convince us that killing a baby because you want to take an expensive vacation this year is in the "gray area" morally...... we aren't buying any of it.
Reira, It is easier for them to just pretend I'm not for real and that my daughter and this whole situation were made up. That of course suits their agenda much better. And I sure would love to see proof of that comment about me believing it's okay to kill a baby in order to take an expensive vacation this year. That's just one example of the lies posted to make me look bad. I've never even remotely said that. Paranoia and hate run rampant here among the ones who never shut up.

reply from: nykaren

Several of us have concluded that the whole purpose of presenting "such a situation" on this board was to construct just such a hypothesis, Reira. One that would be both extremely rare and very near to the dividing line between something which justified an early delivery and something that did not, and thus, having used a hypothetical situation to cast doubt upon our ability to see the right and wrong of every single situation, we think that karen hoped to stretch that doubt into a broader doubt about the entire abortion issue.
It hasn't worked. We know the difference between a rare borderline medical justification and other much more common social and economic justifications. We aren't that easily fooled.
So go ahead, take your nasty shots at one individual poster as a diversion, and then join karen as she tries to convince us that killing a baby because you want to take an expensive vacation this year is in the "gray area" morally...... we aren't buying any of it.
I realize it's easier for you just to pretend that my daughter's situation is made up, than it would be for you to deal with the subject in a reasonable way. Just write me off as the resident troublemaker, huh? And of course, you must also make up lies such as the above about me saying it's okay to abort a baby in order to take a nice vacation. Doesn't matter at all to you that I've never said anything even remotely like that. Your agenda is to make me look bad. You sure are feeling threatened aren't you? Rather comical to watch you make a fool of yourself with all your paranoia and hate.

reply from: nykaren

For any who'd like to see it, here's a picture of Sam taken during the hour he was with us.
http://tinyurl.com/3bsyon

reply from: 4given

Yes- the page had expired.. so I couldn't see the picture there. I am interested in seeing him if you can re-post.

reply from: nykaren

Sorry, I didn't realize it would do that. Try this:
http://www.msnusers.com/4jqpdtbll7j8ujaq8b4clp5920/Documents/Pictures%2FIMG%5F0295.JPG

reply from: JaysonsMom

Karen, that link isn't working either. Can you put the pic on photobucket? I'd love to see little Sam.
Amy

reply from: nykaren

Okay, one more try, from Photobucket:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x281/nykaren/sam.jpg

reply from: 4given

Thank you Karen. He is(was) beautiful!

reply from: faithman

Yaw. To bad he had to be aborted and not given a better chance to live full term.

reply from: yoda

Wow... two replies to my one post? Did I strike a nerve?
Oh, btw, the "vacation" thing was just a general comment about the flimsy excuses many women give for having abortions, it didn't have your name on it. Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're not out to get you!

reply from: yoda

Yeah, whoever the kid is, he's a cutie pie.

reply from: nykaren

Wow... two replies to my one post? Did I strike a nerve?
Oh, btw, the "vacation" thing was just a general comment about the flimsy excuses many women give for having abortions, it didn't have your name on it. Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're not out to get you!
Actually, that was 1 reply to Reira, and 1 to you. That's how it's to be done, isn't it?
And don't even try to lie your way out of your comment. It very much had my name connected to it, as anyone can see...
That is nothing but an outright lie.

reply from: nykaren

Yeah, whoever the kid is, he's a cutie pie.
Well, thank you, sir. He doesn't quite fit that stereotype of "aborted" babies you prefer to portray him as, does he?

reply from: leah

Hi Karen,
My name is Leah and I understand your pain. You say that you are a catholic right? Okay, there is no need to be pro-choice for the following reasons: God is an almighty God and can do things you cannot imagine. Use your faith as your crutch in this time of need, we all have testing periods that God gives to us. What if this is yours? I can tell you that I've had many hardships in my life but have not yet lost my faith in him because he takes care of those of us who believe in his existance. Even those who do not believe, get his help for unknown reasons. Karen, if your daughter is still pregnant, please, put all your faith on God, and pray for the baby. Get many God believing christians around you and your daughter and put in all you got. DO NOT GIVE UP. If you do this and mean it with all of your hearts, I promise he will comr through for you'll. I fthey are not right with the Lord, then they need to get right. God says children are a blessing, and is against the murder of the innocent. It is written thou shalt not murder. If he put that in there and knows your situation, don't you think that there just might be another way? Use your faith in God and belivev the baby will be well, it does not matter what anyone tells you, it matters what God does for your needs. What in the world did you place your soul in Gods hands for if you do not believe in his supernatural abilities? It says when 2 or more of you come together in my name, I'am in the midst of you. I will pray for the child and the comfort of your family. God Bless and do not loose your beautiful faith!

reply from: Teresa18

It's a shame he wasn't healthy. He was an absolutely beautiful little boy. Have faith that he is now in the arms of the angels in Heaven with Jesus.

reply from: faithman

To late. They already opted to kill the kid, and abandon faith.

reply from: nykaren

Have you been in this situation, to understand my pain? If so, maybe you'd like to share your story. And no, I'm not Catholic, I'm Protestant. If you read thru the entire thread here, you'll see that Sam was born at 34 weeks and lived for 63 minutes. His life was a beautiful blessing.

reply from: yoda

Golly.. you are SUCH A VICTIM!! Who could fail to feel SORRY FOR YOU????
Did you take classes on how to be a victim, or does it come naturally?
p.s. I do think YOU will eventually get around to trying to convince us that ALL abortion is "okay", as long as "the mother and the doctor" approve of it... or as long as "the mother thinks it's morally okay".... isn't that what's in that "gray" area you keep trying to enlarge?

reply from: yoda

As "you" prefer"??? Wow, another "lie" from Karen, since I haven't referred to "him" as an "aborted baby".
Like I said, whoever that kid actually is, he/she is a little cutie.

reply from: faithman

If they had faith, they wouldn't have had him killed, and trusted God for a miracle.

reply from: nykaren

As "you" prefer"??? Wow, another "lie" from Karen, since I haven't referred to "him" as an "aborted baby".
Like I said, whoever that kid actually is, he/she is a little cutie.
Gee, I could've sworn you thought Sam was aborted!

reply from: nykaren

Golly.. you are SUCH A VICTIM!! Who could fail to feel SORRY FOR YOU????
Did you take classes on how to be a victim, or does it come naturally?
p.s. I do think YOU will eventually get around to trying to convince us that ALL abortion is "okay", as long as "the mother and the doctor" approve of it... or as long as "the mother thinks it's morally okay".... isn't that what's in that "gray" area you keep trying to enlarge?
Victim? Hardly, though I'm sure you'd love to believe you have that kind of power, old man.
Since you believe that I'm going to try and convince you ALL abortion is okay, why don't you just hold your breath till happens?

reply from: faithman

Golly.. you are SUCH A VICTIM!! Who could fail to feel SORRY FOR YOU????
Did you take classes on how to be a victim, or does it come naturally?
p.s. I do think YOU will eventually get around to trying to convince us that ALL abortion is "okay", as long as "the mother and the doctor" approve of it... or as long as "the mother thinks it's morally okay".... isn't that what's in that "gray" area you keep trying to enlarge?
Victim? Hardly, though I'm sure you'd love to believe you have that kind of power, old man.
Since you believe that I'm going to try and convince you ALL abortion is okay, why don't you just hold your breath till happens?
Why don't you just stick another piece of fried fetus in your mouth and shut up skank.

reply from: nykaren

Wow, I know you must be proud of yourself for that one! It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

reply from: faithman

...well you suport abortion on demand, and many who do the deed eat them for lunch. That is what you support. SSSSSOOOO go have lunch with the baby killers why dont ya.

reply from: MayaSharona

...well you suport abortion on demand, and many who do the deed eat them for lunch. That is what you support. SSSSSOOOO go have lunch with the baby killers why dont ya.
Oh for the love of Christ, do grow up, won't you?
Provide proof that ANYONE EATS fetuses for lunch.
Christ almighty, your sensationalism is nearly as disgusting as the act of abortion! You should work for Weekly World News and report on Satan's face being seen in the swirling emissions from a factory smokestack.

reply from: faithman

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2006/02/fetuseating_abo.html
...well you suport abortion on demand, and many who do the deed eat them for lunch. That is what you support. SSSSSOOOO go have lunch with the baby killers why dont ya.
Oh for the love of Christ, do grow up, won't you?
Provide proof that ANYONE EATS fetuses for lunch.
Christ almighty, your sensationalism is nearly as disgusting as the act of abortion! You should work for Weekly World News and report on Satan's face being seen in the swirling emissions from a factory smokestack.

reply from: MayaSharona

...well you suport abortion on demand, and many who do the deed eat them for lunch. That is what you support. SSSSSOOOO go have lunch with the baby killers why dont ya.
Oh for the love of Christ, do grow up, won't you?
Provide proof that ANYONE EATS fetuses for lunch.
Christ almighty, your sensationalism is nearly as disgusting as the act of abortion! You should work for Weekly World News and report on Satan's face being seen in the swirling emissions from a factory smokestack.
Well, well. I stand so corrected.
This story originates from a report from World Net Daily, which states that someone reported someone seeing this doctor microwaving and eating a fetus. The "someone" remains anonymous. Pity, that.
Perhaps he washes them down with menstrual blood or cups of chilled urine for a satisfying meal.
So sorry that I didn't believe you, "Faith"man. Your source is impeccable, as always.

reply from: yoda

Actually, there has been testimony from employees of a certain (now closed) abortion clinic in Wichita that the abortionist there made "fetus soup" from the remains of the babies he killed.
BTW, are you familiar with out "ignore" function? Just click on "My Forums" at the top of the page, then scroll down to the bottom left and click on "Add Ignored User". Type in the name of the poster you wish to ignore, click on "Ignore User", and you won't see that poster's posts anymore. Then maybe you can contribute something other than your dissatisfaction with Faithman to this forum?

reply from: MayaSharona

Actually, there has been testimony from employees of a certain (now closed) abortion clinic in Wichita that the abortionist there made "fetus soup" from the remains of the babies he killed.
BTW, are you familiar with out "ignore" function? Just click on "My Forums" at the top of the page, then scroll down to the bottom left and click on "Add Ignored User". Type in the name of the poster you wish to ignore, click on "Ignore User", and you won't see that poster's posts anymore. Then maybe you can contribute something other than your dissatisfaction with Faithman to this forum?
And not be able to defend myself when this boy insults me? No thank you.
I would be interested in reading this testimony from employees of a certain (now closed) abortion clinic in Wichita that the abortionist there made "fetus soup" from the remains of the babies he killed.
It must be on public record if it is "testimony", yes?
Thank you for point me to it.

reply from: faithman

http://www.trosch.org/lif/baby-eat.html

reply from: yoda

The building was bought by Operation Rescue. Go to their website, that's probably the best place to start looking.
Do you doubt the report? Are you defending the reputation of that abortionist, the abortion industry, or what?

reply from: nykaren

...well you suport abortion on demand, and many who do the deed eat them for lunch. That is what you support. SSSSSOOOO go have lunch with the baby killers why dont ya.
Again, faithman, either show where I have EVER said I support abortion on demand. The truth is that I have always said just the opposite. I have made my views on abortion plain, and you continue to twist that to promote your hate and paranoia. So either produce your proof, as a complete post of mine where I have said that, and not a sentence or two taken out of context, or shut up. And speaking of paranoia, check out http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp

reply from: nykaren

The building was bought by Operation Rescue. Go to their website, that's probably the best place to start looking.
Do you doubt the report? Are you defending the reputation of that abortionist, the abortion industry, or what?
Any intelligent person would doubt the report and want proof of such accusations.

reply from: faithman

The building was bought by Operation Rescue. Go to their website, that's probably the best place to start looking.
Do you doubt the report? Are you defending the reputation of that abortionist, the abortion industry, or what?
She has already suported sex ed for grade schoolers which is the first stepping stone to abortion. She has also advocated that I usurp the authority of the parents of 4 year olds, and some how it is my responsiblity to sexualize the very young. All I can do is give the proper info to the parents, and pray that they will use their God given stewardship to train a child properly. That should never be usurped by pretend pro-lifers or a public school system in league with Planned Parenthood.

reply from: faithman

...well you suport abortion on demand, and many who do the deed eat them for lunch. That is what you support. SSSSSOOOO go have lunch with the baby killers why dont ya.
Again, faithman, either show where I have EVER said I support abortion on demand. The truth is that I have always said just the opposite. I have made my views on abortion plain, and you continue to twist that to promote your hate and paranoia. So either produce your proof, as a complete post of mine where I have said that, and not a sentence or two taken out of context, or shut up. And speaking of paranoia, check out http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp
LIER!!! Your very first post was that you supported all abortion so your daughter would have the rite to kill your grand son. You say you abandoned pro-life so all babies could be killed so the "hard cases" would be allowed.

reply from: 4given

All the petty quarreling is ridiculous and shameful! How is it contributing to the education of women in regard to an abortion, or the saving of anyone.. or thing. Suppose there was a woman looking to this forum to provide answers- It grieves me that someone could be turned off to the facts by this foolish bickering.

reply from: 4given

...well you suport abortion on demand, and many who do the deed eat them for lunch. That is what you support. SSSSSOOOO go have lunch with the baby killers why dont ya.
Oh for the love of Christ, do grow up, won't you?
Provide proof that ANYONE EATS fetuses for lunch.
Christ almighty, your sensationalism is nearly as disgusting as the act of abortion! You should work for Weekly World News and report on Satan's face being seen in the swirling emissions from a factory smokestack.
Well, well. I stand so corrected.
This story originates from a report from World Net Daily, which states that someone reported someone seeing this doctor microwaving and eating a fetus. The "someone" remains anonymous. Pity, that.
Perhaps he washes them down with menstrual blood or cups of chilled urine for a satisfying meal.
So sorry that I didn't believe you, "Faith"man. Your source is impeccable, as always.
This is sad- truly grievous in fact! What objective do you have here? You aren't painting a compassionate picture. You aren't showing women, like those that you counsel anything other than your willingness to engage in crude and foolish disagreements. Someone needs to decide to rise above the pettiness of this. I think you both need to let it go. It is damaging to the forum (and what we all stand for as a Pro-life group) to have this continue-

reply from: nykaren

...well you suport abortion on demand, and many who do the deed eat them for lunch. That is what you support. SSSSSOOOO go have lunch with the baby killers why dont ya.
Again, faithman, either show where I have EVER said I support abortion on demand. The truth is that I have always said just the opposite. I have made my views on abortion plain, and you continue to twist that to promote your hate and paranoia. So either produce your proof, as a complete post of mine where I have said that, and not a sentence or two taken out of context, or shut up. And speaking of paranoia, check out http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp
LIER!!! Your very first post was that you supported all abortion so your daughter would have the rite to kill your grand son. You say you abandoned pro-life so all babies could be killed so the "hard cases" would be allowed.
From my very first post:
As I stated at the start of this letter, I have always been pro-life. Watching my kids and grandkids suffer due to a "pro-life" law has changed that. Induced labor in a case such as this should be a medical decision, not a legal one. A law written with the assumption that ANYONE getting an abortion in the third trimester is doing it for the heck of it, is ridiculous. I am totally against abortion in the case of women doing it because the baby is a "mistake" or "inconvenience". But the laws need to be changed to differentiate between those cases and those of a pregnancy where the baby has absolutely NO chance of survival.
Try again, faithman.

reply from: nykaren

You're right - and chances are she would be subjected to the same abuse I and others have been subjected to. Maybe it's time to take a stand on that and stop him?

reply from: MayaSharona

The building was bought by Operation Rescue. Go to their website, that's probably the best place to start looking.
Do you doubt the report? Are you defending the reputation of that abortionist, the abortion industry, or what?
I am not defending anything. I usually do not accept everything that is spoon-fed to me, however. I find it too difficult to believe that any human being could cook and eat "fetus soup", I'm sorry. It is too horrid for my comprehension. Where are the photos of this "soup"?
I did find this on the OR website. It's the report from the responding officer to the Affordable Medical Clinic, which he was called to by the abortionist after he accused some of his employees of stealing from him:
http://operationrescue.org/files/dethoward.pdf
The whole report has the officer disgusted more at the dirty and unsanitary condition of the facilities than anything else. He seems to almost "brush off" the "fetus-soup-eating" as what he described above.
As a matter of fact, doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the ones who willingly WORKED at this abortion mill...meaning, of course, that they had to SUPPORT abortion to even want to work there...all of a sudden decide to accuse the very same man who accused them of stealing, i.e., the doctor? Why would they even want to work there if they witnessed the doctor cooking and eating fetus soup? Doesn't it sound a little like RETRIBUTION to you on the part of the employees? Doesn't it sound a bit like TIT-FOR-TAT? Doesn't it sound a little like "Well he accused ME of something, I'm going to accuse HIM of something!"...?
It does to me. There is no sworn testimony, no nothing, except passing comments by employees who were accused of stealing by the doctor, and who decided turnabout is fair play. Abortionists being what they are, I still cannot embrace the notion of anyone, any human being save maybe a headhunter in the Aboriginal jungle, eating the remains of a fetus, in a soup or otherwise. Sorry.
If it annoys you that I do not accept everything that is spoon-fed to me, feel free to hit "ignore".

reply from: faithman

...well you suport abortion on demand, and many who do the deed eat them for lunch. That is what you support. SSSSSOOOO go have lunch with the baby killers why dont ya.
Again, faithman, either show where I have EVER said I support abortion on demand. The truth is that I have always said just the opposite. I have made my views on abortion plain, and you continue to twist that to promote your hate and paranoia. So either produce your proof, as a complete post of mine where I have said that, and not a sentence or two taken out of context, or shut up. And speaking of paranoia, check out http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp
LIER!!! Your very first post was that you supported all abortion so your daughter would have the rite to kill your grand son. You say you abandoned pro-life so all babies could be killed so the "hard cases" would be allowed.
From my very first post:
As I stated at the start of this letter, I have always been pro-life. Watching my kids and grandkids suffer due to a "pro-life" law has changed that. Induced labor in a case such as this should be a medical decision, not a legal one. A law written with the assumption that ANYONE getting an abortion in the third trimester is doing it for the heck of it, is ridiculous. I am totally against abortion in the case of women doing it because the baby is a "mistake" or "inconvenience". But the laws need to be changed to differentiate between those cases and those of a pregnancy where the baby has absolutely NO chance of survival.
Try again, faithman.
You make my point. You said that you would rather have all abortion legal so you could kill your hard case grandson. and by the way, the whole medical profession is governed by law. A medical discission has to line up with what is legal. That is EVERY medical discission. True pro-lifers do not abandon their views for hard cases. That is the job of pro-death skanks, and if you have trouble recognizing what that is, purchase a mirror.

reply from: faithman

You're right - and chances are she would be subjected to the same abuse I and others have been subjected to. Maybe it's time to take a stand on that and stop him?
Maybe it is time you posted the truth insted of posting lies because you have been exposed as a phony. Chances are that anyone, man or woman, Who comes to this foru, looking for answeres will get free material from me for the asking. Any pro-death skank, or false pro-lifer comes here spoiling and baiting for a fight will most assuredly get that as well. Thats your "CHOICE". It is pretty odvious which you asked for, so don't whine when you get it. You have already help kill one womb child, so don't exspect a free pass to continue to do so.

reply from: MayaSharona

...well you suport abortion on demand, and many who do the deed eat them for lunch. That is what you support. SSSSSOOOO go have lunch with the baby killers why dont ya.
Oh for the love of Christ, do grow up, won't you?
Provide proof that ANYONE EATS fetuses for lunch.
Christ almighty, your sensationalism is nearly as disgusting as the act of abortion! You should work for Weekly World News and report on Satan's face being seen in the swirling emissions from a factory smokestack.
It doesn't even claim he actually ate a fetus. It says he microwaved one and "mixed" it with his lunch. It also says they kept fetal remains in the same refrigerator as employee's lunches. Is it possible that this man mistook a container of fetal remains for his lunch and microwaved it by mistake? Could it have been a "mix-up" rather than a "mixing?" At any rate, there seems to be no substantiation for the allegations. We allegedly have an "eyewitness," but apparently no statement from same. It sounds to me like somebody may have exaggerated this story, and those most eager to put their own spin on it just kind of ran with it.
Before the usual jackasses accuse me of attempting to defend this guy, let me just say that I stand for truth, and I just don't think this is it. I do not approve of dishonesty, and I think the potential loss of credibility hurts us more than the "demonizing" of this abortionist by repeating questionable claims helps us.
*Applauds CP*
Exactly. This kind of sensationalism can only hurt the cause, not help it.

reply from: MayaSharona

Um, I thought we were talking about the doctor in Kansas making and eating fetus soup? How does China come into the fray? People in China have, for centuries, been notorious for eating anything and everything that doesn't eat them first. Not to be offensive toward Chinese or anything, but this is true. They've had so many famines in that country, they've learned to make use of everything from tree bark to roaches. So fetus eating in China would not surprise me in the least, although it is the most horrid thought I can think of.

But we were discussing the Kansas doctor making fetus soup. So the China story proves exactly what about that?

reply from: faithman

Um, I thought we were talking about the doctor in Kansas making and eating fetus soup? How does China come into the fray? People in China have, for centuries, been notorious for eating anything and everything that doesn't eat them first. Not to be offensive toward Chinese or anything, but this is true. They've had so many famines in that country, they've learned to make use of everything from tree bark to roaches. So fetus eating in China would not surprise me in the least, although it is the most horrid thought I can think of.

But we were discussing the Kansas doctor making fetus soup. So the China story proves exactly what about that?
No, you are focussing only on that. I am merely introduceing the fact that fetus eating is a wide spread fact. You can make excusses for fetus eaters if you want. But the death skanks need to know what company they keep. It is also a fact that witches own abortion clinics, and think that baby blood is a sacrament. But I guess you will defend them as well.

reply from: faithman

http://www.forerunner.com/champion/X0038.html

reply from: MayaSharona

Um, I thought we were talking about the doctor in Kansas making and eating fetus soup? How does China come into the fray? People in China have, for centuries, been notorious for eating anything and everything that doesn't eat them first. Not to be offensive toward Chinese or anything, but this is true. They've had so many famines in that country, they've learned to make use of everything from tree bark to roaches. So fetus eating in China would not surprise me in the least, although it is the most horrid thought I can think of.

But we were discussing the Kansas doctor making fetus soup. So the China story proves exactly what about that?
No, you are focussing only on that. I am merely introduceing the fact that fetus eating is a wide spread fact. You can make excusses for fetus eaters if you want. But the death skanks need to know what company they keep. It is also a fact that witches own abortion clinics, and think that baby blood is a sacrament. But I guess you will defend them as well.
Errr, I wouldn't say fetus eating is a "wide spread fact". And of course, you have to make the imbecilic threats that I am "making excuses for fetus eaters". LOL. Won't even dignify that comment with a response.
And now you say "it is also a fact that witches own abortion clinics". I see. Where did you find this "fact"? By "witches" do you mean Satanists? Because witches, i.e., Wiccans, shun all blood as unclean. My minor in college was World Religions. Satanists, well, perhaps. They do use blood in their rituals. But Satanists are not witches, and vice versa.
Are you saying, then, that all abortion clinics are owned by Satanists? You alluded to this as a "fact". There must be documentation of this somewhere, then, if it's a fact. I mean, are you sure some aren't owned by Episcopalians, or Jews, or other mainstream religions? Or perhaps by atheists, which I guess you would lump together with Satanists?

reply from: nykaren

Read it real slowly, idiot. Again - nowhere do I advocate ALL abortions being legal. You have completely failed to show that I have. And no, I do not consider myself 100% pro-life or a "true" prolifer by your standards, haven't since I came here. Personal experience has led me away from that, and that quite honestly is my right, and to disagree on some points with you without being lied about and called vulgar names. Anyone can read my posts and see what a liar YOU are.

reply from: faithman

http://www.forerunner.com/champion/X0038.html
Um, I thought we were talking about the doctor in Kansas making and eating fetus soup? How does China come into the fray? People in China have, for centuries, been notorious for eating anything and everything that doesn't eat them first. Not to be offensive toward Chinese or anything, but this is true. They've had so many famines in that country, they've learned to make use of everything from tree bark to roaches. So fetus eating in China would not surprise me in the least, although it is the most horrid thought I can think of.

But we were discussing the Kansas doctor making fetus soup. So the China story proves exactly what about that?
No, you are focussing only on that. I am merely introduceing the fact that fetus eating is a wide spread fact. You can make excusses for fetus eaters if you want. But the death skanks need to know what company they keep. It is also a fact that witches own abortion clinics, and think that baby blood is a sacrament. But I guess you will defend them as well.
Errr, I wouldn't say fetus eating is a "wide spread fact". And of course, you have to make the imbecilic threats that I am "making excuses for fetus eaters". LOL. Won't even dignify that comment with a response.
And now you say "it is also a fact that witches own abortion clinics". I see. Where did you find this "fact"? By "witches" do you mean Satanists? Because witches, i.e., Wiccans, shun all blood as unclean. My minor in college was World Religions. Satanists, well, perhaps. They do use blood in their rituals. But Satanists are not witches, and vice versa.
Are you saying, then, that all abortion clinics are owned by Satanists? You alluded to this as a "fact". There must be documentation of this somewhere, then, if it's a fact. I mean, are you sure some aren't owned by Episcopalians, or Jews, or other mainstream religions? Or perhaps by atheists, which I guess you would lump together with Satanists?

reply from: faithman

Read it real slowly, idiot. Again - nowhere do I advocate ALL abortions being legal. You have completely failed to show that I have. And no, I do not consider myself 100% pro-life or a "true" prolifer by your standards, haven't since I came here. Personal experience has led me away from that, and that quite honestly is my right, and to disagree on some points with you without being lied about and called vulgar names. Anyone can read my posts and see what a liar YOU are.
One of your first post stated that you would rather have all abortion legal so you could kill your grandson, then lied that there was a law that stopped you from doing so when all you had to do was find a hospital low enough to do the deed. Then you parade a picture of the dead womb child in a vain attemp to garner simpathy for the abortion prosidure that ended his life. Your right. I shouldn't call you a skank, that is giving skankism a bad name.

reply from: nykaren

Um, I thought we were talking about the doctor in Kansas making and eating fetus soup? How does China come into the fray? People in China have, for centuries, been notorious for eating anything and everything that doesn't eat them first. Not to be offensive toward Chinese or anything, but this is true. They've had so many famines in that country, they've learned to make use of everything from tree bark to roaches. So fetus eating in China would not surprise me in the least, although it is the most horrid thought I can think of.

But we were discussing the Kansas doctor making fetus soup. So the China story proves exactly what about that?
No, you are focussing only on that. I am merely introduceing the fact that fetus eating is a wide spread fact. You can make excusses for fetus eaters if you want. But the death skanks need to know what company they keep. It is also a fact that witches own abortion clinics, and think that baby blood is a sacrament. But I guess you will defend them as well.
Anyone else recall that when I came here and posted about my daughter's situation, I was jumped ALL over for bringing a "rare" situation to your attention? She didn't fit your "95%" mold. I was repeatedly accused of having made up the story, and still am. I was cross-examined and questioned for days on end. But fman can use not only "rare" but unsubstantiated stories, and can openly LIE about me and others, to support his assinine stupidity and nobody but a few call him on it. Why is that?

reply from: MayaSharona

Um, I thought we were talking about the doctor in Kansas making and eating fetus soup? How does China come into the fray? People in China have, for centuries, been notorious for eating anything and everything that doesn't eat them first. Not to be offensive toward Chinese or anything, but this is true. They've had so many famines in that country, they've learned to make use of everything from tree bark to roaches. So fetus eating in China would not surprise me in the least, although it is the most horrid thought I can think of.

But we were discussing the Kansas doctor making fetus soup. So the China story proves exactly what about that?
No, you are focussing only on that. I am merely introduceing the fact that fetus eating is a wide spread fact. You can make excusses for fetus eaters if you want. But the death skanks need to know what company they keep. It is also a fact that witches own abortion clinics, and think that baby blood is a sacrament. But I guess you will defend them as well.
Errr, I wouldn't say fetus eating is a "wide spread fact". And of course, you have to make the imbecilic threats that I am "making excuses for fetus eaters". LOL. Won't even dignify that comment with a response.
And now you say "it is also a fact that witches own abortion clinics". I see. Where did you find this "fact"? By "witches" do you mean Satanists? Because witches, i.e., Wiccans, shun all blood as unclean. My minor in college was World Religions. Satanists, well, perhaps. They do use blood in their rituals. But Satanists are not witches, and vice versa.
Are you saying, then, that all abortion clinics are owned by Satanists? You alluded to this as a "fact". There must be documentation of this somewhere, then, if it's a fact. I mean, are you sure some aren't owned by Episcopalians, or Jews, or other mainstream religions? Or perhaps by atheists, which I guess you would lump together with Satanists?
Here is the article:
Errr, no. No Wiccan uses "blood letting and sacrifice" in their religious rituals. Sorry to burst this bubble for you. I know how you loathe anything except fundamentalist Christendom, but Wiccans doing this just doesn't happen.
One could say the same thing about how Christianity was frighteningly violent and bloodthirsty at one time, too. You're talking about a religion that played out 2,000 years ago. At that time, all religions were different. Do you truly want to compare what a religion was 2,000 years ago to what it is today? If so, let's get started, then. You first.
And you object to this why?
Again, why do you object? Because it isn't Christianity? Because someone is a Wiccan doesn't mean they eat fetuses or excrement or blood or anything else. You do have some archaic views on religions other than your own, don't you? I suppose you think Catholics believe Mary is God, too?
Sheesh.

reply from: faithman

I merely pointed out that a witch owns an abortion clinic, and says abortion is a sacrament. It is also a fact that most wiccians are very much pro-choice and covens are enlisted to do a hoodoo to protect abortion clinics.

reply from: faithman

http://www.forerunner.com/champion/X0038.html

reply from: nykaren

You're right - and chances are she would be subjected to the same abuse I and others have been subjected to. Maybe it's time to take a stand on that and stop him?
Maybe it is time you posted the truth insted of posting lies because you have been exposed as a phony. Chances are that anyone, man or woman, Who comes to this foru, looking for answeres will get free material from me for the asking. Any pro-death skank, or false pro-lifer comes here spoiling and baiting for a fight will most assuredly get that as well. Thats your "CHOICE". It is pretty odvious which you asked for, so don't whine when you get it. You have already help kill one womb child, so don't exspect a free pass to continue to do so.
You are the one with the lies and looking for a fight with your vulgar posts. I can't post in response to ANYONE here without your childish attacks. You want it, you got it! And hey, whenever you find where I said I support abortion on demand, I'm still waiting to see that.

reply from: yoda

What's your reason for attacking the reliability of WND? Is it because they are a religiously based organization, or that they are prolife?

reply from: yoda

What does intelligence have to do with honesty?
Why do you attack prolifers in general?

reply from: yoda

From what I've read, such things are actually fairly common in Asia. But you seem to question the honesty of prolife sources especially quickly. "Photos"? Are you serious?

reply from: 4given

You're right - and chances are she would be subjected to the same abuse I and others have been subjected to. Maybe it's time to take a stand on that and stop him?
Karen, you aren't implying that you came here looking for answers? Didn't you come here to gain the sympathy and support of pro-lifers, so you could justify your own personal agenda ;an ammendment to a late term abortion law?

reply from: yoda

Good point. Not only that, she came here rubbing her title "former prolifer" in our faces.

reply from: faithman

Good point. Not only that, she came here rubbing her title "former prolifer" in our faces.
Let me save her some time..... LIERS!!!!

reply from: nykaren

What does intelligence have to do with honesty?
Why do you attack prolifers in general?
Intelligence means you check the truthfulness (honestly) of the "facts" you choose to believe and base your arguments on. You don't blindly believe what someone says simply because they are prolife. A good example of that is your buddy fman's info on the wiccan religion. He posted sources that he said proved his points about wicca. They obviously did not. Thankfully, there are some here who check his accuracy. There are others, not so bright, who would have taken his word for it without batting an eye.
If asking questions and expecting "facts" to be supported, is seen by you as attacking prolifers in general, that's your hangup, not mine. If responding to others' constant attacks on my character is seen as attacking prolifers in general, I assure you it is not. It is an attack on ignorance and hate and vulgarity, and the individuals who thrive on it.

reply from: nykaren

You're right - and chances are she would be subjected to the same abuse I and others have been subjected to. Maybe it's time to take a stand on that and stop him?
Karen, you aren't implying that you came here looking for answers? Didn't you come here to gain the sympathy and support of pro-lifers, so you could justify your own personal agenda ;an ammendment to a late term abortion law?
I made my reason for being here quite plain in my posts when I asked what prolifers were willing to do to help women who need medical care in a situation such as my daughter's, and for babies who will not survive and are suffering in the womb. I have never asked for anyone's sympathy, and do not want sympathy. And I certainly don't need to "justify" my beliefs here or anywhere else. I have seen the need for a change in the law, and I have seen the paranoia that even the mention of such a change has caused here. I've also heard privately from several who agree with me and are aware of other situations where women have been denied medical care, in NY state and elsewhere. Quite frankly, if I were worried about being liked or approved of or gaining anyone's sympathy here, I'd have been gone a long time ago. I will fight for what I believe in, just like you will. Thanks to a loving God and a compassionate, caring Catholic Hospital and staff, my family and I had precious time with Sam, and my daughter is beginning to regain her health.

reply from: 4given

You're right - and chances are she would be subjected to the same abuse I and others have been subjected to. Maybe it's time to take a stand on that and stop him?
Karen, you aren't implying that you came here looking for answers? Didn't you come here to gain the sympathy and support of pro-lifers, so you could justify your own personal agenda ;an ammendment to a late term abortion law?
I made my reason for being here quite plain in my posts when I asked what prolifers were willing to do to help women who need medical care in a situation such as my daughter's, and for babies who will not survive and are suffering in the womb. I have never asked for anyone's sympathy, and do not want sympathy. And I certainly don't need to "justify" my beliefs here or anywhere else. I have seen the need for a change in the law, and I have seen the paranoia that even the mention of such a change has caused here. I've also heard privately from several who agree with me and are aware of other situations where women have been denied medical care, in NY state and elsewhere. Quite frankly, if I were worried about being liked or approved of or gaining anyone's sympathy here, I'd have been gone a long time ago. I will fight for what I believe in, just like you will. Thanks to a loving God and a compassionate, caring Catholic Hospital and staff, my family and I had precious time with Sam, and my daughter is beginning to regain her health.
Paranoia- self destroy ya.. anyway. It isn't paranoia that has personally prompted a response from me- That is actually a pretty significant accusation you have made. Please consider the situation folks- a pro-lifer speaks out- again.. to shed some light in on this tomb right she is busy creating.. The bottom line is you are not pro-life- You support abortion. You are either for the saving of innocent babes, or for the savage mutilation of them! "Sam" falls into the grey area.. there is no grey area! Every pregnancy, child, trial is different. So you didn't want to support his mutilation, and were so damaged by your daughter's suffering- sympathy or not, you both got mine.. I can't help that. I don't want anyone to suffer! Am I paranoid because you want to have the laws changed to prevent the suffering of another woman whose child is going to die anyway? No! What is 9 months? Many women suffer through far more- I am not trying to discount any of her suffering- physical or emotional. I know you must understand by now that for those that are truly pro-life, the possibility of one child being so savagely murdered because of a special consideration for your situation- is not worth the energy involved in contemplation. As stated, I sympathize- not because I want to, but because of who I am. Just understand the ill-effects this law you seek to change and your pro-choice stance will have on the future and the potential for future generations.

reply from: boburhed

I am sorry to hear of your situation and I think that your perspective is reasonable. My best wishes for you and your family.
I see some very cold and inhumane responses here from people who probaly consider themselves to be acting in the name of humanity.
It's disturbing.
Such sadistic thinking from people who are claiming the moral high-ground astounds me.
Life is tough. It is horrific. It is beautiful.
If a child experiences discomfort in the womb, I propose that's nothing compared to the discomfort of actually being born. I also propose that discomfort in the womb is nothing compared to the discomfort of living a life.
Life feeds on life. Everything alive depends on killing something else to stay alive. Everything living must die at some point.
If the planet earth exploded tomorrow, Monday morning wouldn't care.
There is nothing precious or sacred about human life, except to humans.
The universe could care less if we all died.
Not all lives are equal. Some embryos turn into homeless people. Some turn into doctors, some into dictators, others into holy men. There is no telling who will become what. Some people may grow up to commit mass murder. Some may grow up to raise a family of 20 children themselves.
The argument that every embryo diserves a chance does not hold water.
You might as well extend it to every sperm and egg. It's not reasonable.
Life is more complicated than a black and white decision can account for. This ladie's poor grandchild is an example of a gray area.
The question to me of "What if your mom had aborted you?" doesn't phase me.
If I had been aborted, the world would be slightly different. No better or worse I imagine. I'm glad to have the chance to be alive, but I don't think that argument is enough to deny a woman the right to choose. If my mom had not wanted to have me, I would hope that her life and the world would benefit from that decision. All the wrongs that I've committed in my life, intentional or not would have never happened. There would be less waste piled up and more resources to spare. It's true that any good I've done would be missing too, but I still contend that it really wouldn't matter in the big scheme of things. Is your ego so big that you really think the world would be a terrible place if you had never been born? That if you had been aborted that the lack of your life would really matter to the human race? I beg to differ. I would argue against that even for mother theresa or any person who has had a positive effect in our world.
Why don't pro-lifers get a bit more active on the global front? There are bigger fish to fry. There are people all over the world dying every day who are aware they are alive, with personalities already developed and who are leaving families and loved ones behind.
There are murders being carried out in the name of power, greed, corruption, even barbaric tradition. Women are barely out of the gate in the west. Everywhere else in the world they are still considered "property". Isn't this more important than if a woman in a trailer park in Tennessee wants to abort because she can't afford another kid?
Ethnic and racial cleansing and discrimination are still rampant on the planet. Isn't it more important that we find a way to stop this?
Hunger and homelessness are bigger problems too.
By trying to force people to have children they don't want, you are increasing the pain and complication of the world and you are depleting the resources of the planet.
Have fun with this one. I'm glad to have given you something to get excited over.
Don't let me down with poorly reasoned retorts. Thanks!

reply from: nykaren

You're right - and chances are she would be subjected to the same abuse I and others have been subjected to. Maybe it's time to take a stand on that and stop him?
Karen, you aren't implying that you came here looking for answers? Didn't you come here to gain the sympathy and support of pro-lifers, so you could justify your own personal agenda ;an ammendment to a late term abortion law?
I made my reason for being here quite plain in my posts when I asked what prolifers were willing to do to help women who need medical care in a situation such as my daughter's, and for babies who will not survive and are suffering in the womb. I have never asked for anyone's sympathy, and do not want sympathy. And I certainly don't need to "justify" my beliefs here or anywhere else. I have seen the need for a change in the law, and I have seen the paranoia that even the mention of such a change has caused here. I've also heard privately from several who agree with me and are aware of other situations where women have been denied medical care, in NY state and elsewhere. Quite frankly, if I were worried about being liked or approved of or gaining anyone's sympathy here, I'd have been gone a long time ago. I will fight for what I believe in, just like you will. Thanks to a loving God and a compassionate, caring Catholic Hospital and staff, my family and I had precious time with Sam, and my daughter is beginning to regain her health.
Paranoia- self destroy ya.. anyway. It isn't paranoia that has personally prompted a response from me- That is actually a pretty significant accusation you have made. Please consider the situation folks- a pro-lifer speaks out- again.. to shed some light in on this tomb right she is busy creating.. The bottom line is you are not pro-life- You support abortion. You are either for the saving of innocent babes, or for the savage mutilation of them! "Sam" falls into the grey area.. there is no grey area! Every pregnancy, child, trial is different. So you didn't want to support his mutilation, and were so damaged by your daughter's suffering- sympathy or not, you both got mine.. I can't help that. I don't want anyone to suffer! Am I paranoid because you want to have the laws changed to prevent the suffering of another woman whose child is going to die anyway? No! What is 9 months? Many women suffer through far more- I am not trying to discount any of her suffering- physical or emotional. I know you must understand by now that for those that are truly pro-life, the possibility of one child being so savagely murdered because of a special consideration for your situation- is not worth the energy involved in contemplation. As stated, I sympathize- not because I want to, but because of who I am. Just understand the ill-effects this law you seek to change and your pro-choice stance will have on the future and the potential for future generations.
Paranoia (Websters Dictionary) : 1. a mental disorder characterized by delusions ascribing hostile intentions to others. 2. Baseless or excessive distrust of others.
That is the meaning of the word and describes to a t what I've seen here. You folks are sure anyone who comes in with a different viewpoint is the enemy and out to get you. You consider my use of that word a significant accusation, but calling me a skank and worse is fine by you??
As you say, you feel sympathy by choice. It is not even remotely what I came here to gain. Save your pity for the likes of fman and yodavater. They deserve it, and sure have mine.
The issue is not black and white except in your closed mind. Are you implying that Sam was mutilated and savagely mudered?

reply from: boburhed

By the way. I read this in someone's reply:
"If you're Christian, certainly you must believe God is the one who decides when we should die. "
If I point a gun to my head and pull the trigger, God decided that this is the point at which I should die.
I think it is pompous and mistaken to believe that we have will to do anything separate from god's will. Anything that any human or being or even plant does is dictated solely by God. We may have the illusion that we can make a choice, but when we make it, we don't realize that there was no other option. That is what we chose, therefore that is the only thing we could have chosen. There is never any going back. This is not a dress-rehearsal. When you make a decision, it's god's will.
When someone dies by the hand of a drunk driver, I suspect that most christians would deal with the tragedy by the phrase "It was just God's will".
That also means this: It was Gods will that the drunk got behind the wheel and steered the car into a dangerous situation. My point is that it's all God's will.
When someone dies by the hand of a murderer, it was God's will that the gun was purchased, the barrel was aimed and the trigger was pulled. God oversees all good and bad things. God is present at an ethnic cleansing. God is in your toilet bowl.
What do you think omnipresent and omniscient means?

reply from: boburhed

...
In case you didn't get my point (and I suspect you didn't)
that means if someone decides to have an abortion, it IS God's will.

reply from: AshMarie88

Well, so much for your so called "on the fence" position. I think you've already made up your mind you wanna be pro-child-killing.

reply from: 4given

Another abortion whore. This person is definately not looking for answers- He is clearly here to create a disturbance. Abortion is God's will? We all possess freedom of choice- our own will. This not always what God would intend (His perfect will).. That is why we pay for the consequences of our actions- Or as he would prefer, the innocent womb child would pay the price.

reply from: heartbroke

You're right - and chances are she would be subjected to the same abuse I and others have been subjected to. Maybe it's time to take a stand on that and stop him?
Karen, you aren't implying that you came here looking for answers? Didn't you come here to gain the sympathy and support of pro-lifers, so you could justify your own personal agenda ;an ammendment to a late term abortion law?
I made my reason for being here quite plain in my posts when I asked what prolifers were willing to do to help women who need medical care in a situation such as my daughter's, and for babies who will not survive and are suffering in the womb. I have never asked for anyone's sympathy, and do not want sympathy. And I certainly don't need to "justify" my beliefs here or anywhere else. I have seen the need for a change in the law, and I have seen the paranoia that even the mention of such a change has caused here. I've also heard privately from several who agree with me and are aware of other situations where women have been denied medical care, in NY state and elsewhere. Quite frankly, if I were worried about being liked or approved of or gaining anyone's sympathy here, I'd have been gone a long time ago. I will fight for what I believe in, just like you will. Thanks to a loving God and a compassionate, caring Catholic Hospital and staff, my family and I had precious time with Sam, and my daughter is beginning to regain her health.
Paranoia- self destroy ya.. anyway. It isn't paranoia that has personally prompted a response from me- That is actually a pretty significant accusation you have made. Please consider the situation folks- a pro-lifer speaks out- again.. to shed some light in on this tomb right she is busy creating.. The bottom line is you are not pro-life- You support abortion. You are either for the saving of innocent babes, or for the savage mutilation of them! "Sam" falls into the grey area.. there is no grey area! Every pregnancy, child, trial is different. So you didn't want to support his mutilation, and were so damaged by your daughter's suffering- sympathy or not, you both got mine.. I can't help that. I don't want anyone to suffer! Am I paranoid because you want to have the laws changed to prevent the suffering of another woman whose child is going to die anyway? No! What is 9 months? Many women suffer through far more- I am not trying to discount any of her suffering- physical or emotional. I know you must understand by now that for those that are truly pro-life, the possibility of one child being so savagely murdered because of a special consideration for your situation- is not worth the energy involved in contemplation. As stated, I sympathize- not because I want to, but because of who I am. Just understand the ill-effects this law you seek to change and your pro-choice stance will have on the future and the potential for future generations.
Paranoia (Websters Dictionary) : 1. a mental disorder characterized by delusions ascribing hostile intentions to others. 2. Baseless or excessive distrust of others.
That is the meaning of the word and describes to a t what I've seen here. You folks are sure anyone who comes in with a different viewpoint is the enemy and out to get you. You consider my use of that word a significant accusation, but calling me a skank and worse is fine by you??
As you say, you feel sympathy by choice. It is not even remotely what I came here to gain. Save your pity for the likes of fman and yodavater. They deserve it, and sure have mine.
The issue is not black and white except in your closed mind. Are you implying that Sam was mutilated and savagely mudered?
I almost sacrificed my daughter to the Planned Parenthood suction tube. It sickens me to hear that a grandmother would dare advocate the destruction of a grandson. I have only been a Christian for a few years, and it was Christ who saved me from hell, and my child from abortion. The firey trials are a chance to put our trust in God. When we say that some how we have the right to kill our children, we degrade our gender, and betray our faith. A Christian in the same situation does not run to the world for answeres. Abortion is of the world. A child of God trusts in The Lord Jesus Christ no matter what. We trust and pray for a miracle, we do not kill our off spring because of a bad report. A true Christian would have carried a child to term and trusted God for the out come, not taken the chance of a miracle out of His hands. Abortion is a gross sin, and the evidence of a total lack of faith.

reply from: 4given

Exactly! It is sickening regardless of the sad story one uses to try and justify- Any death before God's time- or a natural course is wrong. Delivering a child earlier than the 40 weeks of gestation (especially trying to have it delivered 10 weeks early)because it was going to die anyway They might as well rush the process along so mom doesn't have to be uncomfortable and can move on w/ her life w/out her baby, because she knew it would die anyway.. The long story short here. It is beyond grievous!

reply from: AshMarie88

Exactly! It is sickening regardless of the sad story one uses to try and justify- Any death before God's time- or a natural course is wrong. Delivering a child earlier than the 40 weeks of gestation (especially trying to have it delivered 10 weeks early)because it was going to die anyway They might as well rush the process along so mom doesn't have to be uncomfortable and can move on w/ her life w/out her baby, because she knew it would die anyway.. The long story short here. It is beyond grievous!
And while we're at it, start killing all cancer patients, all children that suffer from other diseases which causes their life short, and everyone else who will die soon.
It's the exact same thing, and very disgusting.

reply from: heartbroke

It is time that we as women take back our movement. Womens suferage was a christian movement of pro-life women. S.B. Anthony was very much pro-life, and considered abortion as a betrail of the movement she invested her life into. I have seen the names the pro-choice women are called here, and though it may not be polite to engage in such coversation, I think they are getting off light. The very expression of being a woman is motherhood. It is one thing the fellas can't do, though they play a fun part in it. [yah, I think sex is fun]

reply from: 4given

I tend to agree. They will be met w/ far more than a nasty name come redemption day! I do not choose to engage in name-calling or petty insults, but do not regard any woman w/ a shred of respect if they know full well what an abortion is and still choose to advocate it. And motherhood is awesome! Especially pregnancy- I never felt so close to God and I loved every bit of it- labor included! I accepted it and thanked God for it! We need to join together to educate the countless women out there that rely on another's interpretation of abortion- I am blessed by the women around me that appreciate the gift of life they have been blessed with. It is time to shed some light on that and to encourage the down-trodden.. Adoption is another thing many don't consider. We have to be a voice for the unborn, just as we have been called to be.

reply from: heartbroke

I tend to agree. They will be met w/ far more than a nasty name come redemption day! I do not choose to engage in name-calling or petty insults, but do not regard any woman w/ a shred of respect if they know full well what an abortion is and still choose to advocate it. And motherhood is awesome! Especially pregnancy- I never felt so close to God and I loved every bit of it- labor included! I accepted it and thanked God for it! We need to join together to educate the countless women out there that rely on another's interpretation of abortion- I am blessed by the women around me that appreciate the gift of life they have been blessed with. It is time to shed some light on that and to encourage the down-trodden.. Adoption is another thing many don't consider. We have to be a voice for the unborn, just as we have been called to be.
I have to say morning sickness was a real faith builder. And I am a little iffy on the labor thing. But we are trying to get Amanda a little brother or sister, and that is a whole lot of fun. I don't know who started the false roomers ( ck sp), but fundie sex is the best, and why would you want to look anywhere else when husband and wife lovein can't be beat? Let me tell ya girls when love making really is about love, you don't have to feel like a bad boys love toy that he throws away when he is threw. You feel like a highly prized person who can get ear nibbling on demand. I think I can do that for a life time.

reply from: 4given

I tend to agree. They will be met w/ far more than a nasty name come redemption day! I do not choose to engage in name-calling or petty insults, but do not regard any woman w/ a shred of respect if they know full well what an abortion is and still choose to advocate it. And motherhood is awesome! Especially pregnancy- I never felt so close to God and I loved every bit of it- labor included! I accepted it and thanked God for it! We need to join together to educate the countless women out there that rely on another's interpretation of abortion- I am blessed by the women around me that appreciate the gift of life they have been blessed with. It is time to shed some light on that and to encourage the down-trodden.. Adoption is another thing many don't consider. We have to be a voice for the unborn, just as we have been called to be.
I have to say morning sickness was a real faith builder. And I am a little iffy on the labor thing. But we are trying to get Amanda a little brother or sister, and that is a whole lot of fun. I don't know who started the false roomers ( ck sp), but fundie sex is the best, and why would you want to look anywhere else when husband and wife lovein can't be beat? Let me tell ya girls when love making really is about love, you don't have to feel like a bad boys love toy that he throws away when he is threw. You feel like a highly prized person who can get ear nibbling on demand. I think I can do that for a life time.
I never had morning sickness- I prayed for the souls and strength of my boys through contractions.. and delivery. (my longest labor was my 1st- 4 hours.. I have been told I am fortunate) What rumors? Sex is intended for marriage, so why wouldn't it be best? Time to share that little secret w/ the women around you, as you also enlighten them about what an abortion truly is. Have you seen any of the abortion photos? Some women require a bit more than an I AM A PERSON card- Check out the Life Dynamics website for the links- If you have any friends or acquaintances that don't give up an opinion on abortion, the photos help.

reply from: heartbroke

I tend to agree. They will be met w/ far more than a nasty name come redemption day! I do not choose to engage in name-calling or petty insults, but do not regard any woman w/ a shred of respect if they know full well what an abortion is and still choose to advocate it. And motherhood is awesome! Especially pregnancy- I never felt so close to God and I loved every bit of it- labor included! I accepted it and thanked God for it! We need to join together to educate the countless women out there that rely on another's interpretation of abortion- I am blessed by the women around me that appreciate the gift of life they have been blessed with. It is time to shed some light on that and to encourage the down-trodden.. Adoption is another thing many don't consider. We have to be a voice for the unborn, just as we have been called to be.
I have to say morning sickness was a real faith builder. And I am a little iffy on the labor thing. But we are trying to get Amanda a little brother or sister, and that is a whole lot of fun. I don't know who started the false roomers ( ck sp), but fundie sex is the best, and why would you want to look anywhere else when husband and wife lovein can't be beat? Let me tell ya girls when love making really is about love, you don't have to feel like a bad boys love toy that he throws away when he is threw. You feel like a highly prized person who can get ear nibbling on demand. I think I can do that for a life time.
I never had morning sickness- I prayed for the souls and strength of my boys through contractions.. and delivery. (my longest labor was my 1st- 4 hours.. I have been told I am fortunate) What rumors? Sex is intended for marriage, so why wouldn't it be best? Time to share that little secret w/ the women around you, as you also enlighten them about what an abortion truly is. Have you seen any of the abortion photos? Some women require a bit more than an I AM A PERSON card- Check out the Life Dynamics website for the links- If you have any friends or acquaintances that don't give up an opinion on abortion, the photos help.
Yes, I have seen the abortion pictures. They give me the willy nillys. Hard to think that one of them could have been Amanda. Maybe they are nessisary to bust some down. When I looked into the eyes of the person picture, my heart melted, and killing was out of the question. But I am for what ever it takes.

reply from: 4given

That is the idea. I was told that "it is hard to look into the eyes of someone that you are intending to kill." (perhaps not the exact words used, but close enough) Whatever it takes is enough! If it saves one child, then you have fulfilled your purpose by the motivation(your child) that has called you into this service. I believe that both are necessary- it is a matter of who and when- I prefer to have access to either one, but always to the I AM A PERSON card.

reply from: heartbroke

That is the idea. I was told that "it is hard to look into the eyes of someone that you are intending to kill." (perhaps not the exact words used, but close enough) Whatever it takes is enough! If it saves one child, then you have fulfilled your purpose by the motivation(your child) that has called you into this service. I believe that both are necessary- it is a matter of who and when- I prefer to have access to either one, but always to the I AM A PERSON card.
It saved my life girl friend.

reply from: 4given

That is the idea. I was told that "it is hard to look into the eyes of someone that you are intending to kill." (perhaps not the exact words used, but close enough) Whatever it takes is enough! If it saves one child, then you have fulfilled your purpose by the motivation(your child) that has called you into this service. I believe that both are necessary- it is a matter of who and when- I prefer to have access to either one, but always to the I AM A PERSON card.
It saved my life girl friend.
Praise you Lord for that!!!!

reply from: heartbroke

That is the idea. I was told that "it is hard to look into the eyes of someone that you are intending to kill." (perhaps not the exact words used, but close enough) Whatever it takes is enough! If it saves one child, then you have fulfilled your purpose by the motivation(your child) that has called you into this service. I believe that both are necessary- it is a matter of who and when- I prefer to have access to either one, but always to the I AM A PERSON card.
It saved my life girl friend.
Praise you Lord for that!!!!
praise the most High God indeed, for faithful servants who proclaim His word.

reply from: yoda

Well, yes and no. Women have the "upper hand" as far as the ultimate safety of an unborn baby goes, but on the other hand, the role of men/fathers in society has always been that of protector (and provider) of the family unit. So you really can't exclude men from a role in the antiabortion movement when it's their sons and daughters that are being slaughtered, and their hearts that are being broken.

reply from: 4given

Well, yes and no. Women have the "upper hand" as far as the ultimate safety of an unborn baby goes, but on the other hand, the role of men/fathers in society has always been that of protector (and provider) of the family unit. So you really can't exclude men from a role in the antiabortion movement when it's their sons and daughters that are being slaughtered, and their hearts that are being broken.
I agree Yoda. That is why it is important to educate males and females alike- I can't fathom what that must be like- I imagine painful for whomever is left w/out the ability to save their child! It is disgusting that there aren't laws in place that protect a father in regard to his unborn child! Start w/ the youth.. and then grab ahold of whatever ears (or eyes if the ears don't quite want to listen) venture through. I believe that we can win this through the education (and also encouragement) of the youth.

reply from: fetalisa

Exactly! Many of the prolife guys got women pregnant and those women later aborted. That's why prolife guys are so pissed that women have control over their own bodies. It burns them up that, unlike slaves, women have bodily autonomy and the right to make decisions over their own bodies.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Exactly! Many of the prolife guys got women pregnant and those women later aborted. That's why prolife guys are so pissed that women have control over their own bodies. It burns them up that, unlike slaves, women have bodily autonomy and the right to make decisions over their own bodies.
So Pro-Abortion is a power trip for women? By killing their child they can show they are in charge?

reply from: fetalisa

Women have the right to bodily autonomy. This is why rape is illegal. You can't legally have sex with a woman without her consent. Likewise, an unborn does not trump a woman's right to bodily autonomy. An unborn can't use the uterus of a woman without consent. It's no different than if you needed my kidney and would die without it. Although you might die without it, you have no right whatsoever to take and use my kidney without my consent. Neither do the unborn have the right to use another's uterus without consent.
You can't even legally use my car without my consent. The body of a woman has far more sanctity than my car. If you can't use my car without my consent, then you most certainly can't use the body of a woman without consent. This is exactly why rape is illegal.

reply from: boburhed

First Response -
AshMarie88, I am on the fence. It's just that so far, all the evidence seems to point to choice.
So, if I sound choice-oriented, that's my current stance. If I had made up my mind already, I don't think I'd be participating here.
Thanks for commenting.

reply from: boburhed

It's true, if a meteor crashed through the roof and killed me right now, the world wouldn't blink.
I don't get it. Why do you think that an unborn child should have more rights than one who has actually begun life outside the womb?
I'm saying that a life form that hasn't made it out of the womb isn't really a living breathing human yet. A baby doesn't even have a sense of self for a long time after birth.
Of course I realize that sperm and eggs are reproductive cells. When you put the 2 together, they are still reproductive cells.
I'm sure you think that when they join that they are a human.
The technicality is there to see. Do you also see the other technicality that they are still just 2 cells that happen to have joined together?
These cells are alive before they join and after.
What if they multiply to 100. They are just 100 cells.
I think the crux of my thought on this topic is that I think that a conscious, self-aware being is more valuable than one that is not. A loss of the first would be a greater loss than a loss of the second.
I disagree that millions of human beings have lost their life to abortion. Millions of unborn fetuses (that have the potential to become human beings) have lost their lives to abortion.
Trillions more still of reproductive cells have been lost to lack of fertilization. I think their loss is equivalent to the loss of the fetuses.
I suppose that wherever you choose to draw the line will determine how you feel about it, no?

reply from: fetalisa

BINGO! Abortion kills a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-thinking, non-rational non-person. Boo f-r-i-g-g-i-n' hoo!
Exactly! Killing a 40 year old husband with a wife, three kids, parents and friends, leaves;
a wife without a husband
3 kids without a father
2 parents without a child
friends without a friend
Abortion kills nothing, essentially. Had I been aborted, none on the planet, including me, would ever have known the difference, which means no harm done.
And up to 50% of those would have aborted spontaneously without human intervention anyway.
Actually, the prolifers draw the line based on the agenda of making woman slaves of the reproductive system, just like in the 'good' old days.

reply from: yoda

Abortion is a "matter of the heart", not a contest.
Those who seek "evidence" are in fact seeking excuses for killing babies.

reply from: whydeath

I am still waiting to read what the "evidence" this poster wants....

reply from: fetalisa

A non-conscious, non-thinking, non-feeling, non-sentient non-person in the form of an unborn, does not constitute a person. This is why you can't point to ANY society in human history that has EVER given legal equivalence to the unborn that the born have. So, your statement here that an unborn is a person is nothing beyond a personally chosen fantasy.
However, even if the unborn were persons, they still can't use the body of another without consent, no more than you can take and use my kidney without my consent, even though you might die without my kidney.
Your point here, is therefore a non-point, if there ever was one.
Except you have no proof at all an unborn is a person and you can't point to ANY society in history that has EVER equated them as such.
Except the unborn is not a 'person' as http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml case clearly proves.

reply from: yoda

No bob, all your self-serving lies are here to see. They are as transparent as your motives for telling them.
Even a school child knows that breathing has no effect on the species of members of the human race, and yet you do not? And you think babies aren't "living" before birth? Why, that's a "resurrection" bob.... a miracle!!
How many cells do you have, bob? Why are they not all "reproductive cells"?
Who cares what order of value you place humans in, bob? How does your "order" justify homicide, bob?
We cannot change our biological classification just to suit you bortheads, bob. We are human beings, a.k.a. Homo sapiens, from the moment of our creation, at fertilization.
The bottom line, bob, is that you seek sleezy, slimy, transparently thin, even totally false "technicalities" to justify the bloody slaughter of babies.
That's really all we need to know about you bob..... that tells us the whole ugly story.

reply from: fetalisa

If only an unborn were a person, you might actually have a valid point. However, as http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml
case proves, the unborn are not, in fact, persons.
All you are saying is that those with whom you disagree are evil, which is a common, logically invalid, debate tactic of the narrow and simple-minded.

reply from: fetalisa

You do argue the unborn should have rights that exceed the rights of the born. You argue the unborn should have unrestricted access to the body of the woman, since the unborn will die without that access.
Yet you, as a born, can't take and use my kidney without my consent, even though you may die without it. If you can't do that, why should the unborn have that right, which the born don't even possess?
Wave bye-bye to the constitutional idea of 'equal protection under the law.' The prolifers are arguing the unborn should have the right to use the body of another without consent, which is a right that even the born don't possess, which is why none of you can take and use my kidney without my consent, even though you might die without it.
But none of us have the right to use the body of another without consent, which is why you can't take and use my kidney without my consent, even though you might die without it. How can you possibly claim such a right is one of the many the born have, when we don't have such a right at all, and never have?
It's not about the right to exist. The question is, do should the unborn have a right to use the body of another without consent, when the born don't even have such a right.

reply from: fetalisa

Without sentience you have no person, only a body. Schiavo had no sentience. She was no longer a person and could never become one again.
"Knowing the difference" is not equal to harm. If you wish to ban abortion, you must prove it causes harm. It doesn't, which is why had I been aborted, none on the planet, including me, would have known the difference. Where's the harm?
Oh I am sure this one is going to be absolutely brilliant!
Oh, I get it. You think when I said 'no one will know the difference," that I must have meant no one will ever miss them or know they are gone. Based on what you think I meant, you then create a strawman. Nice!
What's so funny here is, in the case of killing the homeless, someone(s) will miss them and someone(s)
will know they are gone. Whether it be family, friends, people at the soup kitchen, whoever.
Additionally, the homeless has sentience, which means he will be aware he is being killed. He will be aware he is being robbed of his right to life. He will know he is being harmed.
Such is not the case with an unborn.
Killing causes harm to the person killed. They have sentience, so are aware they are being killed. Such is not the case with the unborn. Additonally, you are robbing them of their right to life, which they are also aware of.
The end result is drastically different. If a 40 year old husband, father of 3 kids and care-taker of two parents are killed, the following harm results from it;
A wife loses a husband
3 kids lose a dad
two parents lose a child and caretaker
assorted friends lose a friend
In the case of abortion, no such harm results. That's why it is ludicrous to claim abortion is murder. The results of abortion are nowhere near similar to the murder of a born.
Too bad for you you can't see the difference between killing a married father of three as compared to aborting an unborn. The fact the end results of both killings in nowhere near equivalent is the reason the majority of societies throughout human history didn't criminalize abortion at all, or criminalized in the most minor of ways, like say by requiring;
7 years penance for oral sex
120 days penance for abortion
Even the ancients had the common sense to see killing the born was nowhere hear equivalent to killing the unborn.
It is a victimless crime. I would feel far more guilt swatting a fly than aborting an unborn. At least the fly has sentience, which the unborn lacks.
None here are discussing killing persons. I am discussing killing zygotes, embryos and fetuses, which clearly aren't persons, nor recognized as such, not just in our society, but in any and every human society which preceded ours.
You don't have the right to access any other person's body without their consent, born or not. This is not slavery but bodily autonomy.

reply from: fetalisa

Gee, and I contend the sky is blue. Do you think debate involves belaboring very obvious facts that all agree on?
"In the fields of philosophy, theology, and bioethics, the definition of a person may exclude biological human entities (such as human embryos, or deformed human fetuses that lack major portions of the brain, or adult humans lacking higher brain functions)."http://www.reference.com/search?q=person
I doubt very seriously any such legal determination was made, given that such a determination wasn't necesasry. However, her condition was certainly covered in the above quote;
"adult humans lacking higher brain functions"
Given that Schiavo's brain had liquified and was no more, there was no higher brain function left. The autonomic responses from the brain stem did continue, however.
That's already been provided above.
Check my source again;
"Normative: moral or deontological arguments to advocate fair and equitable treatment for recognized classes of sentient beings;
*YAWN* Sure, I have provided no documentation whatsoever.
How can you be harmed when you have no means at all to sense pain and you don't even know you were alive, much less that you have been killed?
Yet the death of a born is nowhere near the equivalent of the death of an unborn. If an father of three is killed, the harm which results is;
1. a wife lost a husband
2. 3 kids lost a dad
3. his parents lost a son
4. many friends lost a friend.
None of the above occurs in the case of abortion. The most you can say is, the harm that resulted was the loss of an entity that no one knew, because they never interacted with the entity, and the entity lacked any sentience for interaction anyway. That's not the same at all as the above example.
No one but you are arguing that it will. The point is not whether sentience ensures someone is aware they are being killed. The point is, without sentience, you have no awareness you are alive, much less have awareness that you are being killed, which is exactly why no harm comes from abortion.
Usually harm involves some type of suffering, like in the example where a 40 year old man is killed, his wife and kids suffer his loss and he can suffer as he is dying as well.
Where is the suffering in an abortion? Something which lacked sentience, and so didn't know it was alive, is killed, but doesn't know it was killed. It doesn't feel pain since it lacks sentience. So where is the suffering? You can't suffer when you don't know you are alive, don't know you are dead and can't feel pain.
It harms them all. I figured you were intelligent enough to know the obvious, which is why I didn't belabor the obvious. I apologize for making such assumptions.
Sorry. I thought you knew murder was illegal.
Lesson learned for you. Next time find out the lady you are shagging is prolife BEFORE you get her pregnant. No law needed for that one, is there?
Nope. All you, I, siblings, father and sister lose is a POTENTIAL child, since up to 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.
It's like this;
Sex without birth control doesn't guarantee a conception.
A conception doesn't guarantee a pregnancy.
A pregnancy doesn't guarantee a live birth.
In the case of the 40 year old man murdered, we know beyond all doubt his wife is left husbandless and his kids are left fatherless.
In the case of abortion, we have no way of knowing if what was aborted would ever have made it to term anyway. So for you to claim, in the case of abortion, you, I, siblings, father and sister lose a child and suffer a loss (how can you suffer the loss of losing something you never knew, held, spoke to, interacted with, etc), is like buying a lottery ticket and telling everyone you will be a millionaire next Thursday. There are so many things that could go wrong, the end result can not possibly be considered guaranteed.
Since we know that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, similar harm does not result, unless we automatically assume every conception results in a live birth, which science clearly shows is not the case at all.
You are the one pretending that every conception results in a live birth, when the science proves this is not so. Whereas, in the case of the murder of a 40 year old man, there is no question many suffer losses. In the case of abortion, we don't know that any losses occur, since whatever would have aborted might have been one of the 50% that would have spontaneously aborted anyway and the zygote, embryo or fetus suffers no loss, since, lacking sentience, it has no awareness it is alive, no awareness it is dead and no capacity to feel pain. So where is the suffering? Where is the harm?
You haven't proven killing an unborn via abortion is 'wrong.' It most certainly is not wrong, according to the mutually agreed upon standards of our society.
That makes no sense whatsoever. So in past societies, people believed the unborn were 'dead' before quickening and somehow, magically came 'alive' after quickening. Do you have a source for this claim? I would love to read this for myself.
Well there should be some evidence of harm, in the form of suffering somewhere. If you can't show any evidence that the 'victim' suffered, I have no reason at all to believe abortion brought harm.
Especially once it is aborted.
Many diabetics are diabetic because of their conscious actions. We don't deny them insulin, do we?

reply from: boburhed

I must say Fetalisa that your use of my words is not what I had in mind.
I am interested in debating in a kind and open way in search of truth, common ground, understanding and positive change.
You have a decidedly negative tone.
While we may agree in principle, it's tone like that which would prevent people from listening to the idea behind the words. Did you have a personal experience with abortion that brought you to such a rabid state?
Back to my last point again...
I think that pro-lifers who have thought it out this far must draw the distinction at fertilization. Before fertilization there is no new life and killing sperm and eggs is ok. At fertilization, a process of a new life has been put in motion and should not be stopped. Can someone confirm that this is the prolife stance for me?
If a drug can kill a sperm while it is digging through the egg wall, it's ok to kill it.
If a drug kills a sperm after it has made it through the wall and is starting to comingle dna strands with the egg, it is not ok to kill it.
Furthermore, if the two have united and cell division has begun, it is still not ok to kill it.
If fertilization is what matters to you, I'm sure nothing can change your mind. I'm just thinking it through.
For me, if a baby is a few hours old (meaning, a sperm and an egg have just joined and have begun the mechanistic biological process that they go through) it is still ok to stop that process if circumstances outside the womb are not ideal for a new life to come out of the uterus.
If it has been a day I still feel the same way.
If it has been 30 days I still feel the same way but as the number of days goes up I would feel less and less OK with the whole situation.
I think the reason is similar to my problem with insects. I have noticed that the larger a bug is, the more psychologically difficult it is to kill it. I think it may be that the bug is more real to me the bigger it is.
This is an interesting point to me. The bigger the baby is, the worse I feel about ending it's life. The more real it is to me. Does anyone else have that feeling?
That's not a rational argument. It's a feeling. I would have trouble personally with the idea of abortion if I saw my girlfriend's belly grow large and move.
If my girlfriend was raped, I'd feel ok with abortion even up to the day of delivery. The rapist's dna doesn't deserve a chance to become a human with my girlfriend's dna. If you argue against this, I just have to assume that you are a control freak.
If I knock my girlfriend up, it's a matter of emotion and our individual stance on the matter. I would want an abortion unless we were planning on having a child already. If we were just a fling and not intending to get married, I would definitely be in favor of an abortion.
If my girlfriend is going to die as a result of child birth, come on. Anyone who is this hard-core about the rights of an unborn is just interested in power games. For them it's not about morality anymore. It's about drawing lines in the sand and insisting nobody cross them simply because they drew the line there.
If it is known that the baby will live a life of pain and trouble due to physical difficulties, I think abortion is more humane than birth. Why do you want to make a hard and fast rule that would deny humane treatment in a situation like this?
Part of me feels that brining a baby into this world is a violent terrible thing to do in the first place.
Life is great, true, but life is horrific as well. Just look at this web site for example. Great and horrific at the same time.
Regardless of how I would feel in any of these situations, I think that if my girlfriend said she just had to have it one way or the other, I would defer. It's definitely not my choice to inflict or not to inflict surgery or execution on something that is inside her body, even if it sprang from one of my cells too. I think that posession being 9/10ths of the law should apply to this scenario.
hmm

reply from: fetalisa

So what now? Do I apologize for not meeting your expectations or something? Or perhaps it might be better if you adjust your expectations MARKEDLY DOWNWARD with respect to me? (Further, I had no idea I used your words. I am far too into writing to plagiarize the crap of others!)
It's a free country man.
Oh let me guess. You mistakenly assumed our goals were the same? Sorry to disappoint in yet another expectation you had of me.
Perhaps the rabidity is a persona, partly me, but not the whole of me.

reply from: boburhed

hey lisa,
whatever.
I was just separating myself from your ugliness.
I don't assume our goals are the same, just that we agreed in principle about the discussion at hand.
You don't disappoint me.
That's your bag.
enjoy!

reply from: AshMarie88

JUST HAVE THE FLIPPING BABY!!!!! It won't kill you!!

reply from: gotfetus

You need to have 2 or 3 abortions before you know what you are talking about. Whats the big deal? one should not be force to carry a parasite.

reply from: 4given

You need to have 2 or 3 abortions before you know what you are talking about. Whats the big deal? one should not be force to carry a parasite.
And you have had 2 or 3 abortions?

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

You need to have 2 or 3 abortions before you know what you are talking about. Whats the big deal? one should not be force to carry a parasite.
You are sick to compare a living human being to a blood sucking parasite. You hold a low value for babies. You are defective!
You are wrong to say a person is not qualified to hold one quilty of murder if they themselves have not murdered others.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes and no.
Yes, we know your "logic" is sick.
Even if it's not "ideal" for new life to come out, that doesn't mean abortion is justified and okay, just like it's not justified and okay to kill a born person if someone thinks moving them to a new environment would be unideal.
NO.
Size does NOT matter. It's a baby no matter what. It does not matter how big or small it is. All babies are equal.
Why?
That is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard! This proves you are indeed someone very heartless and uneducated.
The "rapist's dna" already created a human person in that case. No, it's not fun, no, it shouldn't have happened. However, the rape already happened and a new unique person had been created, you cannot undo that, no matter what you do. And a child, no matter how conceived, deserves to die for the "father's"/pig's crime.
Nope, just concerned for innocent life.
Fathers are supposed to protect their kids no matter what, so why do you feel that way? Your children you helped create, you'd be for getting rid of them, ending their little lives before they'd have a change to hug you, kiss you, call you daddy, etc. etc. Sickening.
If the child dies indirectly as a result of trying to save the woman, then that is "okay" because it was not on purpose. But just killing the child in denial is WRONG.
It's not up to YOU who gets to live and who gets to die. It's not up to YOU to say that people in pain should not be alive. It's not up to YOU to terminate someone's life for whatever reason.
Killing someone is the most inhumane thing you could do.
I'm not against humane treatment; I am against murder.
The way the world is now, I'd slightly agree; however, if a woman is pregnant, she'd have no choice. The child already exists and if you think about it, technically already is in this world.
And we only get one life, people should cherish it and respect everyone else's lives. Don't kill.
It wouldn't be her choice to inflict execution on the child inside her body, either. That's all the pro-lifers' points.

reply from: AshMarie88

You need to have 2 or 3 abortions before you know what you are talking about. Whats the big deal? one should not be force to carry a parasite.
How about no? I don't want my body to be a death place of my own flesh and blood. Never would I end my kids' lives under any circumstance.
And human beings are not parasites. Stop dehumanizing them.

reply from: AshMarie88

My future child/ren will not be put under a knife, they won't be slaughtered, they'll always be safe in my arms and comforted.

reply from: gotfetus

You need to have 2 or 3 abortions before you know what you are talking about. Whats the big deal? one should not be force to carry a parasite.
You are sick to compare a living human being to a blood sucking parasite. You hold a low value for babies. You are defective!
You are wrong to say a person is not qualified to hold one quilty of murder if they themselves have not murdered others.
Boo hoo bible thumper. What are you going to do? Hit me with a lightning bolt? The world will be better off without the likes of you. There are those that shouldn't have children. Someone forgot to tell your mom.

reply from: gotfetus

I don't think you will have to worry about it. One day you will have to have a permit to have kids. I don't think you would pass the inteligence test to get one. We have to many stupid people useing everything up as it is. One less like you will never be missed.

reply from: AshMarie88

I don't think you will have to worry about it. One day you will have to have a permit to have kids. I don't think you would pass the inteligence test to get one. We have to many stupid people useing everything up as it is. One less like you will never be missed.
LOL! Coming from someone who doesn't even know how to spell intelligence in the first place.

reply from: 4given

Ashley! One of the trolls is trying to clone!

reply from: gotfetus

I don't think you will have to worry about it. One day you will have to have a permit to have kids. I don't think you would pass the inteligence test to get one. We have to many stupid people useing everything up as it is. One less like you will never be missed.
LOL! Coming from someone who doesn't even know how to spell intelligence in the first place.
No spell checker on this dumb pro-life site. Dumb people should not be allowed to reproduce. We live in a high tech world. menial jobs are on their way out. So we need far fewer thick headed apes to work for us. Abortion is the truest act of compassion, as it restricts a population that can not operate in this world, except to p[lay foot ball and fight dogs.

reply from: AshMarie88

I agree, dumb people should not be allowed to reproduce.

reply from: gotfetus

So when are you getting the tubes tied?

reply from: AshMarie88

So when are you getting the tubes tied?
After I have about 3 babies.

reply from: gotfetus

So when are you getting the tubes tied?
After I have about 3 babies.
Boy! You really are trying to lower the learning curve aren't you?

reply from: AshMarie88

MY CHOICE AS A WOMAN is to have babies in the future. My body, my life, my choice.

reply from: gotfetus

So you think that the geneticly inferior should be allowed to fill up the getto with crack heads?

reply from: AshMarie88

Pro-abortion AND racist. Wow, you're more idiotic than I thought you were.

reply from: 4given

This person is an obvious racist as well! Do not engage this fool/troll!

reply from: gotfetus

Call it what you wish. I prefur realist. Some people groups are lazy violent drug adicts. You know that is true, you just don't have the courage to admit it.

reply from: gotfetus

This person is an obvious racist as well! Do not engage this fool/troll!
I am already married, so I do not need to get engaged. niether do I need to be robbed by the less evolved, because you get in the way of curbing the population of the lower class.

reply from: 4given

This person is an obvious racist as well! Do not engage this fool/troll!
I am already married, so I do not need to get engaged. niether do I need to be robbed by the less evolved, because you get in the way of curbing the population of the lower class.
Seriously Cletus, you have to be joking!

reply from: gotfetus

Very serious. Un fortunantly we will probably have to have a blood bath to cut back people groups that have over produced stupid low life criminals. Some people are just too low born to be of much use to any one.

reply from: 4given

Very serious. Un fortunantly we will probably have to have a blood bath to cut back people groups that have over produced stupid low life criminals. Some people are just too low born to be of much use to any one.
Such as yourself? To thine own self be true.

reply from: gotfetus

This person is an obvious racist as well! Do not engage this fool/troll!
I am already married, so I do not need to get engaged. niether do I need to be robbed by the less evolved, because you get in the way of curbing the population of the lower class.
Seriously Cletus, you have to be joking!
Go walk the street of any inner city at night, then get back to me. We have biological agents that will clean that mess up quite nicely.

reply from: heartbroke

This person is an obvious racist as well! Do not engage this fool/troll!
I am already married, so I do not need to get engaged. niether do I need to be robbed by the less evolved, because you get in the way of curbing the population of the lower class.
Seriously Cletus, you have to be joking!
Go walk the street of any inner city at night, then get back to me. We have biological agents that will clean that mess up quite nicely.
The problem is not low birth. It is low education. Every people group does equally well with equal oportunity. It is gangsta culture that fosters most of the violence. It is also a departure from the faith.

reply from: gotfetus

This person is an obvious racist as well! Do not engage this fool/troll!
I am already married, so I do not need to get engaged. niether do I need to be robbed by the less evolved, because you get in the way of curbing the population of the lower class.
Seriously Cletus, you have to be joking!
Go walk the street of any inner city at night, then get back to me. We have biological agents that will clean that mess up quite nicely.
The problem is not low birth. It is low education. Every people group does equally well with equal oportunity. It is gangsta culture that fosters most of the violence. It is also a departure from the faith.
So inferior groups laying around breeding like rats has nothing to do with it? Your kind of compassion is burying us in a mound of humanity that is worthless. Until we are willing to take a good hard look at reality,we are finished. Those who pop one welfare kid out after the other, should be sterilized. If someone is on welfare, they should not be allowed to have more than 2 children at most. We only have so many fields that need picking, and our freinds from the south are willing to do that. So what good are these others. What good is a bunch of mentally inferior derelicts that buy their drugs with a government check?

reply from: fetalisa

I have never argued any such thing. When and if you decide to argue points I actually made, let me know. Until then, this debate is over.

reply from: AshMarie88

How about just get rid of welfare period?

reply from: gotfetus

How about just get rid of welfare period?
How incompassionate of you? But maybe your eyes are finally opening. Anyone on the Government dole, should be in work camps to up grade our crumbling infrastructure. I think you christians have a phrase in your fairy tale book, if you don't work, you don't eat.

reply from: AshMarie88

I'd rather not have MY hard earned money being given to lazy asses who refuse to work for what they want.
And I've always been against welfare, my eyes aren't "opening".

reply from: gotfetus

So what is your answere for a huge population that is dependant on the more evolved to exist? So you would agree with work camps for the able bodied? That is what we had in the 30's .

reply from: AshMarie88

So what is your answere for a huge population that is dependant on the more evolved to exist? So you would agree with work camps for the able bodied? That is what we had in the 30's .
Murder, I believe in murder for controlling the population. It's the only way to prevent overpopulation and will prevent idiots from coming into this world.

reply from: gotfetus

So what is your answere for a huge population that is dependant on the more evolved to exist? So you would agree with work camps for the able bodied? That is what we had in the 30's .
Murder, I believe in murder for controlling the population. It's the only way to prevent overpopulation and will prevent idiots from coming into this world.
Is this an attemp at sarcasm? One does need a sence of humor when they find their world view inept, out dated, and on the way out.

reply from: AshMarie88

No I am being serious. I believe in murder to control the population, just like you do. I'm coming around to seeing it your way.

reply from: gotfetus

No I am being serious. I believe in murder to control the population, just like you do. I'm coming around to seeing it your way.
Very well then. If you are old enough, vote for Hilary. She is the best progressive in the hunt.

reply from: pbut

Dear Karen
I just wanted to reply to your post and express my empathy. I am a 30 year old woman who values life greatly. I am currently 23 weeks pregnant and very recently discovered that my baby most likely has potters syndrome. While the diagnosis will not be confirmed for another week or so, the outlook is not good.
I am absolutely devastated by this news as my husband and I have longed for this baby. We have made no decisions about what to do next as we are still in limbo and waiting for more medical advice. But I can sympathise greatly with your daughter. Knowing that you are carrying a baby that will not survive is so painful, it is hard to put into words. Just getting through each day is really difficult.
I am so disgusted by the comments posted in response to your initial mail. Firstly they show a complete lack of awareness and knowledge of this condition. Secondly equating inducement in this case with murder is not only ridiculous, it is small-minded, blinkered and unfairly judgemental. No one would wish to go through this, let alone be accused of murder to prevent stretchmarks. The pain is great enough as it is.
To those who have hurled these insults, do not judge others. I can understand what Karen is going through - this is the worst time of my life and it pains me so much knowing that I will not be able to see my baby live and grow up. Judgemental people who hurl insults at those going through such emotional and physical pain and trauma (and believe me the emotional side of it is so much worse) should not be allowed to post to this forum. Christianity and respect for human life doesnt just mean disagreeing with abortion. It also means respecting and not judging others, particularly when they are going through such pain and have obviously already struggled with the many issues involved.

reply from: AshMarie88

Why is it that we have so many people come here with so called true stories? They're always practically the same stories, just stretched differently, and they all talk the exact same.
Same with all the pro-aborts.
I'm starting to NOT believe any of these people.

reply from: yoda

I suspect that's because they are all the same person, just logging on with different names and newly made up stories. He/she is keeping me busy adding to the iggy list.

reply from: 4given

Fool me once shame on you...

reply from: gotfetus

And yet you seemed to have been fooled by a failed "movement" based on a god that obviously does not care to answere pro-life prayers. Abortion on demand will remain legal because it answeres issues you have no answeres for.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yea, our movement has failed, which is why more and more people are coming to the pro-life side and speaking up for those who can't speak, right?

reply from: gotfetus

Oh yes. Believe the report of pro-life robber barons that tell you anything to collect your dollars.

reply from: nykaren

Thanks. I've answered you privately, so check your messages.

reply from: nykaren

I suspect that's because they are all the same person, just logging on with different names and newly made up stories. He/she is keeping me busy adding to the iggy list.
I suspect you both need a psychiatric evaluation.

reply from: AshMarie88

I suspect that's because they are all the same person, just logging on with different names and newly made up stories. He/she is keeping me busy adding to the iggy list.
I suspect you both need a psychiatric evaluation.
Nah, only people who are okay with killing babies need psychiatric help.

reply from: nykaren

I suspect that's because they are all the same person, just logging on with different names and newly made up stories. He/she is keeping me busy adding to the iggy list.
I suspect you both need a psychiatric evaluation.
Nah, only people who are okay with killing babies need psychiatric help.
Not accurate, of course, but then what can be expected of someone who was homeschooled by her mommy, is still wet behind the ears, has never given birth or raised a child, but thinks she knows the answers for anyone and everyone on this issue. Try living a while in the "real" world with the grown-ups before you talk to me that way.

reply from: AshMarie88

Oh that's funny, very cute. You don't know what I've done myself when it comes to raising children or living in the real world. Care to ask?

reply from: nykaren

Oh that's funny, very cute. You don't know what I've done myself when it comes to raising children or living in the real world. Care to ask?
No, sweetie, I don't but I'm sure you're going to tell us all about it anyway. And whatever your stories, you are still seeing life through the eyes of a teenager. Nothing wrong with that, we've all been there, but it does make your holier-than-thou know-it-all attitude a bit hard to take. But go ahead and whine about all you've been through if it will make you feel better.

reply from: gotfetus

We need to vote a teenager president before they forget they know everything.

reply from: AshMarie88

Because I'm sure my getting up every morning at almost 6 to go to work for 9 hours and saving up to get an apartment is not me getting any experience of the real world at all. And I'm sure my helping to raise my cousin's almost 3 year old son since he was born, getting up at 4:30 every morning to take care of him until 5 at night, 2 years ago, means I have no experience in child care whatsoever.
I mean, it's obvious I have no life experience. I've never worked, I've never taken any care whatsoever or children, I'm just a "good little girl" who's too stupid to know anything about life.
Yes, I'm just a heartless, stupid person!

reply from: gotfetus

Gosh young one. You need to work on the self image thing. You are a little hard on yourself.

reply from: AshMarie88

And did I mention I'm only 18 years old?

reply from: nykaren

You poor dear. I stand humbly chastized.

reply from: AshMarie88

And yet no response on my other post.
I think it's horrible you criticize me, just because I'm 18 and have been homeschooled. That does not mean I have absolutely no real world experience.
Got it?

reply from: gotfetus

Being 18 means you are young enough to over come your early brain washing, and view the truth for what it is. I think you show great promise. A little more time in the free air of humanism, and you could develope a fine intelect. You just need to be set free from the shackles of the mind numbing propaganda that holds you back from real advancement.

reply from: nykaren

No reponse?? "You poor dear, etc..." was my response.
And I also think it's horrible that you criticize and judge me. So....if you can't take it, don't be so quick to dish it out.
Got it?

reply from: fetalisa

Actually, it does, and it's not rude to say so either. Even if you hadn't been homeschooled, you still would have no real-life experience. Your views at age 25 will be drastically different than they are now, if for no other reason than you will have lived on your own by that age. Your views will be altered again at age 30, then at 40, etc and so on.
We have all been there. We swore we knew up one side and down the other what life was about at age 18. As you get older, you will come to realize, you really didn't know much of anything at age 18. There are lessons that come from life experience, that can't be learned in mommy and daddy's house.

reply from: AshMarie88

I'll never change my views.

reply from: cassabreu

Good for you Ashley. Murder is murder is murder. No matter what other word you you try to disguise it with. No matter what lies you spew to try to make it ok. It is still murder.

reply from: nykaren

Maybe, maybe not. You have no way whatsoever to know what the future holds that will make you rethink your beliefs, about this issue and a lot of others. I doubt there are many of us 40+ who still see life like we did at 18. Developing beliefs and viewpoints is a process based on continuous learning thruout life. Just the fact that you think you have it all figured out and can preach it to others, is a sign of your childishness.

reply from: nykaren

As an opinion, that is wonderful and 100% correct. Good for you!

reply from: cassabreu

As an opinion, that is wonderful and 100% correct. Good for you!

reply from: cassabreu

As an opinion, that is wonderful and 100% correct. Good for you!
Thank you.

reply from: AshMarie88

Thanks Cass, I agree! Real world experience (as much as it sucks!) could never turn me pro-choice.

reply from: nykaren

As much as I've enjoyed listening to your indignant sputtering, Ashley, I have an early morning.
Goodnight, all.

reply from: 4given

The work bit is essential to growth. I didn't have a choice, and started working at 14 to help support what I wanted. (support to the household started at 16) But the helping out w/ childcare and child rearing is what is substantial! I have a large family, so I literally had a child on my hip from the age of 4. It is a difficult job, and at 15 I was more than happy to entertain a child for an hour or so, but delighted when they went to my mother for care. That is unique; your willingness to care for a child at such a young age. Especially w/out younger siblings to give you an indication of what the stages of growth were. Your age does not define you. I wish I had proper direction at 18. I always knew the answer it seemed, but I was dedicated mostly to serving myself. You are different. I am encouraged that you take a stand that isn't self-motivated at 18. You will influence your generation in a mighty way! I am thankful for your dedication- especially w/in your particular age group!

reply from: AshMarie88

Taking care of children is hard, working is hard, the real world is very difficult, but never could I justify killing someone else just because those things are hard. It's so absurd.

reply from: fetalisa

Spoken like an 18 year old whose never lived outside of mommy and daddy's house. Thanks for proving exactly I said earlier.

reply from: AshMarie88

Spoken like an 18 year old whose never lived outside of mommy and daddy's house. Thanks for proving exactly I said earlier.
Lol. Since when would my moving out automatically change my current views? That's not how it works, idiot. I'll still hold my views when I am 20, 30, 40, and 50. They'll never change, even when I WILL BE living on my own in a few months.
Suck it up.

reply from: nykaren

Spoken like an 18 year old whose never lived outside of mommy and daddy's house. Thanks for proving exactly I said earlier.
Lol. Since when would my moving out automatically change my current views? That's not how it works, idiot. I'll still hold my views when I am 20, 30, 40, and 50. They'll never change, even when I WILL BE living on my own in a few months.
Suck it up.
So you will still believe exactly ALL the same things when you are 50 as you do today? If so, I feel sorry for you. Life is about growth and change and learning. And in case nobody has ever told you this, giving birth to a kid and being responsible for that child and raising him/her to adulthood, is a whole different story than babysitting someone else's. You are in for a huge surprise, girl. I feel sorry for you if you ever have a difficult pregnancy or face losing a child at birth, but at least then you might not look down your nose at others and their decisions.

reply from: yoda

Spoken like a true troll.

reply from: yoda

Thankfully, there are some very basic views that never change, throughout one's lifetime. Like, it's "not nice to kill babies". But of course, you probably didn't hold that view even as a child, did you?

reply from: nykaren

Spoken like a true troll.
LOL. Can you spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-a?

reply from: nykaren

Thankfully, there are some very basic views that never change, throughout one's lifetime. Like, it's "not nice to kill babies". But of course, you probably didn't hold that view even as a child, did you?
Sorry, old man. I believed that then and still do. Funny how you and fman and gang can't show anyone where I said I believe in killing babies, but you keep saying it anyway.

reply from: yoda

That's the "charm" of your posts, karen, one has to read between the lines to understand what you're really saying. And recall what you said when you first came here.... about why you are here. Seems that the "purpose" you stated then should have been "fulfilled" long ago, and yet here you are, still...... my, my..... guess you haven't won enough converts yet, eh?

reply from: AshMarie88

You're right. I guess my views will change when I am 50. I mean, it's so incredibly obvious I'll start supporting abortion at 50, since all my views will change, like everyone else's does.
Puhlease.

reply from: nykaren

That's the "charm" of your posts, karen, one has to read between the lines to understand what you're really saying. And recall what you said when you first came here.... about why you are here. Seems that the "purpose" you stated then should have been "fulfilled" long ago, and yet here you are, still...... my, my..... guess you haven't won enough converts yet, eh?
Ah...so what people need to read is where YOU read between the lines and posted what you THINK I said. Maybe we should bring up so of those ridiculous accusations of yours, right up to the recent ones like where you don't believe the picture I posted really is Sam. Or your totally false claim that I support abortion on demand. You can't provide any place where I say that, of course, so we just have to go by your interpretation of my thoughts. Accusations are so easy to make, old man, as long as you don't have to back them up with silly things like facts. You can hate me all you want, or what I stand for, but you can't change what I've said to suit your stupidity.
And FYI, even though I can do nothing about what pro-lifers put my daughter and grandson through, I will do my darnedest to make sure you and others like you keep their noses out of medically-needed late-term inducements of other women in her situation who need and want that option.

reply from: nykaren

You're right. I guess my views will change when I am 50. I mean, it's so incredibly obvious I'll start supporting abortion at 50, since all my views will change, like everyone else's does.
Puhlease.
Try and understand, sweetie, I said it's a slow process....that's what "by" 50 means - like over time....you are changing it to say..."at" 50, as in on that very day. Your command of the english language is giving homeschooling a lousy name. And by the way, you keep referring to this as just your view on abortions, when what you said was that your views (plural) will never change. You recently stated the view that we should just do away with welfare altogether. What makes you so sure you will never need the help of the welfare system? Unfortunately, that can happen to anyone. A lot of things can happen to a woman to put her in the welfare line. Things like serious illness or accident and no health insurance, an abusive relationship, job loss, death of a spouse, a natural disaster...real world things that don't happen in your fairytale mind.
Amazing how words get changed and twisted on this forum, isn't it? I notice that a lot lately.

reply from: gotfetus

You're right. I guess my views will change when I am 50. I mean, it's so incredibly obvious I'll start supporting abortion at 50, since all my views will change, like everyone else's does.
Puhlease.
Try and understand, sweetie, I said it's a slow process....that's what "by" 50 means - like over time....you are changing it to say..."at" 50, as in on that very day. Your command of the english language is giving homeschooling a lousy name. And by the way, you keep referring to this as just your view on abortions, when what you said was that your views (plural) will never change. You recently stated the view that we should just do away with welfare altogether. What makes you so sure you will never need the help of the welfare system? Unfortunately, that can happen to anyone. A lot of things can happen to a woman to put her in the welfare line. Things like serious illness or accident and no health insurance, an abusive relationship, job loss, death of a spouse, a natural disaster...real world things that don't happen in your fairytale mind.
Amazing how words get changed and twisted on this forum, isn't it? I notice that a lot lately.
You are pretty wise for a "pro-death skank". It is stories like yours that drive home the point that women must have access to abortion. In order to be just, we can not out law some and let others do the deed.

reply from: nykaren

Let me see if I understand this correctly... You claim to be opposed to abortion on demand, yet you are determined to see that late term abortions are available to women who "need and want" them....Oh, that's right, you are still denying that an induced labor abortion is an abortion, aren't you? You're trying to get off on a technicality here.
Would you please define "need" for us? Under what circumstances would you consider "induction" to be "necessary?" You have already implied that this is a matter to be decided between the mother and her physician, so if the doctor says the child will be mentally retarded, but otherwise healthy, and the pregnancy poses no significant risk to the mother, should she be allowed by law to abort the pregnancy by "induction?" How about if the child is deformed and will be born grossly disfigured, but perfectly healthy and "normal" mentally? Should she be allowed to abort by induction to avoid having this "ugly" child? Perhaps she feels it would be better off dead than living with disfigurement....We must accept the fact that these induced labor abortions are almost never performed with the intention that the child survive, regardless of your denials. They are generally performed prior to viability, as soon as the doctors determine the child is "abnormal." The reason for this is that such a child will generally not survive. "Wanted" preemies generally go to ICUs, but "unwanted" preemies delivered by "induction" are given only "comfort care," which consists of wrapping a blanket around it and waiting for it to die, usually slowly from asphyxiation (suffocating to death) due to inability to breathe properly because of underdeveloped lungs. I posted sever quotes and links on this thread already.
I see you intentionally left the word "medically" out of what I said. We've covered this before and I've plainly said that late-term inducement to end a pregnancy should be allowed ONLY if there is no hope for the baby to live, other than perhaps a few minutes or hours, outside the womb. In such a case, the decision should be made by a woman and her doctor and based on medical facts that plainly spell out the baby's chance of survival. In those cases if a woman wants or needs inducement late-term FOR MEDICAL reasons, she has the right to make that decision.
And obviously, induced labor for my daughter was not an abortion, or it would not have been done by Catholic doctors in a Catholic hospital.
And if you think this child was "unwanted", you have no clue as to what the situation was.

reply from: nykaren

You're right. I guess my views will change when I am 50. I mean, it's so incredibly obvious I'll start supporting abortion at 50, since all my views will change, like everyone else's does.
Puhlease.
Try and understand, sweetie, I said it's a slow process....that's what "by" 50 means - like over time....you are changing it to say..."at" 50, as in on that very day. Your command of the english language is giving homeschooling a lousy name. And by the way, you keep referring to this as just your view on abortions, when what you said was that your views (plural) will never change. You recently stated the view that we should just do away with welfare altogether. What makes you so sure you will never need the help of the welfare system? Unfortunately, that can happen to anyone. A lot of things can happen to a woman to put her in the welfare line. Things like serious illness or accident and no health insurance, an abusive relationship, job loss, death of a spouse, a natural disaster...real world things that don't happen in your fairytale mind.
Amazing how words get changed and twisted on this forum, isn't it? I notice that a lot lately.
You are pretty wise for a "pro-death skank". It is stories like yours that drive home the point that women must have access to abortion. In order to be just, we can not out law some and let others do the deed.
Thanks, lol. I can't agree with what you say about abortion being that freely available, but I'm enjoying your posts here.

reply from: nykaren

Oh, "ONLY if there is no hope for the baby to live." So, it should never be allowed? There's always "hope" that the child will live "other than perhaps a few minutes or hours, outside the womb." Even Potter's Syndrome babies sometimes live for several days, but I guess that's pretty much only when they are carried to term rather than prematurely aborted by induction, huh?
Go back and reread this topic. I cited references showing that some Catholic hospitals perform induced labor abortions, as well as proof that the procedure you described was, in fact, an "abortion."
Abortion is medically defined as a procedure intended to prematurely end a pregnancy wherein the child dies before, during, or shortly following the procedure. The child need not be killed directly.
Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation: &-'bor-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation - compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus of a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy - see CONTAGIOUS ABORTION, TRICHOMONIASIS b, VIBRIONIC ABORTION
2 : arrest of development of an organ so that it remains imperfect or is absorbed
3 : the arrest of a disease in its earliest stage <abortion of a cold>
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
And obviously, induced labor for my daughter was not an abortion, or it would not have been done by Catholic doctors in a Catholic hospital.
CP, I'm really not interested in what the Webster's dictionary has as the definition of an abortion. And I have been over and over this with you and am not going to be drawn into the discussion again. And I have read your links and articles. I think you've shown quite well here the past couple of days what your idea of "debate" is and that it is primarily an attempt by you to twist what people say to fit your agenda. I'm not interested in changing your mind or anyone else's here about Sam's birth and death. I think I've made it quite plain why I am still here. If you want to know exactly where I stand, try reading thru this thread with your mind cracked open, instead of preparing to attack. You know, after awhile, you do begin to sound like that angry man on a personal mission.

reply from: gotfetus

You're right. I guess my views will change when I am 50. I mean, it's so incredibly obvious I'll start supporting abortion at 50, since all my views will change, like everyone else's does.
Puhlease.
Try and understand, sweetie, I said it's a slow process....that's what "by" 50 means - like over time....you are changing it to say..."at" 50, as in on that very day. Your command of the english language is giving homeschooling a lousy name. And by the way, you keep referring to this as just your view on abortions, when what you said was that your views (plural) will never change. You recently stated the view that we should just do away with welfare altogether. What makes you so sure you will never need the help of the welfare system? Unfortunately, that can happen to anyone. A lot of things can happen to a woman to put her in the welfare line. Things like serious illness or accident and no health insurance, an abusive relationship, job loss, death of a spouse, a natural disaster...real world things that don't happen in your fairytale mind.
Amazing how words get changed and twisted on this forum, isn't it? I notice that a lot lately.
You are pretty wise for a "pro-death skank". It is stories like yours that drive home the point that women must have access to abortion. In order to be just, we can not out law some and let others do the deed.
Thanks, lol. I can't agree with what you say about abortion being that freely available, but I'm enjoying your posts here.
I use to repose upon the pickets, but one must get a labotomy [man I wished they had spell checker!] to be pro-life. I you do not wish to walk lock step with those who are so brain washed that no truth can penatrate. It was the PLers that knocked me over to the choice side of the fence. I am also a secular humanist, and you don't see very many in the speck lover ranks. They just don't have real answeres, for real problems. Sometimes the answeres are not easy as you well know.

reply from: yoda

Wow.... you actually had my hopes up there for a brief moment in time, karen... when I started reading that paragraph I thought maybe you were going to say that you would "do your darndest to help unborn babies any way you could"....... but that was a silly dream, wasn't it?
That's not really a part of your "agenda", is it?

reply from: nykaren

Wow.... you actually had my hopes up there for a brief moment in time, karen... when I started reading that paragraph I thought maybe you were going to say that you would "do your darndest to help unborn babies any way you could"....... but that was a silly dream, wasn't it?
That's not really a part of your "agenda", is it?
Agenda? Well, if I "must" have one to make the nutcases like you happy, it would be this: To raise awareness of the rights of a woman to receive proper medical treatment as prescribed by her doctors during late-term pregnancy, including induced labor if the child in utero is diagnosed with a disease that will prevent it from living outside the womb more than a few minutes or hours. And to reach those women and educate them of their options, including carrying the baby to full-term OR if medically prescribed for the mother, terminating the pregnancy at any time after diagnosis. AND to continue to speak out against frivolous abortions.
Does that make where I stand clear enough for you, Yoda?

reply from: nykaren

I'm sure that can be said for a lot of PCers. It's sad that people are driven away from what is basically a good cause. I guess it's like anything else in life, where there are people in it more for their own glory than for the cause they say they support. All their yelling and screaming and acting like fools gets them the attention they crave, on-line or off.

reply from: AshMarie88

Killing helpless babies is never medically needed, no matter what side of the rope you stand on. Killing babies is about as necessary as killing you for personal reasons, Karen.

reply from: fetalisa

A woman aborted his child against his will. Since it was her body, there was nothing he could do to stop it. Instead, he now wishes to exact his revenge by insuring ALL women in society pay for what happened to him, which is why he has the views he does and wants to see abortion banned.

reply from: nykaren

Ashley, dear, let me refresh your memory. Sam had a LIVE birth and a NATURAL death (the same kind of natural death he'd have had at 40 weeks, due to his diseased kidneys and lack of developed lungs). He died in the arms of his family, very peacefully. Believe it or not, he wasn't pulled apart limb by limb. He simply slowly stopped breathing and died after 63 minutes.
And quite honestly, your personal opinion on his death holds about as much water as your opinion that war is 100% wrong and that the welfare system should be abolished. But it's okay to kill the bad guys with the death penalty, right?
I think I'll stick to actual medical opinions on what is medically necessary for women in my daughter's circumstances. Sure hope you don't mind.

reply from: yoda

Yes, even a "nutcase" like me can understand that, karen. You've made it quite clear that you are prochoice, with some exceptions (for now, as an afterthought, but not as a matter of any importance to you).
And you're here ONLY to promote your prochoice views, not to talk about your exceptions for "frivolous" abortions.
Couldn't possibly be any clearer than that.

reply from: yoda

I'm sure that can be said for a lot of PCers. It's sad that people are driven away from what is basically a good cause..
What's even sadder to me is that some people would blame unborn babies for what they perceive as bad behavior by prolifers. How did the babies cause that... how is that their fault? Why should unborn babies die because of what some prolifers do or say, and how could anyone with a compassionate heart make that leap?
I think it boils down to the fact that some prolifers and many proaborts see this issue as just another "social issue" which provides them with a chance to take sides and form friendships with new friends. The actual victims hold no special importance for these people, they're only interested in how many new friends they can make.

reply from: nykaren

Yes, even a "nutcase" like me can understand that, karen. You've made it quite clear that you are prochoice, with some exceptions (for now, as an afterthought, but not as a matter of any importance to you).
And you're here ONLY to promote your prochoice views, not to talk about your exceptions for "frivolous" abortions.
Couldn't possibly be any clearer than that.
Excuse me?? Apparently you CAN'T understand it. Or prefer to play stupid, I'm not sure which. According to info posted by PLers here, 95% of abortions are for frivolous reasons. Are you with me still, Yoda? I AM OPPOSED TO THOSE 95% OF ABORTIONS. Got that?? My "prochoice", as YOU put it, stand concerns the 5% of abortions that are done for MEDICAL reasons and the women in certain states that have to fight for their right to that medical care. NOW do you understand?

reply from: AshMarie88

Murder isn't medical care.

reply from: nykaren

Very good! And now if you can fathom that live birth and natural death are not murder, you can give yourself a big pat on the back for having learned something today!

reply from: AshMarie88

Very good! And now if you can fathom that live birth and natural death are not murder, you can give yourself a big pat on the back for having learned something today!
I am talking about LATE TERM ABORTIONS. The ones you keep defending!

reply from: gotfetus

Very good! And now if you can fathom that live birth and natural death are not murder, you can give yourself a big pat on the back for having learned something today!
Well now hold it for a minute. All abortion, induced or other wise, is birthing a speck before it's time. To be fair to the PLers, what you have discribed on this forum is abortion. Please leave the semantical dances to the PLers. We do not have to misrepresent fact to make a stand. Medical reasons are a no brainer. No woman should be deprived of medical treatment. In that case you are in agreement with 90 something percent of the speck lovers. Where the real tussel comes in, is over the social problems PLers ignore, and the hardcore would deny services to women no matter the situation. You are more middel of the road than I. But you shouldn't try to rename what was done for the sake of winning an aurgument. Any termination of a pregnancy is a type of abortion. Useing drugs to cause a speck to be removed from the womb early is not natural. And if the speck stops breathing because of it, that is not a natural death, the early delivery caused it. The moral question is did the mother have the right to do it to protect her health? The social issue that has been raised, should we continue to allow the iresponsible to have children we collectively must suport? I asy abortion is a viable option for both.

reply from: nykaren

Very good! And now if you can fathom that live birth and natural death are not murder, you can give yourself a big pat on the back for having learned something today!
I am talking about LATE TERM ABORTIONS. The ones you keep defending!
And I am talking about induced labor for medical reasons which you can call abortion if it suits you. Same procedure, just a difference in words. Medically Sam was born alive and died due to undeveloped lungs, according to his death certificate. That is not murder. He died exactly the way he would have if he'd gone full-term. And would that have been murder, too?
I am not defending late-term abortions done for ANY reason other than medical. Please keep that straight at least.

reply from: yoda

Yes, I do. You put all your energy and all your time into supporting "choice" in that 5%, and ignore the 95%.... so the only percentages that really matter are those that represent the amount of time and effort you put towards this cause, not the actual abortion numbers.
And I'd say your numbers are something like 99% time spent supporting choice for medical abortions, and less than 1% spent opposing choice for "frivolous" abortions.
Yes, I understand.

reply from: 4given

Yes, I do. You put all your energy and all your time into supporting "choice" in that 5%, and ignore the 95%.... so the only percentages that really matter are those that represent the amount of time and effort you put towards this cause, not the actual abortion numbers.
And I'd say your numbers are something like 99% time spent supporting choice for medical abortions, and less than 1% spent opposing choice for "frivolous" abortions.
Yes, I understand.
Supporting any abortion is condoning every abortion. It seems to me lately though that it is more like 80% bad-mouthing pro-lifers and 20% engaging in chatter over non-abortion related issues.

reply from: gotfetus

Yes, I do. You put all your energy and all your time into supporting "choice" in that 5%, and ignore the 95%.... so the only percentages that really matter are those that represent the amount of time and effort you put towards this cause, not the actual abortion numbers.
And I'd say your numbers are something like 99% time spent supporting choice for medical abortions, and less than 1% spent opposing choice for "frivolous" abortions.
Yes, I understand.
Supporting any abortion is condoning every abortion. It seems to me lately though that it is more like 80% bad-mouthing pro-lifers and 20% engaging in chatter over non-abortion related issues.
Once again numbering problems with out suplying positive answeres. I am starting to yawn here. At least entertain us with a fight if you are just going to throw empty words into the air.

reply from: yoda

Humor me for a moment, gotfetus..... are you familiar with the expression "Nero fiddled while Rome burned"? What was wrong with the idea of the emperor fiddling while Rome was burning?
We see the fact that over 45 million babies have been killed by elective abortion in the US since 1973 as a very, very serious matter, but apparently you would gladly "fiddle" while they die, right?

reply from: 4given

And Cletus, I might add we are not here to entertain you. I believe most are here to discuss or advocate for the lives of the unborn.

reply from: crazycatholickid

well im sorry for your granddaughter ....but there have many times that babies and adults have had 0 % chance on surviving and they have pulled through. and i think its completly wrong if you have an abortion no matter what.

reply from: nykaren

Thank you for your opinion. Did you read the thread? My granddaughter? People who have what Sam had do not "pull through". That's a medical fact, not a fairytale land opinion.

reply from: nykaren

Opinion, not fact.
As for criticizing others, I've been much more on the receiving end of that since arriving here. If they hand it out, they'll get it back.

reply from: 4given

Opinion, not fact. Yes. That is my opinion.
As for criticizing others, I've been much more on the receiving end of that since arriving here. If they hand it out, they'll get it back. And you should defend yourself- if you feel justified in it. (just as anyone should)

reply from: lukesmom

Karen, while I do feel sympathy for you and your family, and I understand the emotions of where your feelings for medical termination come from, I also can see what you have not allowed yourself to see. Delivering Sam before his "natural" birth caused his death. Yes, he was destined to die but you took into your own hands his death. You made that decision for him without his conscent. You, your daughter, your sil and the drs and everyone else involved had no right to make this decision. It was NOT yours to make. What if Sam had been born and then at the age of...say 2 yrs old, he was diagnosed with a lung disease, cancer, whatever that could not be cured and was fatal. Would you have the right to "smother" him to prevent his and family future pain? Of course not, but that is what you all did in delivering him early. No one can know of your pain of this more than I. My son only lived 45 minutes but his death was not caused by my decision. His life was his and his death was his. While abortions for medical reasons are heartrendering because these are wanted babies they are not morally different than abortions for non medical reasons. Killing a human life is NOT justifiable for ANY reason and is NOT an act of love. Love is not a justification here, only an excuse. Period.

reply from: nykaren

Oh, but I do see. I know perfectly well what you want me to "understand". Obviously, birthing Sam led to his death. Of course it did, that was inevitable. What you fail to consider or care about at all is that the decision was medically advised due to Sam's condition and my daughter's severe pain and deteriorating health. You simply see this as someone killing a baby. It was a medical decision, approved by not only one, but two, ethics panels. I totally agree with my kids' decision and their right to make it. You don't need to agree. It doesn't change the facts of the case one iota. You would prefer me to feel like a killer, and to be guided by what YOU believe. Sam was birthed in love, and died being loved. And yes, he was induced early in spite of the first hospital lawyers' ruling that it was against NY State law - a ruling made in fear of retribution from pro-life activists who have caused them a lot of grief over the years.
You would put me on a guilt trip, again based on what YOU believe....sorry, but I am at complete peace with God and with my grandson's birth and death. More importantly, he is at peace, and my daughter is now receiving the medical care she needs. I respect your opinion, but I am not obligated to agree with it anymore than you are with mine.
WHO are YOU to say that is was not my daughter and her husband's right to make that decision for themselves and their child? You made the choice to carry your child to term. I applaud that choice. It was the best choice for you and your family and possibly for Luke. I don't know the complete circumstances and would never presume to tell you that your choice was wrong.
That is an unrealistic comparison, typical of the scenarios used here on this forum. Such an illness would be treated, regardless of the odds because there are medical options available that might help to cure or prolong the child's life. There were no such treatment options available for Sam.
You have no right to make that decision for anyone but yourself and your child. To feel that you do is to say that everyone is required to follow your belief system. That is quite an arrogant assumption, to say the least, to want other womens' medical care to be based on what you personally believe to be right and wrong.
I am not in need of your approval in the choices that were made for Sam. And I certainly have no need for an excuse OR justification for those decisions. Sam was loved during his time in the womb, and he was loved during the 63 minutes he lived outside the womb. Inducing early was the correct decision for my daughter and for Sam.
Period.

reply from: Teresa18

Karen, I realize that not everyone was or has been nice to you at this forum. I've been sympathetic to your situation, and I have laid out the various reasons people may ask for induced labor. In very rare cases such as your own, I can support it, but I have said that I fear changing the law could possibly lead to the deaths of babies that would otherwise live or don't deserve to die prematurely. I realize others here have disagreed, but I note that you have not been a wallflower either. More and more, you have grown quite nasty and downright insulting. Instead of being the better person and not stooping to the level of personal attacks or attacks against you, you have stooped down and beyond other posters' levels, and your posts seem more mean than many they have written. From what I see, you have no interest arguing for the 95% of babies that are killed every year in America. You are more concerned with 5% of cases, not all which even justify abortion, and seem to be siding with the pro-aborts on this forum. You have sided with their posts and criticizing of other members. In fact, I may have missed it, but I have never seen you argue for the babies. I've seen you argue with pro-life posters and join pro-abort posters in going after posters that wish to defend the unborn. I guess it's ok to you that gotfetus has declared Sam to be nothing more than a "speck", argued for abortion on demand, and eugenics. You aren't standing there defending the babies. You are there agreeing with him because he doesn't care for Ashley and Yoda, and apparently you don't either. I believed in, trusted, and sympathized with your story. I'm starting to believe you are here on a pro-choice mission, using a change in law for the "hard cases" to justify liberalizing abortion laws. It's an odd but possibly feasible tactic (depending on who you are using it on) that many posters have seen through better than I. I guess I should be less trusting next time.

reply from: yoda

No, not at all. I think it's great that other posters are more trusting than I and some others are, to balance us out. There will be times when we'll be way wrong, and we'll be glad you were here to make up for us.

reply from: nykaren

Yes, I have little by little become "nasty", though I've yet to stoop to their level. I don't think you can go any lower than repeatedly telling a grieving grandmother she has helped to kill her grandson, or that she's made the whole story up and is even posting a fake picture. Like I've said before, if they are going to dish out abuse, they better be prepared to take it.
I have at no time agreed with gotfetus on his pro-choice stand. From the start, he seemed to be here just for the reaction he would get. And he got it. Why give him more attention? And now it appears he is either "faithman" or posing as him. Either way, he's representing the lunatic fringe of the PC side and is not worth bothering with. Anyway, if I post that I'm totally opposed to "frivolous" abortions, someone quickly pops up and tells me I'm not. So what's the point in trying? And of course questioning a PL's "facts" is a no-no, even if done nicely.
I've made no secret of the fact that my main focus is the rights of women in those 5% of cases who need medical treatment and are denied it. I've also found that to take the abuse of certain ones here is simply to invite more of the same. That doesn't change my clearly and repeatedly stated stand on frivolous abortion. And in spite of that, many here decided long ago that I'm a terrible person, long before I got nasty. Amazing how quick some are to judge on the basis of this ONE issue.
You're one of the few here who has been kind and supportive and I appreciate that, as I've said before. If you choose now to believe I'm a fake because I am going to stand up for myself or anyone else I see being wrongly attacked, that's up to you.

reply from: yoda

"No secret?" You've made no effort at all to speak up for the 95% of babies who are killed for non-medical reasons, you only state your position about their deaths when challenged. And you've made "no secret" of the fact that you continue to classify yourself as a "former prolifer", which by the dictionary definition means that you do not oppose the legal status of abortion, period.
So, what does that leave? It leaves you as a prochoicer who claims to oppose "frivolous abortions" and yet never, ever speaks out against them unless challenged about them.... and even then never, ever defines the word "frivolous".
You certainly are no ally to the prolife cause, so what sort of reception did you expect?

reply from: carolemarie

Karen:
I understand that you are supporting medical care for women in the very rare situtations like Sams. I don't fault you for that, and I understand how terribly hard it must have been for your entire family. In your situtation, inducing labor was a medical decision for a very complicated pregnacy so the family could have a born alive child and spend some time with him. Either way he would die.
That is not an abortion and I want you to remember that and be sure and make sure your daughter doesn't suffer any guilt because she did nothing wrong in this situtation.
I fail to understand why the others on this board seem unable to grasp this situtation. Maybe because they are arguing in abstract and you are dealing with a personal situtation that caused you much pain. You are just as much a pro-lifer as any of them. But we should be able to use compassion when talking to someone who is walking through such a hard situtation.
As for the others, shame on you for all these attacks on a woman who has lost her grandchild and had to watch her daughter suffer while reasonable medical care was denied. Induced labor for a dying baby isn't the same thing as a late term abortion. There is a big difference between wanting to have your baby born alive so you can hold him and bond with him then having your baby killed because you don't want one. Try to understand that Karen is fighting for those rare occurances to not have to go through what her daughter did. Prolife legislation can't cover every situtation, and because of pro-abortion people looking for loopholes, Karen's family had to suffer through a very painful Karen, I am sorry that I have no ideas on how to fix this. I am truly sorry for your pain and will keep praying for you and your family.
Much Love,
Carole

reply from: nykaren

"No secret?" You've made no effort at all to speak up for the 95% of babies who are killed for non-medical reasons, you only state your position about their deaths when challenged. And you've made "no secret" of the fact that you continue to classify yourself as a "former prolifer", which by the dictionary definition means that you do not oppose the legal status of abortion, period.
So, what does that leave? It leaves you as a prochoicer who claims to oppose "frivolous abortions" and yet never, ever speaks out against them unless challenged about them.... and even then never, ever defines the word "frivolous".
You certainly are no ally to the prolife cause, so what sort of reception did you expect?
You made up your mind a long time ago and nothing will change that. Defining all of life's circumstances by dictionary definitions really leaves a lot to be desired, you know. What did I expect when I came here? First of all, to be believed. Of course, with what we're seeing here now, the paranoia around here makes more sense. You folks can't even trust each other to be who you say you are. For all I know, you and faithman are one and the same. At any rate, if you can't trust faithman, who can you trust, with him and you being such good buddies. So I suppose expecting you to believe an outsider was quite a stretch, but I didn't realize that at the time. Secondly, I expected to be treated with respect, regardless of whether you agree with me. I didn't expect to be called a skank, etc., or a liar, or to be judged as an individual by this one thing you know about me. Do you treat people like that in "real" life, or just with the freedom of remaining anonymous? Closed minds and ignorance breed fear and hatred. This forum sure proves that.

reply from: nykaren

Carole, Thank you so much for your post, it's good to know there are those who understand. You've been so supportive from the time I first posted, and it has meant a lot to me. My daughter knows she did what was right but I know it was very difficult for her emotionally to be treated like she was at the first hospital. No one could have wanted this child more than she and her husband did. They've both been so strong, and we're so proud of them. They are getting involved with Hospice as a way to help others who are losing a child. Anyway, thanks again, for the support and the prayers, and for speaking out here. Love, Karen

reply from: yoda

Why? We don't know you, or who you are, or why you're here. All we know is that you're not here for the same reason that this forum exists, to stem the tide of the 4,000 plus babies being slaughtered every day in the US. You've made it plain from the start that you're a "former prolifer", and want nothing to do with what prolifers are about, so WHY should we believe you?
Why didn't you expect that? Didn't you read any in the forum before you came? Didn't you see that was already happening? Did you expect to be treated differently for some reason?
And what else do we have to form an opinion about someone on this forum except "this one thing we know about them"? That's all we have to go by, we don't have an autobiography to read, ya know?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, just a lot sooner that way, right?
q]Originally posted by: carolemarie
You are just as much a pro-lifer as any of them.
You and she need to get together on that issue. To this day, she self-identifies as a "former prolifer", and she has never retracted that label. How can you say she is wrong?
q]Originally posted by: carolemarie
Prolife legislation can't cover every situtation, and because of pro-abortion people looking for loopholes,
And that's exactly the problem. Karen wants a loophole, and as you say, so do pro-abortion people. If she has any success in creating such a loophole, the pro-abortion people will make it big enough so they can drive a truck through it, and many more babies will die.

reply from: nykaren

Why? We don't know you, or who you are, or why you're here. All we know is that you're not here for the same reason that this forum exists, to stem the tide of the 4,000 plus babies being slaughtered every day in the US. You've made it plain from the start that you're a "former prolifer", and want nothing to do with what prolifers are about, so WHY should we believe you?
Why didn't you expect that? Didn't you read any in the forum before you came? Didn't you see that was already happening? Did you expect to be treated differently for some reason?
And what else do we have to form an opinion about someone on this forum except "this one thing we know about them"? That's all we have to go by, we don't have an autobiography to read, ya know?
You take my statement that I'm opposed to 95% and turn it around to say I've made it plain I want nothing to do with what prolifers are about. How do you do that?
The threads I'd read here before posting did not indicate the level of hatred and paranoia that exist here. They were argumentative but civililized.
You find it necessary to judge everyone who comes here, in spite of the fact you have little to go on? Disagreement is one thing, judging completely another. You don't seem to have a clue of how to do one without the other. Believe it or not, someone can disagree with you and still be a decent human being.

reply from: nykaren

And I won't, because I am no longer 100% pro-life and will not pretend to be. I understand what Carole is saying, because I am totally opposed to most abortions whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

reply from: nykaren

With all due respect, I believe you are the one who has failed to understand. Karen is "fighting" for a change in the law that would allow abortion in the scenario (real or contrived, smart money on the latter) she described, yet current law does not prohibit it. The only legal change that would have effected the outcome in her scenario is if a doctor who believed the procedure was actually medically unnecessary were forced by law to perform it. Karen's claims that the doctors all agreed it was medically necessary are absurd. Review boards do not even consider such cases unless medical necessity is questionable, and attorneys certainly do not decide hospital policy, as Karen has implied. Attorneys merely advise their clients in legal matters, and every NY attorney is certainly aware that such procedures are performed every day with no legal consequences in the state of NY.
If the procedure was actually not "medically necessary," it is certainly possible that the attorneys might have advised of a risk of civil action, and the hospital would be well within their rights to refuse to perform a procedure that is not medically necessary on these grounds or any other. It's like getting a nose job. It's actually not "medically necessary," and you can't force any doctor or hospital to do them. Karen's story was rife with contradictions from the start, but even if her story is true, her point is moot. The law already allows the procedure, so there's nothing for her to "fight" for, other than sympathy for "pro-choice," and to portray pro-life as a cause that brings suffering to women.
From NARAL, info on NY state law:
New York
Post-Viability Abortion Restriction
New York's post-viability abortion restriction provides that no abortion may be performed after the 24th week of pregnancy unless necessary to preserve the woman's life. N.Y. Penal Law § 125.05(3) (Enacted 1965; Last Amended 1970), 125.40 (Enacted 1965).
NARAL Pro-Choice America supports the legal framework established in Roe v. Wade and does not oppose restrictions on post-viability abortions so long as they contain adequate exceptions to protect the life and health of the woman. NARAL Pro-Choice America opposes New York's post-viability restriction because it lacks an exception to protect the health of the woman.

reply from: nykaren

The only one making absurd claims here is you, CP. Not only have you no knowledge of NY state law, but attorneys DO sometimes, for all practical purposes, decide hospital policy. The decision in my daughter's case was made by lawyers and a hospital administrator/doctor who was in no other way involved in her treatment, after a phone call was received from pro-life activists. My daughter was admitted specifically for the procedure not once, but twice, BY HER DOCTORS after approval was given by the ethics panel. It was NOT a medical decision to send her home. Her doctor did so each time only having been told he was forbidden to induce.

reply from: AshMarie88

Karen's an attention hog: 831 posts already...

reply from: nykaren

But individually you have 3308 compared to my 252! lol

reply from: MC3

NYKAREN is now suggesting that NARAL has the compassionate and enlightened approach by calling for legislation that would prohibit late-term abortion but have an exception for the life or health of the mother.
The moral degenerates at NARAL who wrote this position know damn well that any restriction on abortion which includes an exception for the mom's "health" completely eliminates the restriction. It's a rhetorical version of the Three Card Monty.
In its companion decision to Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court ruled that for the purposes of abortion law the definition of "health" is as follows: "...in the light of all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age-relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."
This is "catch-all" language that was carefully crafted to cover any circumstance in which a woman might be pregnant. Either NYKAREN knows this and simply came here to pimp for the abortion lobby, or she is abysmally simple-minded.
I suspect that not many on this forum would bet on the latter.

reply from: nykaren

I am "suggesting" nothing by my post. I was simply informing CP, once again, that there IS a NY state law prohibiting abortion after 24 weeks except to save the life of the mother. I had previously posted the text of the actual law on this thread and he informed me it wasn't actually the law. I thought perhaps pasting an article here to that effect would be easier for him to understand, since he seems unable to grasp that the law, indeed, does exist.

reply from: MC3

It is not enough that NYKAREN is a clandestine pro-abort, but it's beginning to look like she may also be the Northeastern Regional Distributor for crapola.
In the interest of clarification, the New York statute to which she refers was enacted in 1965 and amended in 1970. Roe v. Wade was issued in 1973 stating, in part, that a state may only proscribe abortion after viability if the statute in question has an exception for the "health' of the mother. In my previous post, I quoted the "catch-all" definition of "health" as contained in Doe v. Bolton and issued in companion with Roe. State restrictions which did not meet this legal test were immediately invalidated by Roe and Doe. Since the NY statute in question clearly does not meet that standard, it would be ruled unconstitutional if challenged by someone indicted under it. The statute is still on the books only because Roe and Doe rendered it moot.

reply from: Draiocht

nyKaren, I've arrived quite late to this thread and haven't finished looking through it, but I sincerely hope that your daughter is doing well and that your family will recover from this horrible situation. For the record, this really wasn't the best place to post your situation, given the unrelenting attitudes of "woman=expendable" in here, but I admire your courage and I hope that you are able to stick with your beliefs, no matter how they differ from others in your usual "crowd".
"If 'if's' and 'but's' were candied nutts,
we'd all have a Merry Christmas."
You know the drill; if I had a dime, etc.
Nobody will ever know until they've been there. It's easy to judge from the sidelines. I wish you and your family the best.

reply from: nykaren

LOL, that's quite a title.
Finally, we are getting somewhere. The law obviously IS moot IF challenged. However, it is still used by PLers in cases such as my daughter's, to threaten hospitals. As I've said before, the hospital cancelled inducing only after receiving phone calls. They were then in the position of either dealing with legal costs, protests, and God only knows what else if they induced Sam - or backing off and refusing treatment. Understandably, hospital administration chose the latter on the advice of their attorneys. It was a legal decision, not a medical one. As long as this law remains on the books, Plers know they have the upper hand, and they use that advantage, unscrupulous though it may be.

reply from: lukesmom

Carole, I HAVE been in this situation as the mother not the grandmother. I understand first hand what this family has gone through. I understand the need to hold a living child. Through my emotionally and phyisically difficult pregnancy my dream was to meet and hold my child while he/she was alive. I correspond with many parents who have gone through the same fatal diagnosis with their child and have chosen to deliver through C-sec to ensure their child was born alive. Difference is these parents have the C-sec as close as possible to the delivery date. A hospital ethics commitee would approve termination by early delivery, not because of physical danger to the mother but because it is supposably "easier" on the family and quite truthfully, more cost effective than allowing the pregnancy to progress as nature dictates. In the case of a terminal prenatal diagnosis 99% of parents are advised and encouraged to terminate. I have even talked to some very shocked parents who were given no other choice BUT termination. Now imagine shocked, numb parents after being given the worst news of their lives being told they should terminate. Many can not argue due to their mental status at the time. Is there a right in this situation? Is there a "choice"? Who actually has the RIGHT to decide quality of life for another and whether that life is worth living? Is the person who prematurally ends another's life in the name of love any different from someone who prematurally ends another life in hate? Either way it is the end of a life without concent of the victom and in the United States that is called murder. Yet because these babies are "loved and wanted" their murders are deemed even more socially acceptable than any other abortion. Sick world we live in and while Karen fights to continue to prematurely end the lives of this 5%, I will continue to fight for thier right to continue thier lives to thier natural end because my son and others like him deserve a voice too. Below is a letter that best explains this from a mom who lost 2 children to the same fatal diagnosis.
Thank you, Sue, Luke's mom
Why Carry A Dying Child? A Mother's Perspective.
by Teresa Streckfuss
Many of you may have wondered, "What's the point?"... or perhaps pitied us for 'having' to continue carrying a child who is not going to live for long... I understand these thoughts, because when my sister was carrying Thomas Walter (who had been diagnosed with anencephaly at 18 weeks and lived for 17 1?2 hours after birth) I really didn't properly comprehend the whole situation. I knew it was the 'right' thing to do. I didn't question that I would have no other option if the same thing ever happened to me (although I knew it never would!) But I thought how awful it was to know for over four months that the child you are carrying is unable to live outside your womb.
Once he was born, I was able to hold my nephew and see him finally as a real person - a precious unique creation - I began to realise that there was a lot more to it than mere 'ethics'. When, much to my disbelief, my own baby, Benedict, was diagnosed with this same condition four years later - I was finally able to grasp it, although it has taken me a long time to be able to put my thoughts into words. It is only since Charlotte's diagnosis that I have found words that almost convey my feelings.
Some people think we carried Benedict and Charlotte to term because we don't agree with abortion, because we are Catholic, or perhaps because our nephew was carried to term after a fatal diagnosis. While these factors probably all played a part in our immediate refusal of the option to 'terminate', this is not what it's all about! It's about love! It's about our baby! It's not about some tragic, fatal medical condition - it's about our child. We do not possess more strength than other people. It's not because we can cope where others wouldn't. There is no way to avoid the sad fact that she cannot live long after birth with this condition, but causing Charlotte to die earlier will not stop this happening. Causing her to die earlier will only take from us the beautiful experience of knowing and loving her.
The tragedy is not the fact that we know our baby will die. The tragedy is that our baby will die. It is not nice to know for months beforehand, but it gives us a chance to appreciate a life so brief, and not to miss a moment.
The value of Thomas Walter, Benedict and Charlotte cannot be measured by the length of their lives - we don't apply this yardstick to adults, so why should we to babies? A baby is not a possession, an accessory to acquire. A baby is a gift, a new entity, a precious, individual soul loved by God. We are created for a purpose, there is a reason for our being here. Even if that reason is unclear to us most of the time, we are constantly affecting other people in our families, communities etc. Who knows what purpose can be fulfilled in 9 months and one day? I don't know, but God does. I do know that Benedict left a lasting impression on our family, he made us slow down, savour life, and treasure our other children even more. He made us realise that we cannot control or predict what will happen in the future, he made us rely on God. And how often are we given the opportunity to really give another person true unconditional love? Love that truly expects no return? It is a blessing to experience that kind of pure love!
So don't pity us for carrying a child we know will die. Carrying this beautiful person is an honour. Grieve for the fact that our baby will die. We wouldn't wish away the time we had with Benedict, and also this time we are now experiencing with Charlotte, just to save us the pain of losing them. I've always thought of it like this; if your 3 year old was diagnosed with untreatable, fatal cancer and had only 4 months to live; would you prefer the doctor kill your child straight away so that you didn't have to wait for his/her impending death? Or would you prefer to spend as much time as you could with your child and love him/her for as long as you had left?
Someone asked us after Benedict died, "Was it worth it?" Oh, YES! For the chance to hold him, and see him, and love him before letting him go... For the chance for our children to see that we would never stop loving them, regardless of their imperfections? For the chance to give him everything we could? Oh, YES! Love your children, and remember that they each have their own unique mission. Children are always and only a blessing from God - even if they don't stay very long...
"I have my mission" by Cardinal Newman
God has created me to do him some definite service. He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. I have my mission - I may never know it in this life, but I shall be told it in the next.
I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons. He has not created me for naught. I shall do good. I shall do His work. I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth in my own place while not intending it - if I do but keep His commandments.
Therefore I will trust in Him. Whatever, wherever I am. I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him; in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him; if I am in sorrow, my sorrow may serve Him.
He does nothing in vain. He knows what He is about. He may take away my friends. He may throw me among strangers. He may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me - still He knows what he is about.

reply from: cassabreu

Carole, I HAVE been in this situation as the mother not the grandmother. I understand first hand what this family has gone through. I understand the need to hold a living child. Through my emotionally and phyisically difficult pregnancy my dream was to meet and hold my child while he/she was alive. I correspond with many parents who have gone through the same fatal diagnosis with their child and have chosen to deliver through C-sec to ensure their child was born alive. Difference is these parents have the C-sec as close as possible to the delivery date. A hospital ethics commitee would approve termination by early delivery, not because of physical danger to the mother but because it is supposably "easier" on the family and quite truthfully, more cost effective than allowing the pregnancy to progress as nature dictates. In the case of a terminal prenatal diagnosis 99% of parents are advised and encouraged to terminate. I have even talked to some very shocked parents who were given no other choice BUT termination. Now imagine shocked, numb parents after being given the worst news of their lives being told they should terminate. Many can not argue due to their mental status at the time. Is there a right in this situation? Is there a "choice"? Who actually has the RIGHT to decide quality of life for another and whether that life is worth living? Is the person who prematurally ends another's life in the name of love any different from someone who prematurally ends another life in hate? Either way it is the end of a life without concent of the victom and in the United States that is called murder. Yet because these babies are "loved and wanted" their murders are deemed even more socially acceptable than any other abortion. Sick world we live in and while Karen fights to continue to prematurely end the lives of this 5%, I will continue to fight for thier right to continue thier lives to thier natural end because my son and others like him deserve a voice too. Below is a letter that best explains this from a mom who lost 2 children to the same fatal diagnosis.
Thank you, Sue, Luke's mom
Why Carry A Dying Child? A Mother's Perspective.
by Teresa Streckfuss
Many of you may have wondered, "What's the point?"... or perhaps pitied us for 'having' to continue carrying a child who is not going to live for long... I understand these thoughts, because when my sister was carrying Thomas Walter (who had been diagnosed with anencephaly at 18 weeks and lived for 17 1?2 hours after birth) I really didn't properly comprehend the whole situation. I knew it was the 'right' thing to do. I didn't question that I would have no other option if the same thing ever happened to me (although I knew it never would!) But I thought how awful it was to know for over four months that the child you are carrying is unable to live outside your womb.
Once he was born, I was able to hold my nephew and see him finally as a real person - a precious unique creation - I began to realise that there was a lot more to it than mere 'ethics'. When, much to my disbelief, my own baby, Benedict, was diagnosed with this same condition four years later - I was finally able to grasp it, although it has taken me a long time to be able to put my thoughts into words. It is only since Charlotte's diagnosis that I have found words that almost convey my feelings.
Some people think we carried Benedict and Charlotte to term because we don't agree with abortion, because we are Catholic, or perhaps because our nephew was carried to term after a fatal diagnosis. While these factors probably all played a part in our immediate refusal of the option to 'terminate', this is not what it's all about! It's about love! It's about our baby! It's not about some tragic, fatal medical condition - it's about our child. We do not possess more strength than other people. It's not because we can cope where others wouldn't. There is no way to avoid the sad fact that she cannot live long after birth with this condition, but causing Charlotte to die earlier will not stop this happening. Causing her to die earlier will only take from us the beautiful experience of knowing and loving her.
The tragedy is not the fact that we know our baby will die. The tragedy is that our baby will die. It is not nice to know for months beforehand, but it gives us a chance to appreciate a life so brief, and not to miss a moment.
The value of Thomas Walter, Benedict and Charlotte cannot be measured by the length of their lives - we don't apply this yardstick to adults, so why should we to babies? A baby is not a possession, an accessory to acquire. A baby is a gift, a new entity, a precious, individual soul loved by God. We are created for a purpose, there is a reason for our being here. Even if that reason is unclear to us most of the time, we are constantly affecting other people in our families, communities etc. Who knows what purpose can be fulfilled in 9 months and one day? I don't know, but God does. I do know that Benedict left a lasting impression on our family, he made us slow down, savour life, and treasure our other children even more. He made us realise that we cannot control or predict what will happen in the future, he made us rely on God. And how often are we given the opportunity to really give another person true unconditional love? Love that truly expects no return? It is a blessing to experience that kind of pure love!
So don't pity us for carrying a child we know will die. Carrying this beautiful person is an honour. Grieve for the fact that our baby will die. We wouldn't wish away the time we had with Benedict, and also this time we are now experiencing with Charlotte, just to save us the pain of losing them. I've always thought of it like this; if your 3 year old was diagnosed with untreatable, fatal cancer and had only 4 months to live; would you prefer the doctor kill your child straight away so that you didn't have to wait for his/her impending death? Or would you prefer to spend as much time as you could with your child and love him/her for as long as you had left?
Someone asked us after Benedict died, "Was it worth it?" Oh, YES! For the chance to hold him, and see him, and love him before letting him go... For the chance for our children to see that we would never stop loving them, regardless of their imperfections? For the chance to give him everything we could? Oh, YES! Love your children, and remember that they each have their own unique mission. Children are always and only a blessing from God - even if they don't stay very long...
"I have my mission" by Cardinal Newman
God has created me to do him some definite service. He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. I have my mission - I may never know it in this life, but I shall be told it in the next.
I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons. He has not created me for naught. I shall do good. I shall do His work. I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth in my own place while not intending it - if I do but keep His commandments.
Therefore I will trust in Him. Whatever, wherever I am. I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him; in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him; if I am in sorrow, my sorrow may serve Him.
He does nothing in vain. He knows what He is about. He may take away my friends. He may throw me among strangers. He may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me - still He knows what he is about.
Wow, how sad and beautiful.

reply from: lukesmom

I HAVE been there, even closer than nykaren as I a mother who was in the same situation, different diagnosis. I am not "woman=expendable" as #1 I am a woman and #2 have a daugher who will be a woman. I consider women who terminate victims of society and the medical community same as thier murdered child. I wonder who is actually "judging from the sidelines"?

reply from: nykaren

I HAVE been there, even closer than nykaren as I a mother who was in the same situation, different diagnosis. I am not "woman=expendable" as #1 I am a woman and #2 have a daugher who will be a woman. I consider women who terminate victims of society and the medical community same as thier murdered child. I wonder who is actually "judging from the sidelines"?
Hi Draiocht, and thanks for your comment and kind thoughts. In my daughter's case it was definitely a case of PLers not caring one iota about my daughter. And I think this is the perfect place to have this issue aired. PLers need to be aware of this issue, whether they choose to care about women in my daughter's situation or not. Obviously, most here don't want to be bothered with the harm people just like them are doing.
Luke's Mom - Draiocht is not judging anyone, including you. That is the point here. NO one has any right to judge you for carrying to term OR to judge my daughter for inducing early. And having been in a similar situation does not give you that right, either. You made your choice and that decision was honored. My daughter's choice was not, thanks to PLers who had NO problem with judging from the sidelines. She and her husband were told the options and made their decision only after researching Sam's disease and weighing those options. PLer's actions in using my daughter and Sam to challenge the hospital were dispicable. What kind of people use a woman that way, do you think? Are you going to tell me that their actions were of compassion and caring for my daughter and son-in-law who had just found out their child was dying? Hardly! Their only concern was their private agenda. Save the baby, right? Even if it's going to be a dead baby. Sick, sick, sick.

reply from: lukesmom

Here is the crux: My "choice" was not a "choice" because there was no "choice". My son's life and death were not a "choice" but rather a natural result of his deformity. His creation was not due to an active decision on our part, his deformity was not due to a choice on our part, the length of his life of his life was not chosen by us and his death was not our choice. He lived the life he was given and he died the natural death that was ordained for him. There was no "choice" in the matter because "what was; was". Luke's life was his as was his death. Neither were ours so therefore there was no "choice" for us. What happened to your daughter and her son was not "fair" and what happened to me and my son was not "fair" and no one promised life would be fair or without suffering. I am sorry if you saw someone intervening on your grandson's behalf as only being concerned with thier own agenda but none of thier intervention was about YOU or YOUR DAUGHTER, instead it was about a voiceless life about to be needlessly distroyed. Yes that cause more pain to you and your family but, as I said before, this is not about YOU. Nothing was going to save Sam or Luke in the end but Sam may have saved others in more ways than any of us can or are supposed to understand. I believe you mentioned you are religious? Sorry if I am wrong about that. #1 lesson is to trust in God's plan and not take matters into our hands.

reply from: yoda

Because you spend 99% of your time advocating for 1% of the women having abortions, and less than 1% advocating for the other 99%.
No, it isn't. "Judging" is simply forming an opinion:
Main Entry: judge Function: verb Inflected Form(s): judged; judg·ing
1 : to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=judge

reply from: yoda

And I won't, because I am no longer 100% pro-life and will not pretend to be. .
And I note that you've never said you were "99% prolife".... you've said that you are a FORMER prolifer.. which means that you are ZERO percent prolife, in case you can't do the MATH.......

reply from: yoda

NOW your agenda is becoming much more clear..... your quoting NARAL shows where your heart really is.
Do you even know what "NARAL" stands for?

reply from: AshMarie88

But individually you have 3308 compared to my 252! lol
Um, I was talking about this thread, not YOUR posting count.

reply from: nykaren

NOW your agenda is becoming much more clear..... your quoting NARAL shows where your heart really is.
Do you even know what "NARAL" stands for?
Hey, I looked ALL over PL sites and found no mention whatsoever of concerns that women's rights to medical treatment are being trampled on by this NY state law. Imagine that. When I simply quoted the law itself, I was called a liar. If you can find me a prolife quote about the problem with this particular law and the use of it by people like you, I'll happily replace the NARAL quote, okay?

reply from: nykaren

But individually you have 3308 compared to my 252! lol
Um, I was talking about this thread, not YOUR posting count.
Noooooo kidding, Ashley. People keep posting here, and I respond. Is that a problem for you?

reply from: nykaren

If you've been listening, you'd know this has never been about me, or even my daughter anymore or Sam. It's about other women in this state who will be denied medical treatment by the abuse of the law and threats by PLers.
I'm not religious.
I'm a born-again Christian.
God does not forbid medical treatment.

reply from: nykaren

Because you spend 99% of your time advocating for 1% of the women having abortions, and less than 1% advocating for the other 99%.
No, it isn't. "Judging" is simply forming an opinion:
Main Entry: judge Function: verb Inflected Form(s): judged; judg·ing
1 : to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=judge
Your logic leaves a lot to be desired.
And from Encarta dictionary:
to judge: transitive verb: condemn somebody: to criticize or condemn somebody on moral grounds

reply from: lukesmom

WHAT? Born again Christian and not religious????? Sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me and as a nurse, purposefully ending a life is NOT a medical treatment.

reply from: MC3

NYKAREN:
1) Roe and Doe made the law you are referencing moot whether it is challenged or not. Every New York prosecutor knows that if he or she brought an indictment based on that statute, the only result would be a sternly-worded summary dismissal. That would be shortly followed by followed by a large financial sanction against said prosecutor and possible actions against his or her bar card. If the attorneys representing this hospital did not know this, the only conclusion would have to be that New York has the lowest standards for passing the bar in the country.

2) If the Baby Sam scenario was even remotely legitimate, unless this case somehow made it into the media, there would be no way for the pro-lifers in NY to even know of its existence. In short, your assertion that the hospital was ready to induce until they received calls from pro-lifers is, indisputably, a lie.
TO THE PRO-LIFERS ON THIS FORUM:
It is now undeniable that NYKAREN is a pro-abort and a bald-faced liar. That has been shown several times in the past and this latest episode leaves no doubt. It is time for you to stop being so naïve about this poor-poor-pitiful-me / Baby Sam nonsense. She is playing you for fools.

reply from: lukesmom

So... how did the big bad prolifers even KNOW about this case???? Obviously someone from this family? wonderful hospital? leaked info to the media as HIPPA confidentiality laws restrict hospital personnel from releasing ANY info on a patient. They cannot even acknowlege that a person is a pt. HMMMM This is getting to smell more and more rotten...

reply from: nykaren

You'd like my daughter's name? Not going to happen. She's been harrassed enough.

reply from: nykaren

(NY State Penal law § 125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions of terms.)
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Abraham Lincoln
No, it's not an abortion other than to pro-life idiots. And yep, it was performed by a Catholic hospital who could see its medical necessity. Gee, are you finally admitting there is such a law on NY state books? And that you were wrong??
And nope, the statute is not applicable, but PLers abuse it to threaten and intimidate, as I have previously explained.

reply from: nykaren

I am "suggesting" nothing by my post. I was simply informing CP, once again, that there IS a NY state law prohibiting abortion after 24 weeks except to save the life of the mother. I had previously posted the text of the actual law on this thread and he informed me it wasn't actually the law. I thought perhaps pasting an article here to that effect would be easier for him to understand, since he seems unable to grasp that the law, indeed, does exist.
You didn't previously post the law, you previously posted the definitions that preface the actual laws. Now you have posted an actual statute, but the definitions show it to be inapplicable in this instance. You don't need to try to make anything easier for me to understand, since my understanding is obviously superior to yours. You are the one who is blowing smoke here, and you obviously either have little or no understanding of the issues on which you presume to instruct others, or are simply dishonest.
I most certainly did post the statute earlier in this thread. Your understanding is "obviously superior" to mine? You're the one who was saying there is no such law on NY's books, and you were obviously wrong.

reply from: nykaren

WHAT? Born again Christian and not religious????? Sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me and as a nurse, purposefully ending a life is NOT a medical treatment.
Mainstream churches are full of those who are "religious" but don't have a clue of what being a Christian means. And as a nurse, I would think any decisions you make would be made medically, not by your personal beliefs.

reply from: nykaren

Yes, you are the person who first questioned me because I used the word "baby" instead of referring to Sam by name. That made me suspect in your mind. Your opinion of my credibility is based on that and similar assumptions as stupid as that one.
How did these people know what was going on inside the hospital? Obviously, PLers working inside and not caring a hoot about confidentiality laws.

reply from: nykaren

So... how did the big bad prolifers even KNOW about this case???? Obviously someone from this family? wonderful hospital? leaked info to the media as HIPPA confidentiality laws restrict hospital personnel from releasing ANY info on a patient. They cannot even acknowlege that a person is a pt. HMMMM This is getting to smell more and more rotten...
I certainly never said this was a wonderful hospital. Being intimidated by pro-life geeks is understandable but hardly commendable. And obviously, they have employees who are not especially interested in HIPPA confidentiality laws. My daughter was a patient in their clinic from almost the start of her pregnancy. Her situation was well known among hospital staff. I've no idea if they gave info to the media ( if so, they took it for what it was worth), but they certainly gave it to their PL buddies.

reply from: nykaren

Did you read the NY state statute still on the books? It very clearly states that abortions after 24 weeks are illegal EXCEPT to save the life of the mother. The law DOES say that, whether it's a moot law or not. It IS in some cases used to intimidate. My daughter's life was not in danger, but because of this law, inducement was denied at the hospital where she first was. Whether you believe that or not is of no concern to me or any other intelligent person. It's the truth. You've proven nothing.

reply from: nykaren

And the hospital just came right out and admitted this? Your daughter filed suit, of course? Give it a rest, Karen. We're not buying it.
Yep, her doctors told her that. Obviously, having just lost a child, the least of my daughter's concerns is filing suit.

reply from: nykaren

LOL, how sweetly condescending. Is that what you stoop to when your superior intellect fails you?

reply from: nykaren

You'd like my daughter's name? Not going to happen. She's been harrassed enough.
I don't want your daughter's name. I asked for you to name a woman who was actually denied necessary medical treatment based on NY statute. Since you allege she had the desired "treatment," NY statute obviously did not prevent her.
Where've you been? It most certainly did prevent it at the first hospital. It prevented it being done by her physicians there. She was forced to go to another hospital where PLers obviously don't have an inside track. Just what a couple needs when they already are dealing with a dying baby.

reply from: nykaren

Your desperation is proof you know I'm telling the truth.

reply from: nykaren

My daughter and her family have been through hell, and you'd like to believe it was imaginary. Good one, CP.

reply from: lukesmom

certainly never said this was a wonderful hospital. Being intimidated by pro-life geeks is understandable but hardly commendable. And obviously, they have employees who are not especially interested in HIPPA confidentiality laws. My daughter was a patient in their clinic from almost the start of her pregnancy. Her situation was well known among hospital staff. I've no idea if they gave info to the media ( if so, they took it for what it was worth), but they certainly gave it to their PL buddies.
If this is true than you have every legal right to prosecute or at least find out what the hospital is doing to find the source of the leak. Violating HIPPA laws is very serious and medical personnel take this very seriously as violating it means the loss of your job.

reply from: nykaren

Of course, and I hope my daughter and son-in-law will pursue it when they are up to it. We have discussed it.

reply from: yoda

Of course. But does it justify condemning the entire prolife movement across the whole country, and abandoning the prolife cause by calling yourself a "former prolifer"? Hardly.

reply from: yoda

Then why not just say "condemn"? Why try to be so dramatic?

reply from: yoda

Just the fact that she is still here after all this time, with no proposal for any solution to her "problem", and seeming to do nothing other than to side with the various proaborts against the prolifers on the forum on various issues is indeed suggestive of an ulterior motive.

reply from: lukesmom

Where've you been? It most certainly did prevent it at the first hospital. It prevented it being done by her physicians there. She was forced to go to another hospital where PLers obviously don't have an inside track. Just what a couple needs when they already are dealing with a dying baby.
Ok, you said she was induced at a Catholic Hospital??? Why would you even consider a Catholic Hospital when one of the main dogmas of Catholic religeon is the right to life of the unborn???? As a Catholic I find this claim very suspect. There are WAY too many inconsistancies here. I am no longer going to waste my time with your lies as this is a complete insult to my son and other children like him who actually existed.

reply from: nykaren

My daughter's Hospice RN let us know that the Catholic hospital will induce in cases such as this, and that having it done there might be an option to consider. She told them to go in and ask for 2 specific doctors, which they did, and were in an examining room within 5 minutes. My daughter at that point was in such severe pain she could barely walk at all, and that was between contractions. They admitted her and induced the next morning.

reply from: nykaren

Then why not just say "condemn"? Why try to be so dramatic?
Hey, you're the one who is big on dictionary definitions, and first provided, for some reason, a definition of judge. You're no longer making any sense at all, so why don't you just give it a rest?

reply from: nykaren

The ethics board had approved the procedure long before that, and yes, she was turned away in that pain, the reason being given was that she was not in full labor and inducing was not to be done.

reply from: nykaren

Did you read the NY state statute still on the books? It very clearly states that abortions after 24 weeks are illegal EXCEPT to save the life of the mother. The law DOES say that, whether it's a moot law or not. It IS in some cases used to intimidate. My daughter's life was not in danger, but because of this law, inducement was denied at the hospital where she first was. Whether you believe that or not is of no concern to me or any other intelligent person. It's the truth. You've proven nothing.
You admitted the law you quoted was not applicable, and it obviously isn't. It would make little difference if anyone implied that it did in order to attempt to "intimidate"
the hospital, since the law obviously would still not apply. I find it hard to believe that any attorney would fail to understand what you and I do, that the law in question does not apply to induced labor followed by live birth, even though it is still an abortion by general definition as long as the child dies before, during, or shortly after the procedure.
I proved nothing? I proved that the procedure you described does not meet the qualifications to be considered an abortion under NY law, and that, the law you cited was therefore not applicable as you claimed. I proved you were wrong. Accept it graciously....
You proved nothing. It does meet the terms under the law being quoted and used by PL intimidators. For that reason, the law needs to be removed from the books so that a woman can receive medical care without this kind of harrassment. As I said before, the law may be moot but the hospital was not going to risk PL protests, a smear campaign, and whatever else they would be in for. They've been there before, and know the cost of that financially, not only in legal costs but public backlash.

reply from: nykaren

You can believe whatever you want, obviously, and will continue to. Your mind is completely closed to actual facts.

reply from: nykaren

My daughter and her family have been through hell, and you'd like to believe it was imaginary. Good one, CP.
While I do in fact have good reason to doubt your story, I was, in this instance, referring to your contention that the law itself needs to be changed, that it prevents women from having labor induced prematurely. It obviously does not. That is your "fight," is it not? That is your "windmill."
I know very well what you referring to when you said it. Don't try to change it. That I've made the story up has been your mantra almost since the beginning.
And yep, that is my fight, and the law obviously DOES need to be removed from the books.

reply from: yoda

Why, so you can have the last word? Hmmm..... yeah, you "former prolifers" are like that......

reply from: nykaren

Why, so you can have the last word? Hmmm..... yeah, you "former prolifers" are like that......
You just refuse to understand what my prolife position is, don't you, no matter how many times I explain it for your benefit?? You hear only what you want to hear and have long since stopped listening to facts. You don't want you understand or find a common ground because you made up that narrow mind a long time ago about me. I find no reason to even continue responding to your nonsense so go ahead and have the last word, old man. You're more than welcome to it.

reply from: MC3

Good grief, NYKAREN, give it up. You're embarrassing yourself and you're not even bright enough to recognize it.
You came on to this forum pretending to be someone you're not to make a point that made no sense. Then you got exposed as a fraud. So then, you tried to cover up the initial lie with what appears to be an inexhaustible inventory of additional lies.
Now I realize that you probably consider yourself far too sophisticated for any sort of homespun wisdom from some rube reared in a place as backward as Texas, but I'll give it to you anyway. It's a saying we have here that has saved my hiney on more than one occasion. There are variations on it but basically it is that, "When you discover you're in a hole, the smartest thing you can do is stop digging."
Well NYKAREN, my dear, your old lies got you in a hole that your new lies will never get you out of. Come clean and recover at least a little of you dignity or move on. Your act is really getting tiresom.

reply from: nykaren

You've tested and proven it quite well already, thank you!

reply from: nykaren

You are right about one thing, sir. It's extremely tiresome trying to talk with people who consistantly refuse to hear the truth. I've neither embarrassed myself, nor lost any dignity. I've told the truth from day one, while you guys have proven yourselves idiots, over and over again. And just for the record, I'm not the one who has kept this thread active for so long. People keep asking questions or making comments and I respond to those. I'm more than willing to move on and be done with the rather unpleasant experience of dealing with you and your buddies. It's been entertaining in some ways, of course, especially things like the "shock" when some people realize that, yes, Sam was induced in a Catholic hospital. Or aborted, if you prefer. That's just a really tough fact for you folks to handle, isn't it? It's a whole lot easier to call that fact and others a lie and be done with it, isn't it? So go ahead and just continue to keep your head in the sand, along with the others here who have called me a liar. But please, don't blame your stupidity on being a Texan. That's an insult, and terribly unfair, to the many fine upstanding folks who live there. Now, I'm done here, on this thread at least. I'm sure you and CP will have something more to say to try once again to prove that superior intellect you profess to have. That will give you the last word, and we know how you need that. Have fun!

reply from: MC3

Nice spin, NYKAREN, but no sale. Anyone who knows me will tell you that if there is one thing I never do it is say anything negative about Texas - even in those extraordinarily rare instances where it might, in some inconsequential and microscopic way, be justified. Believe me, everyone who read my post, including you, knows that I was not suggesting Texas is backward but that you probably consider it so and yourself too sophisticated to take advice from someone reared here.
In any event, you say you are leaving. Only time will tell if this turns out to be the one time you were not lying to us. Of course, at this point we have nothing to assure us of that other than your word. I trust you will understand if we don't put too much stock in that. At the very least, we have to consider the possibility that you will reincarnate yourself as LEXXY or something similar. After all, you've done it before.

reply from: yoda

According to the subtitle of this thread, you DON'T HAVE a "prolife position", because you are a FORMER prolifer!!
You could've changed that at any time, but you have chosen to leave it to read that way, and give the impression that you are NOT a "prolifer" any longer.
Well, you've convinced me.

reply from: AshMarie88

KAREN... For gosh sakes, just answer the question.
Are you a FORMER pro-lifer or a "pro-lifer" with the exceptions?!?! They are NOT THE SAME and will never be the same!
So which are you?

reply from: galen

dear karen,
Well i've read your posts and i do not know what to believe... are you just a lay person who has a bit of knowledge and a lot of rage at her situation... or a active liar whith a bit of imagination and a lot of internet "facts' that she spits out at will.
Should you be the former i feel for your family... but i find it hardto believe that i have not been able to confirm this case in the media or anywhere else.. not the journals or just in medical gossip...( i have several friends in the noth east)... my experience in medicine( i am an RN) has been that this would not have been a question for ANY ethics commitee untill after the procedure was preformed....very courious that yours was brought up... also curious is the fact that your Ob could not have found a situation where your daughter could have been admitted into another institution and delivered there... NYState has more hostpitals to choose from than most. Why are you not in the media ? why are you not in the courts....? why is your OBGYN so mooshy... none that i know of would have put up with this situation... and no one can sue him/her if eveyone involved... mom and dad... want this.
Should you be the latter... well i think you should be drug out to siberia and left to freeze..... To take a situation like Potters/ tay sachs.. etc and use it for yor own gratification is reprehensible and mean. i hope no one who is actually going through a pregnancy like this sees these posts and takes you seriously.
Mary

reply from: yoda

Well, that's kind of drastic..... how about Hibbing, Minnesota?

reply from: galen

not cold enough... to easy to walk to safety.
Mary

reply from: Wrench

I find it insulting any time someone challenges a pro-life position by saying, "But what about X?" As though none of us have ever considered such a situation before. Many of us have extensive knowledge on embryology and fetology - some of us have expertise in such fields. Some are medical professionals, some are lawyers, some are just men and women who've been there and done that.
I'm currently an embryology student. Learning about all the possible diagnoses which are considered "incompatible with life" constantly makes me ask myself, "Should abortion be allowed in this instance? What about this one?" What about anencephaly? Exancephaly? Trisomy 18? Severe Potter's? Non-immune hydrops? Where do we draw the line between what will clearly lead to immediate demise after birth, and what has a chance of allowing the child hours, if not days (or more) of life? Since when are doctors the only human beings on Earth who can correctly interpret all the images in a crystal ball?
The fact is, none of us really knows. No doctor is 100% right all the time, and often, the doctor's bias shows through in the diagnosis. And to be very plain, no one has the right to assume what the ultimate victim would want if he could make his own choice.
Now you may say, "But you can't say anything about it until you're in that situation." I disagree. It is the person who is NOT in that situation, who can think clearly, without the fog of emotion and inner turmoil, who is in the best position to make a clear and rational choice. I would always prefer an impartial party to one with its own goals, biases and opinions.

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the forum, Wrench.
I think I know what you mean. Many proaborts try to invalidate the prolife position by looking for "tiny technical loopholes", as if they changed anything. They don't.
Hear, hear!
Those are almost impossible to find. Whether one is personally involved or not, everyone carries their own biases around with them, like so much luggage.
That's what Horton said, so it must be right!

reply from: galen

welcome wrench!!!
Mary

reply from: Wrench

Thank you, Galen
And Yoda, to answer your question, what I meant by abortion-choicers using the argument, "But what about X?" is that X can be anything: rape, incest, when the mother's health is in danger, when the mother's life is in danger, when the pregnant person is a minor, when the pregnant person is over the age of 40, when birth control fails.... you name it.
They always try to bring up those rare and generalized situations as though they're things we've never even considered before. Granted, there are some pro-lifers who truly never have considered "the hard cases," and are more likely to be swayed by them; but in my experience, those pro-lifers are usually the kind who are only superficially pro-life, and have never actually made a solid commitment to developing and sustaining a personal pro-life philosophy. Unfortunately I seem to be running into a lot of those lately.
Hope that clears it up a bit, though.

reply from: yoda

Ah yes...... the old "well if this is a gray area, then maybe all abortion cases are gray areas" routine. And it's even more disgusting when it comes from a so-called "former prolifer" who claims to have abandoned the ENTIRE prolife cause over that one "gray area". In other words, "To hell with all those millions of other babies, I'm abandoning ship over ONE baby!" As you said, "only superficially pro-life,", at best!

reply from: gmarie

I have not read this entire thread. I just read the first one and then the one posted in July when Sam was born.
I am 31 weeks along in my pregnancy and my baby boy, David Paul, does not have kidneys and his lungs will not develop. I interrupted the doctor when he suggested terminating the pregnancy. I refused. The first few days of the fatal diagnosis, I wondered how I would be able to carry this baby knowing he would not make it. However, I love him so much and I at least wanted the opportunity to hold him and see him. My baby is not a burden, but a gift, no matter how short or long his life is. God numbers our days.
From a medical perspective, baby's with any form of Potter's do not experience pain. Also, the pain your daughter had may not be because of the lack of amniotic fluid. I have not heard of one woman in the same situation have the kind of pain you said your daughter had.
When I read about Sam being born and how much joy your family had to meet him, I thought that you seemed grateful for this time with him. Most babies with the lung conditon like Sam's can't even cry. You are blessed to have heard him cry. Do you really wish he would have been terminated earlier? I hate to sound so harsh, but it makes me wonder.
I honestly feel that we are deceived to think that carrying a baby like this to term would be horrific. It is not. It is a true blessing, while very painful, as I am going through it right now. Most doctors encourage abortion and 95% of women do this because they are mislead. I truly feel bad for them that they are robbed of the opportunity to give birth to their baby, which is a powerful bonding moment between mother and child, and then meet their baby, hold the baby and even take pictures.
My hope is that lives of babies like Sam and my own son David Paul will be valued.

reply from: Wrench

Gmarie, thank you - that was beautiful. I'm sorry for your loss (even if he's still here, I'm sure you're still mourning the loss of what might have been) but it's good to hear you value what you've been given. Gratitude is so important.
I hope and pray I'm never in that position, but I know that with all pregnancies it's always a possibility. I've heard from all sides, from those who have terminated and regretted it, from those who have terminated and think it was the right call, and from those who have continued. And the thing is, the ones who continue always seem the most at peace with the finality of losing their children. I know that when I miscarried our first, the only thing I found even remotely comforting was being assured by my doctor and the medical staff that I did nothing wrong, it wasn't my fault. I can't imagine losing my beloved child and knowing that it was my fault that he died, even if his life may only have been days or weeks longer. Those would still be days and weeks for us to share with one another, to hope for possibilities, to mourn the inevitabilities, to grieve, to communicate, to cherish - time that I would have taken from myself, and for what? To be acceptable? To spare others the awkwardness of talking to a mother with a dying baby inside her? To "not be a burden"? To "move on" and act like it never happened?
Not worth it. Not even close. Not now, not ever.

reply from: coco

I am very sorry for your loss, I keep you, your family, and your child in my prayers. I think that it is HORRABLE for ANYONE to go through something like this!!

reply from: nykaren

Gmarie, My heart truly goes out to you in your loss and I'm glad you are doing what you feel is right for your situation. It's a terrible loss. There's not a day that my family and I do not miss Sam and cherish the short time he was with us. That would be the case, regardless of whether he were born at 24 or 34 or 40 weeks. It may be unusual for the pain to be that severe due to the lack of amniotic fluid, but that's what the cause was for my daughter. My husband and I recently participated in a "Walk to Remember", along with my daughter and her husband and our granddaughter, organized by a nurse we met at the Catholic hospital where Sam was delivered. It was sponsored in part by Hospice and the hospital's perinatal bereavement group. I hope you'll connect with others going through similar situations as yours, it really is a huge comfort. Hospice was a great help to all of us, if you haven't contacted them, you might want to. You and your family will be in my prayers.

reply from: futureshock

Karen,
I have read some of this thread, and I was in tears the whole time. The thought of all of that suffering your daughter had to endure, and the helpless, awful feeling you, as a mother, must have felt to watch your child doubled over in pain like that, is horrifying.
Minute after minute. Day after day. Week after week.
The thought of Sam, also suffering, was almost too much to take. I cannot imagine the hell you and your family went through. Knowing my child is in pain, and for you as both your child and unborn grandchild were, is agonizing enough when it happens, but to add to that the fact that it doesn't stop, but goes on and on and on, AND IS TREATABLE, is sick beyond belief.
I am sorry for your loss. I am grateful that your daughter has such a warm, caring, and courageous mother.

reply from: lukesmom

gmarie,
Congratulations on your new little one, David Paul. You and he are so blessed. Yes, he will only be with you for a short time but nothing compares to the time you have now. My son, Luke, was diagnosed at 16weeks with a terminal diagnosis. He was born at 36 weeks and we had 45 very peaceful and wonderful minutes with him before he had to go from us. While carrying him was difficult it was also one of the most beautiful, joyful and spiritual times of our lives. Please know that you are not alone, many of us are or have ctt as you are doing now. All or our little ones have value and all our little ones are deserving of continuing the life they have already been given to a natural death. Here are some sites that may help and you can contact any of the parents who have shared their children. Our story is under Ancencephaly stories.
http://prenatalpartnersforlife.org/

http://www.benotafraid.net/

http://boards.babycenter.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=bcus1311592&Ad=com.bc.common.AdInfo%402f19f921

http://www.geocities.com/tabris02/tips.html

May God continue to bless you and your family and hold you close,
Sue, Luke's mom ^8-9-03^

reply from: futureshock

I'm sorry, but to gestate and give birth to a child so he can become sentient and aware, suffer and die, seems barbaric to me.

reply from: AshMarie88

[quote]I'm sorry, but to gestate and give birth to a child so he can become sentient and aware, suffer and die, seems barbaric to me.[/quote]
I'm sorry, but to stick scissors in a child's head or suck it thru a tube after ripping all its limbs and body parts off, making it suffer and die slowly, seems more barbaric to me.

reply from: AshMarie88

You have no right to judge another person's life by their pain. You only have the right to judge your own.
YOU don't know if they wanna live or die!

reply from: futureshock

What do either of those things have to do with knowing if you continue your pregnancy your child will develop, grow a brain, become aware, only to suffer and DIE?

reply from: nykaren

Ashley, Do you actually know of this being done in a case such as Sam's where the baby is loved and very much wanted but can not survive? If so, I'd love to see the proof of it. These babies are induced in a hospital and birthed lovingly and then held and cared for till they die a natural death. They are loved and cherished and mourned every bit as much as the babies of those women who choose to carry to term, such as Luke's mom and Gmarie.

reply from: coco

Ny so your daughter did not have an abortion?? I was under the impression that she did, I must admit that I did not read the WHOLE thread. Either way I feel sadness for ALL that have made this DIFFICULT situation, I am just so BLESSED that my babies were born healthy!! God bless all of you, it must be truely hard for your families!!

reply from: yoda

Most proaborts, such as yourself, see the world upside down. You live in a world in which not killing a baby is "barbaric", but killing them is "loving".
You live in a world gone mad.
"Suffer and die"? Isn't that what we all do? Who are you to shorten a baby's life based on YOUR values? What gives you the right to take life?

reply from: Wrench

Most proaborts, such as yourself, see the world upside down. You live in a world in which not killing a baby is "barbaric", but killing them is "loving".
You live in a world gone mad.
"Suffer and die"? Isn't that what we all do? Who are you to shorten a baby's life based on YOUR values? What gives you the right to take life?
Not to mention that the baby ALREADY had awareness when they found out about his condition; by 23 weeks fetuses are self-aware of their position in time and space, they experience REM sleep, they can recognize their mothers' voice, remember familiar songs and stories... developmentally, birth is actually very uneventful. Most of the baby's brain development happens long before "viability" and birth.

reply from: futureshock

People are free to do whatever they wish. I am not the one trying to pass laws forcing my views onto other people, against their wills.
In this thread, an unborn child was suffering, his mother was suffering, his father, his grandmother, all for NO REASON.
If I was carrying an EMBRYO that a doctor said if carried to term would never live more than minutes, and would only SUFFER PAIN while still in the womb, and I had the choice to alleviate that suffering, that is what I would do.
While that fetus was only weeks along in this post by lukesmom:
"My son, Luke, was diagnosed at 16weeks with a terminal diagnosis. He was born at 36 weeks and we had 45 very peaceful and wonderful minutes with him before he had to go from us."
If that were me, I would choose to end the suffering of both child and mother before it even starts for the child, bedore that unborn child even has the capacity to know it is alive, rather than wait until the child's brain grows enough so that it can suffer, only to die.

reply from: yoda

That's right, you're the one who is supporting laws which allow people to force death on their innocent babies. Forcing "views" seems rather tame compared to that, don't you think?
Oh, and btw, you support laws which force society's views on other acts of aggressive violence, do you not?

reply from: yoda

Isn't it lovely that this thread has been resurrected once again, (so we can read all about the views of a "former" prolifer) and that Karen isn't actually leaving after all?
Or maybe, she's just leaving very slowly... ya think?

reply from: AshMarie88

Oh, Karen's slow alright...

reply from: Wrench

Dear Ashley,
I love you.
The end.
-Me

reply from: 4given

Isn't it lovely that this thread has been resurrected once again, (so we can read all about the views of a "former" prolifer) and that Karen isn't actually leaving after all?
Or maybe, she's just leaving very slowly... ya think?
I did have the once too familiar sigh come upon me as I began to read.. who knows? Perhaps the thread will resurrect an awareness of sorts as what it means to hold life in a higher regard than what was shown in this specific case. I hope so. If not.. I pray that others will have some idea as to what one (an advocate for the unborn) may face in future discussions. I hadn't pondered such a case until it was presented, nor did I expect it would linger on as it has. All for the pondering. All for the growth.

reply from: 4given

All of your posting here and you didn't actually read up on the daily variations here? I don't know what to say Coco- although go to your room comes to mind. I don't mean to sound disrespectful.. I just find it to be a bit odd that you only post when convenient and only run w/ the points that drive your specific ideas for the moment. Perhaps I am the same.. My condolences to others that call themselves a "former pro-lifer".. yet I wonder at what, if any point that becomes you? Hopefully not. Keep fighting for the unborn-(if that is what drives you today) not the majority rule.

reply from: hanatana

I'm just curious as to how much knowledge you actually have on the procedures most often used to induce labor late term. The scenario in which you described first is not only currently illegal in the Unites States, but scarcely used.

reply from: hanatana

Karen,
I am very sorry for your pain, and the agony that I know your family must be going through at this very difficult time. I too was once an avid pro-lifer, so sure I knew what was best for everyone else. So sure that I knew what I would do if faced with a "choice". So sure...until I was faced with that choice. For me, what was a very hard line was blurred not by circumstance, but by undying love. My choice was one made as a parent, not as a person. I was humbled. I know that the road that lies ahead of you will not be easy, nor would the one taken had your daughter been allowed to make her own decisions about the induction of labor. I've learned all too well that grief is not defined by the number of minutes lived or the number of breaths taken. I will be thinking of you and your family.

reply from: futureshock

hanatana,
that was a beautiful post. You have much more patience than I for the people that have no real life experience yet think they should have the right to make the rules for the rest of us.

reply from: onlygodknowswhy

my whole out look on it is...Id rather have my son deformed and live for who knows how long then ripped into peicesand die. Like someone posted earlier the doctors arent always 100% right on outcomes.I think the the law on induction is BS though. If at 32 weeks and lung maturity is good then why not induce.

reply from: hanatana

I really am not that patient, infact I am just the opposite. I have very little tolerance for views forced upon me based on someone else's religion or someone else's view, because I would never venture to believe that my beliefs are right for someone else. I'm just not that arrogant. But for me, this comes down to only one thing..the tragic loss of a loved and wanted baby. The how and the when doesn't matter to me. This family will grieve regardless, and I know what it's like to have no one on your side.

reply from: AshMarie88

You know, you've never asked the victims how they felt about the situations the parents were faced with...
OH WAIT... that's right, they were never given the chance to speak up about THEIR personal opinions on THEIR lives...

reply from: hanatana

Hey Ash..I'm just wondering how many times you have heard someone say how much they loved gasping for breath, wondering which one was going to be their last. Or how many times someone told you how wonderful it was to sit on a transplant list waiting for a call that would never come. I bet the anticipation was great. I'm sure you know tons of people lining up at the clinic that hands out morphine to terminal patients because its the only way they can live with the pain that dominates their wonderful, happy, fulfilling lives. Why don't you walk through a pediatric cancer ward and look at all of the children fighting with everything they have wondering if this day, this hell, is all they will ever know. I encourage you to ask 20 people with terminal disease how happy they are to be alive. Please, ask the ones who suffer, who cry in pain, who struggle to breathe and wait for death how comforting it is to know that you are happy they are alive. Please tell them that you fought to ensure their right to life and let me know if they give a good god damn. This is the life that my child would have endured, and I can gaurantee you that is not the life she would have wanted.
I could care less if you agree, and I could care less if you don't. But you have no right to attack people for what they feel, especially if you've never walked in their shoes. I guess this is the difference between you and me. I would never judge a person for continuing a pregnancy and giving everything they have for a few minutes, even if those few minuted were spent suffering. Why? Because I have walked in those shoes, and I wouldn't wish that journey on anyone.

reply from: futureshock

There are certain times where there is NO QUESTION that a baby will not live. If the fetus never developed lungs, there is no way God is going to suddenly put lungs in there at the moment of birth.
In the example in this thread, the fetus had multiple problems, non-functioning kidneys, for one, which would guarantee death within a short period of time after birth.
One of the sickest parts of this story is that the earlier the child was induced and born, the LONGER he would have lived, and the sooner his pain would have stopped. He was IN PAIN WHILE IN THE WOMB. There was NO AMNIOTIC FLUID. But that wasn't good enough for the people here, because they can't separate existence in the womb with real, actual, born life.
And they certainly cannot understand pain. A G O N Y. What is it about pro-lifers that precludes them from experiencing empathy?
The unborn baby was suffering and in pain. The sooner he was born, the longer he would live, and the pain would stop. You aren't a hero for continuing a pregnancy like that on purpose, you are a selfish sadist.

reply from: yoda

I judge people like Jeffery Dahmer very harshly, and I've never walked in his shoes. I judge people who are serial killers of children very harshly, and I've never walked in their shoes either.
So we must have been serial killers of small kids before we judge them harshly?

reply from: yoda

The truly sickest part of this story is that it's probably made up (no one has been able to document any part of it), and that it was used to try to slander the whole prolife movement. Not to mention that opposing elective abortion (those which have no medical motives at all) are what we are about here, not splitting hairs about some hypothetical medical situation.
It's instructive to note that almost all the support expressed for this thread has come from proaborts, not prolifers.
And....... that proaborts (like yourself) seem to love to resurrect it from time to time... like this time, for example, just to keep the sub-heading with the term "former prolifer" at the top of the page.
Yeah, those are the really sick parts about this thread.

reply from: AshMarie88

[quote]There are certain times where there is NO QUESTION that a baby will not live. If the fetus never developed lungs, there is no way God is going to suddenly put lungs in there at the moment of birth.
In the example in this thread, the fetus had multiple problems, non-functioning kidneys, for one, which would guarantee death within a short period of time after birth.
One of the sickest parts of this story is that the earlier the child was induced and born, the LONGER he would have lived, and the sooner his pain would have stopped. He was IN PAIN WHILE IN THE WOMB. There was NO AMNIOTIC FLUID. But that wasn't good enough for the people here, because they can't separate existence in the womb with real, actual, born life.
And they certainly cannot understand pain. A G O N Y. What is it about pro-lifers that precludes them from experiencing empathy?
The unborn baby was suffering and in pain. The sooner he was born, the longer he would live, and the pain would stop. You aren't a hero for continuing a pregnancy like that on purpose, you are a selfish sadist.[/quote]
And you never developed a brain. Perhaps we should abort you, end your suffering?

reply from: AshMarie88

And isn't it pro-aborts who say they can't feel pain in the womb? TO THEM... How is it they can't feel pain, yet can suffer in the womb? No one has ever explained that one to me...

reply from: pookiy1980

not speaking for the pro-aborts but they feel pain after somany weeks of development and in this story of Sam he was developed enough to feel pain.
But yeah people will use one thing in one situation then turn around and use it different in another.

reply from: yoda

And your documentation for a baby's "schedule" for feeling pain is what, exactly?

reply from: lukesmom

#1 My son never suffered. I don't know where you got that idea. His short life was very peaceful and he died the way he lived, peacefully.
#2 My physical sufferering was no more than I would suffer if it were caused by an already born child. I am a mother and I will suffer whatever I have to for the good of ANY of my children, born or unborn.
#3 My emotional suffering was going to happen no matter if I killed my child prematurely or if I ctt. No matter what, I was going to grieve the loss of a child. In ctt I never had to grieve the fact that I killed my child but instead greived the natural loss of my son.
#4 I have 4 other children and all, in the past 3 months, have been diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal heart condition. My oldest is 15 and has had to give up all competitive sports as he is now symptomatic. He is very athletic. We are all grieving this and I am very afraid of what the future holds for all my kids. Are we suffering? YES! Should I "terminate" kill them? NO! There is no difference between what is happening to my children now and what happened to my Luke. Who are you (or anyone else) to determine who's life is worth living???? Who made you God? There are many suffering people of all ages in this world, sounds like you would like mass global killing. Nobody would be left...
#6 You make this journey of ctt with a fatal diagnosis sound horrible but in reality every parent who has ctt will tell you that the joy and the wonder truely outwieghed the "negatives". I hope that I never have to face this again but if I did, I would ctt. I have spoken to hundreds of moms who have ctt and NOT ONE HAS REGRETTED CTT, not one single mom. I have also spoken to hundreds that have terminated and a great number have regreted their choise of killing thier child and live with that regret along with thier grief, daily.
#6 You have no idea WHAT you would do in a situation like ours. You can assume but you don't actually know.
#7 Luke's life was short, 36 weeks and 45 minutes but in that short time, he touched and changed many lives, not only in our family and community but throughout the world (due to the internet). Some people live to 70, 80 even 90 years and have no impact. Every life has a purpose, some just fulfill that purpose before others. Why is that so hard to understand????

reply from: futureshock

Sue, I am very sorry for what your family is going through. I know a family with a similar situation as yours with the teenager/athletic/with a heart condition, and their suffering is brutal.

reply from: lukesmom

Thank you. I wish I could divide my healthy heart 5 ways (Dh has the heart condition too and the kids may have inherited, we are a cardiac genetisist dream), but that is not possible.

reply from: pookiy1980

And your documentation for a baby's "schedule" for feeling pain is what, exactly?
I am sure you have read this.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947
and it's not my schedule actually.
Pain or no pain does not justify abortion in my eyes.

reply from: futureshock

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947

reply from: AshMarie88

JAMA lol they're pro-abortion.

reply from: 4given

Thank God in Heaven, as He must, that His child wasn't placed within your womb or life to make that decision! My sister was born a few days shy of 28 weeks. A family friend carried her Trisomy 18 baby to term and endured the deep sorrow of his few 4 minutes of life. It was God's life- a gift to her. My sister was told her baby likely had Trisomy 18, he is a healthy 1 year old. Doctors make mistakes. And when they do not- God does not make mistakes! Every life is precious. Whether or not you serve God or not, who can deny the precious gift of life? Who can deny that a child- any child is deserving of the right to make their very own choices, or to live in this world?
#1 My son never suffered. I don't know where you got that idea. His short life was very peaceful and he died the way he lived, peacefully.
#2 My physical sufferering was no more than I would suffer if it were caused by an already born child. I am a mother and I will suffer whatever I have to for the good of ANY of my children, born or unborn.
#3 My emotional suffering was going to happen no matter if I killed my child prematurely or if I ctt. No matter what, I was going to grieve the loss of a child. In ctt I never had to grieve the fact that I killed my child but instead greived the natural loss of my son.
#4 I have 4 other children and all, in the past 3 months, have been diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal heart condition. My oldest is 15 and has had to give up all competitive sports as he is now symptomatic. He is very athletic. We are all grieving this and I am very afraid of what the future holds for all my kids. Are we suffering? YES! Should I "terminate" kill them? NO! There is no difference between what is happening to my children now and what happened to my Luke. Who are you (or anyone else) to determine who's life is worth living???? Who made you God? There are many suffering people of all ages in this world, sounds like you would like mass global killing. Nobody would be left...
#6 You make this journey of ctt with a fatal diagnosis sound horrible but in reality every parent who has ctt will tell you that the joy and the wonder truely outwieghed the "negatives". I hope that I never have to face this again but if I did, I would ctt. I have spoken to hundreds of moms who have ctt and NOT ONE HAS REGRETTED CTT, not one single mom. I have also spoken to hundreds that have terminated and a great number have regreted their choise of killing thier child and live with that regret along with thier grief, daily.
#6 You have no idea WHAT you would do in a situation like ours. You can assume but you don't actually know.
#7 Luke's life was short, 36 weeks and 45 minutes but in that short time, he touched and changed many lives, not only in our family and community but throughout the world (due to the internet). Some people live to 70, 80 even 90 years and have no impact. Every life has a purpose, some just fulfill that purpose before others. Why is that so hard to understand????
Sue- may God continue to bless you and your family with peace, hope and healing! All in JESUS Holy Name! I will be praying. Trust Him, Seek Him, Believe in His Perfect will for your lives! You are doing His work by posting here and speaking up for the most pure- the innocent babes and the blood that is daily shed because of ignorance and selfishness. I will be praying! God Bless!

reply from: futureshock

4given, do you speak like that in real life?

reply from: faithman

UUUHHH... I thought this was real life....

reply from: lukesmom

Thank you 4given, we can use all the prayers we can get.

reply from: futureshock

What kind of reaction do you get to speaking like that?

reply from: faithman

From me, a big thank you. Never under estimate the power of a christian woman's faith.

reply from: futureshock

I am not underestimating, overestimating, or estimating anything,. I am merely questioning what kind of reaction a person gets who speaks Bible-speak. That is, every sentence or paragraph she speaks involves a Bible verse.

reply from: yoda

No, actually I hadn't.
Thank you for that clarification..... it is an extremely important point to remember.
But just for the sake of accuracy, let's look at what the self-professed proabortion JAMA's article says:
but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."
Note the lack of conviction expressed here..... they don't actually claim to know of a certainty when babies can feel pain, do they?
a person's systems develop and one of them fails, the result is a lack of feeling. Well, duuuuh! But what about before those systems develop? Do we have another way of feeling things at that time? No one knows, because we cannot communicate with babies at that time!
Take the most basic example, a one-celled creature like an amoeba. Does it feel pain, without a developed, multi-cellular nervous system & brain? We simply don't know, do we? We do see behavior that suggests a primitive pain reaction, but that's all we can say for sure.
And to conclude, the topic of organ development is really quite over emphasized. Why? Because ALL single celled organisms, including the brand new human being, have structures that do exactly the same work as a multi cellular organ does in our bodies. They are called "organelles", and each cell has them. They are the "organs" of every one celled organism. And the nucleus of each cell IS the "nerve center" of that cell, analogous to the brain of a multi cellular organism.

reply from: yoda

That's because you have no respect for an individual's religious convictions.
The gentleman was speaking to another person of his own religious conviction, and his manner of speaking was entirely appropriate.
Even I, an agnostic, can respect that.

reply from: faithman

The very intent of the first amendment was to secure her ability to speak the name of Christ freely as an exersice of her faith. The godless left parasites are merely allowed to enjoy that freedom. The freedom of speach was given to American citizens to freely proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

reply from: futureshock

Where did I say it was a bad thing to speak Bible speak all of the time? I was just CURIOUS about it, is that a sin? Why can't I ask somebody about something? I've never met anyone like that, so I was interested in how other people relate to them.
She was very gracious in her answer, which I appreciated.
You guys do an awful lot of projecting. Look it up.

reply from: faithman

Where did a say you said it was a bad thing? May haps you could use your own advice, and look in the mirror when accusing one of projecting.

reply from: pookiy1980

LOL! ok so you are being sarcastic right? They publish studies....abortion and no-abortion alike, JAMA is not a "they" lol!

reply from: pookiy1980

No, actually I hadn't.
Thank you for that clarification..... it is an extremely important point to remember.
But just for the sake of accuracy, let's look at what the self-professed proabortion JAMA's article says:
but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."
Note the lack of conviction expressed here..... they don't actually claim to know of a certainty when babies can feel pain, do they?
nope I agree...but I also do not think the brain is developed enough to feel pain at 5weeks either... but you don't need a study to tell you this.
What is your point? I agree with what you quoted
I still do not know what your point is?
back to my origional comment:
"they feel pain after so many weeks of development and in this story of Sam he was developed enough to feel pain. "
we do not really know if a 2week embroyo feels pain right? So far we agree.... Sam was 31weeks when this story started...do you or do you not agree he could feel pain? if you do then again we agree...
Again you asked me about "my documentation for a baby's schedule and I made the comment it is not mine.....it would look on my CV but can't take credit for writing it.
the self-professed proabortion JAMA's article says...I don't understand.... you know JAMA is a journal of studies preformed by all types of MD's right? JAMA is not "pro-abortion" but some of the MD's who are published probably are....in fact one of my colleges just got published and he is more pro-lifer then you are so "JAMA" is not who/what is pro-life/choice, kinda like saying the encyclopedia is pro-abortion d/t the fact they talk about what they are...

reply from: yoda

My point is that you say "I also do not think the brain is developed enough to feel pain at 5weeks", and yet you seem not to understand that we actually have no way of knowing that.. NO WAY AT ALL. All we can say for sure is that BORN PEOPLE whose brains have developed...... need their brain to feel pain. We have no way of knowing if gestating humans feel pain before the complete development of their brains, absolutely no way at all.
If an amoeba can feel pain (without a brain), then what's to keep a human baby from doing the same?
How many different ways must I say it? Organ development has nothing to do with how our bodies function before our organs are fully (functionally) developed. Our "organelles" may function in the same way as developed organs do later on.
Indeed we do, on that point.
Yes, they are. They have OFFICIALLY taken a position in support of legalized abortion.

reply from: yoda

Hey FMan, don't you think it's curious how these "new" posters drop in on us and right away they resurrect this old thread? And have you noticed a pattern? They seem to want to tell us their whole life story on their first day here, like they were trying to sell us the movie rights to a book. All the real prolifers on this forum have been rather reserved about discussing personal details of their lives until they've gotten to know us, you think maybe that's because they didn't have something to sell?

reply from: futureshock

Yes, they are. They have OFFICIALLY taken a position in support of legalized abortion.
Really? Where did they say this?

reply from: 4given

Reaction from whom? From the abundance of the heart, the mouth does speak! That being said, every sentence and paragraph, does not in fact involve a Bible verse. How I long for that to be so! Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee. I strive to be a better person daily, and by God's grace I am granted peace through trial, prayer in perseverance, hope in times of despair, comfort in times of tribulation. Much of this I trust is from the prayers of others when called. How blessed I would be if I reflected my own call to worship my wounded Savior as God has desired for me to. Your post only led me to the realization of how I do not want to be lukewarm- Not in any conviction (abortion education being a priority), especially in the eyes of a Living God. As far as a reaction..? Most often I am surrounded by people that willingly discuss their ideas, whether or not they serve the same God, or any God at all.

reply from: futureshock

It's just that, to be honest, it's hard to understand what you are saying when half of your posts are Bible-speak.
What did you mean by "abortion education"?

reply from: yoda

At their convention. Look it up.

reply from: pookiy1980

My point is that you say "I also do not think the brain is developed enough to feel pain at 5weeks", and yet you seem not to understand that we actually have no way of knowing that.. NO WAY AT ALL. All we can say for sure is that BORN PEOPLE whose brains have developed...... need their brain to feel pain. We have no way of knowing if gestating humans feel pain before the complete development of their brains, absolutely no way at all.
And this is my opinion from what I understand about the developmental stages. You have your opinion and I have mine.
I could tell you I did not think a baby felt pain until it was born still what would that have to do with ME and abortion? Rather or not they feel pain does not take presence over the fact it is a human life!! I hope a concept you feel we do not have a full understanding of is not the only leg you stand on for the abortion issue.
It does not matter when the baby feels pain yoda.
yep they may or may not..I agree
there also may or may not be aliens there may or may not be a cure for AIDS there may or may not be a cure for AIDS using embroyonic cells research.......
(yeah we won't go back there)
I would love to read about this so I can be on the same page as you. Can you help me out?

reply from: yoda

Then why bring it up? ("not speaking for the pro-aborts but they feel pain after so many weeks of development and in this story of Sam he was developed enough to feel pain. ", p.47, pookiy)
I'll give you and the proabort this much: JAMA is more subtle than I thought they were on their "official position". But you can still read between the lines of their policy statements and see quite clearly that the support is there. Even before 1977 they said:
"The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law. (III, IV) Issued prior to April 1977.
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/E-2.01.HTM&s_t=abortion&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=12& </a>
And this POLICY STATEMENT could've been taken right out of the NARAL playbook:
The AMA further supports the position that the early termination of pregnancy is a medical matter between the patient and the physician, subject to the physician's clinical judgment, the patient's informed consent, and the availability of appropriate facilities. (Res. 49, I-89; Reaffirmed by Sub. Res. 208, I-96; Reaffirmed by BOT Rep. 26, A-97; Reaffirmed: Sub. Res. 206, A-04)
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.993.HTM&&s_t=&st_p=&nth=1&prev_pol=policyfiles/HOD-TOC.HTM&nxt_pol=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM& </a>
AND they "encourage" the teaching of abortion techniques to ALL DOCTORS:
The AMA encourages education on termination of pregnancy issues so that medical students receive a satisfactory knowledge of the medical, ethical, legal and psychological principles associated with termination of pregnancy, although observation of, attendance at, or any direct or indirect participation in an abortion should not be required. (Res. 304, I-96; Reaffirmed: CME Rep. 2, A-06)
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-295.911.HTM&s_t=abortion&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=11& </a>
AND they advocate government funded abortion:
The AMA reaffirms its opposition to legislative proposals that utilize federal or state health care funding mechanisms to deny established and accepted medical care to any segment of the population. (Sub. Res. 89, I-83; Reaffirmed: CLRPD Rep. 1, I-93 Reaffirmed: BOT Rep. 12, A-05)
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.998.HTM&s_t=abortion&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=10& </a>
NOW...... if that isn't enough for you to see that they've done everything short of doing abortions at their convention, then you just aren't looking at what they are saying!

reply from: pookiy1980

really you don't have to be a (oops) about it, I tried to google it and could not find anything except that the study (fetal death) ended up one of the MD was PC and proformed abortions. It went on to say JAMA (editor I think) did not know about it and that this new info could cause conflict re this study.
Thank you for the links. I will read between the lines hopefully they have info that is current and not from years ago.

reply from: MC3

Several times in my years fighting abortion I have had occasion to come in contact with either the AMA or people associated with the AMA. Without exception, I have found it to be one of the most arrogant, intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt, and rabidly pro-abortion entities in America.
While I am on this subject, I would like to caution people about the potential for a serious misunderstanding when talking about the AMA. When you are discussing them, always make sure that whoever you are talking to knows exactly what organization you are talking about. "AMA" can refer to either the American Medical Association or the American Motorcyclist Association. The most glaring distinction between them is that the biker organization has retained it credibility and sense of decency. We have a responsibility not to harm the integrity of the American Motorcyclist Association by allowing them to be unfairly mistaken for the "other" AMA. To borrow from an old joke ... "Please don't tell my mother that I belong to the American Medical Association, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whore house."

reply from: futureshock

Why would the AMA, who would know better than anyone what abortion REALLY IS, be pro-abortion?

reply from: faithman

Because they have been infiltrated with stupid pro-abort maggot punks like you, with a political agenda. The AMA quit being about medical issues a long time ago.

reply from: 4given

I have personally been enlightened myself today. I was a hospice worker and cared for a known M.D., who mentioned to me that he was a contributer amongst other things to the American Medical Association. Actually in thought I need to put, through respect for him personally that he was not an M.D., but M.D.F.A.C.S. A vascular surgeon. Anyway, I thought his literature (he taught me so much about medicine, healing and research he had personally done) was medically based- geared mostly towards surgeons and students, so medically beneficial. I did not know the AMA was a pro-abortion organization. The bottom line today is money, and how many so-called doctors (first do no harm) are corrupted by their greediness? Not just in the abortion industry which guarantees a profit every 24- 30 seconds, but also in other quick-fix situations like plastic surgery? Plenty! I am grateful for the education I have received today! Truly! And FS- your question, "Why would the AMA, who would know better than anyone what abortion REALLY IS, be pro-abortion?" GREED maybe? I don't know.

reply from: faithman

The problemo with the AMA is that they are stacked with Planned Parenthood shills, that totally back PP's play. this gives PP credibilty as a medical organization.

reply from: futureshock

I thought that people were pro-choice because they didn't really know what abortion was? Now the largest group of medical doctors in the U.S., who all certainly know more about what abortion is than any of us, are pro-choice. weird.
I guess this is just more evidence that those pictures you carry around are LIES.

reply from: futureshock

Also,
ACOG is another large group of doctors, also pro-choice:
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Home Page
Although improved access to contraception has decreased abortion rates, the availability of safe, legal abortion remains of vital importance to the health of women.
http://www.acog.org/departments/dept_notice.cfm?recno=18&bulletin=4157

reply from: yoda

Only some ignorant lay persons.
Doctors, and abortion butchers, and proabort activists.... they all know quite well that they're killing babies. Some of them even admit as much.
But they still want the money, regardless.

reply from: futureshock

Then why bring it up? ("not speaking for the pro-aborts but they feel pain after so many weeks of development and in this story of Sam he was developed enough to feel pain. ", p.47, pookiy)
I'll give you and the proabort this much: JAMA is more subtle than I thought they were on their "official position". But you can still read between the lines of their policy statements and see quite clearly that the support is there. Even before 1977 they said:
"The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law. (III, IV) Issued prior to April 1977.
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/E-2.01.HTM&s_t=abortion&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=12& </a>
And this POLICY STATEMENT could've been taken right out of the NARAL playbook:
The AMA further supports the position that the early termination of pregnancy is a medical matter between the patient and the physician, subject to the physician's clinical judgment, the patient's informed consent, and the availability of appropriate facilities. (Res. 49, I-89; Reaffirmed by Sub. Res. 208, I-96; Reaffirmed by BOT Rep. 26, A-97; Reaffirmed: Sub. Res. 206, A-04)
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.993.HTM&&s_t=&st_p=&nth=1&prev_pol=policyfiles/HOD-TOC.HTM&nxt_pol=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM& </a>
AND they "encourage" the teaching of abortion techniques to ALL DOCTORS:
The AMA encourages education on termination of pregnancy issues so that medical students receive a satisfactory knowledge of the medical, ethical, legal and psychological principles associated with termination of pregnancy, although observation of, attendance at, or any direct or indirect participation in an abortion should not be required. (Res. 304, I-96; Reaffirmed: CME Rep. 2, A-06)
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-295.911.HTM&s_t=abortion&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=11& </a>
AND they advocate government funded abortion:
The AMA reaffirms its opposition to legislative proposals that utilize federal or state health care funding mechanisms to deny established and accepted medical care to any segment of the population. (Sub. Res. 89, I-83; Reaffirmed: CLRPD Rep. 1, I-93 Reaffirmed: BOT Rep. 12, A-05)
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.998.HTM&s_t=abortion&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=10& </a>
NOW...... if that isn't enough for you to see that they've done everything short of doing abortions at their convention, then you just aren't looking at what they are saying!
That's the AMA, not JAMA. Please provide evidence that JAMA is pro-choice.

reply from: futureshock

Because they have been infiltrated with stupid pro-abort maggot punks like you, with a political agenda. The AMA quit being about medical issues a long time ago.
I'm sorry you feel that I am a maggot punk.

reply from: futureshock

Every normal child will become sentient and aware, suffer, and eventually die. The only variable is how much suffering, and for how long. Suffering is part of life, you know? So who gets to say how much is too much, how much makes life not worth living? How much suffering = "better off dead," and who gets to decide where that line should be drawn? If you had actually read the entire thread, you would surely have seen that many of these babies who are born prematurely by induction could actually be saved. They are given only "comfort care," which does not include potentially life saving medical care. Is this the kind of thing you can condone? The children are allowed to die, and their deaths are deemed "natural," presumably because they are not killed directly, however, the cause of death is ironically often listed as "premature birth," seemingly downplaying the fact that this premature birth was intentionally caused by artificially inducing labor...
If you are looking at an egg and sperm (not joined) in a petri dish, and doctors have told you that there is something wrong with one or both of them, so that if they join and grow, when their brain develops in the third trimester it will experience pain, and upon it's birth, it will be aware and will gasp for breath and suffer immensley as it dies within an hour after birth, what would you do?
I, for one, would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS go ahead with that pregnancy. It is cruel and barbaric.

reply from: MC3

With the pro-choice crowd, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether they are being intentionally dishonest or if they are truly as moronic and immoral as they seem. Generally, it is a mixture but, whatever the case, we must never allow the lies and deceptions they throw against the wall to go unexposed.
In the scenario described by FUTURESHOCK, "an egg and sperm (not joined) in a Petri dish" is not a living human. Moreover, until the egg and sperm are joined, there is no pregnancy to "go ahead with" or do anything else with. In other words, by definition this hypothetical situation makes no point one way or the other regarding the abortion debate. In fact, this is a textbook "straw man" argument in which an opponent's position is intentionally mischaracterized so that it can be shot down. It's a pathetic little Punch and Judy show that our baby-killing buddies like to put on from time to time.
As for this particular example, I am forced to assume that FUTURSHOCK is a rookie in the abortion-defense business. After all, even by the abysmally low standards reserved for pro-choice arguments, this one never stood a chance.

reply from: faithman

If someone burns a pile of wood, no big whoop. If you build a house with the wood, and someone burns it they go to jail for destroying a home. Though sperm and egg are the material for God to make a human being, They do not become a human being until He puts them together.

reply from: pookiy1980

JAMA is the JOURNAL of american medical association. The journal (like an encyclopedia) will publish all research pro/anti abortion alike.
"The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law. (III, IV) Issued prior to April 1977."
Correct, and the encyclopedia Britanica does not either.
"The AMA reaffirms existing policy that (1) abortion is a medical procedure and should be performed only by a duly licensed physician in conformance with standards of good medical practice and the laws of the state; and (2) no physician or other professional personnel shall be required to perform an act violative of good medical judgment or personally held moral principles. In these circumstances good medical practice requires only that the physician or other professional withdraw from the case so long as the withdrawal is consistent with good medical practice. The AMA further supports the position that the early termination of pregnancy is a medical matter between the patient and the physician, subject to the physician's clinical judgment, the patient's informed consent, and the availability of appropriate facilities. (Res. 49, I-89; Reaffirmed by Sub. Res. 208, I-96; Reaffirmed by BOT Rep. 26, A-97; Reaffirmed: Sub. Res. 206, A-04)"
Correct and the local University Hospitals also practice this policy does this make them pro-abortion? No.
The MD performing the abortion yes, the institution, no
YODA:
"The AMA encourages education on termination of pregnancy issues so that medical students receive a satisfactory knowledge of the medical, ethical, legal and psychological principles associated with termination of pregnancy, although observation of, attendance at, or any direct or indirect participation in an abortion should not be required. (Res. 304, I-96; Reaffirmed: CME Rep. 2, A-06) "
It does not say aything about the technique. My nursing curriculum also suggested what is listed above. The medical, ethical, legal and psychological principals....what is wrong with knowing these things? Most of the people on this site have this knowledge. It only makes scense that we know the risks of an abortion, the ethics of abortion and psychological principals.
A trained MD should know these things, but as stated should not be required to participate or observe.
PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ABORTION SERVICES
"The AMA reaffirms its opposition to legislative proposals that utilize federal or state health care funding mechanisms to deny established and accepted medical care to any segment of the population. (Sub. Res. 89, I-83; Reaffirmed: CLRPD Rep. 1, I-93 Reaffirmed: BOT Rep. 12, A-05)"
Yes this statement does point to pro-abortion.
"The AMA maintains its support for HR 1122 (Partial Birth Abortion Act of 1997) as amended while continuing to work with sponsors, and with state legislators on state bills, to improve the language further, particularly to delete the provision dealing with criminal penalties. (Res. 234, A-97) "
I think this sums it up:
"The issue of support of or opposition to abortion is a matter for members of the AMA to decide individually, based on personal values or beliefs. The AMA will take no action which may be construed as an attempt to alter or influence the personal views of individual physicians regarding abortion procedures. (Res. 158, A-90; Reaffirmed by Sub. Res. 208, I-96; Reaffirmed by BOT Rep. 26, A-97; Reaffirmed: CSAPH Rep. 3, A-07)"
Apparently the pro-aborts do not care too much for AMA.
Nonetheless this post was not to argue with YODA's post just to better understand the policies.

reply from: MC3

POOKIY 1980,
You can sugarcoat the AMA's rhetoric all you want to and make all the excuses for them you can dream up, but I have had dealings with these people over the years and I can assure you that the American Medical Association is hardcore pro-abortion.
In effect, the AMA's relationship to abortion is the same as the Ku Klux Klan's relationship to racism. The AMA will disavow any support of abortion just as Klan leaders will disavow any charge of racism. However, the truth is transparent to anyone with more than a few brain cells still firing.
The fact is, while the AMA may not be in love with abortion and it certainly doesn't want to be seen in public with abortion, it sure likes sleeping with it.

reply from: pookiy1980

You are entitled to your opinion.
The point I am making with this post is the terms and policies this orgonization has instilled is not too much different then any encyclopedia or major hospital.
I still can not find any other info about their relationship with abortion other that what Yoda has provided from AMA's link. You claim the relationship is the same as the KKK...how so? Is this based only on your experience? If not please fill me in.
Again PP has had issues with AMA so it looks like there is not that close of a relationship other then thinking the gvt should pay for them.
Again this is AMA I would like to know how the Journal (AKA encyclopedia) is pro-abortion when the writers come from all areas pro/anti alike?
They do not say, "abortion should be done so such and such research can be done" nor do they say "an abortion was done in this study so we will not publish you"

reply from: yoda

Who do you think is in control of the "Journal OF the American Medical Association", pookiy? Do you think it's just a coincidence that they take their name from the AMA??? And WHEN have you seen ANY "prolife" articles in it?
Correct, and the encyclopedia Britanica does not either.
Huh? What?
Any institution that permits abortions within it's facility IS proabortion, yes.
WHAT are "medical issues" if not techniques?
No kidding? And you still insist they are not pro-abortion, even after that admission?
All it sums up is their public posturing. They are not "neutral" on abortion, as you yourself already admitted.

reply from: MC3

POOKIE 1980,
I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you, but I will try once more.
First, if you will re-read my previous post you will see that I have succinctly explained how the Klan's relationship to racism is analogous to the AMA's relationship to abortion.
Second, I have made it clear on two pervious posts that my observations about the AMA are indeed based on my own experiences.
Third, to suggest that the AMA's position on abortion is "not too much different then any encyclopedia or major hospital" is laughable. Their position is clearly stated on their own website:
E-2.01 Abortion
The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance
with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law. (III, IV)
Fourth, also laughable is your assertion that because an organization's official publication prints articles from both pro-life and pro-abortion people, the organization has no position on abortion. Remember, the New York Times prints articles from both pro-life and pro-abortion advocates, yet only a fool or a liar would suggest that the New York Times is anything other than a foaming-at-the-mouth pro-abortion rag.

reply from: pookiy1980

Yoda I am only analyzing the links you posted. I am not agreeing or disagreeing on what they are. The policies and terms (other then the financial one) does not make them pro-abortion.

reply from: pookiy1980

It is very simple it is your opinion I can deal with that.

reply from: futureshock

Every normal child will become sentient and aware, suffer, and eventually die. The only variable is how much suffering, and for how long. Suffering is part of life, you know? So who gets to say how much is too much, how much makes life not worth living? How much suffering = "better off dead," and who gets to decide where that line should be drawn? If you had actually read the entire thread, you would surely have seen that many of these babies who are born prematurely by induction could actually be saved. They are given only "comfort care," which does not include potentially life saving medical care. Is this the kind of thing you can condone? The children are allowed to die, and their deaths are deemed "natural," presumably because they are not killed directly, however, the cause of death is ironically often listed as "premature birth," seemingly downplaying the fact that this premature birth was intentionally caused by artificially inducing labor...
If you are looking at an egg and sperm (not joined) in a petri dish, and doctors have told you that there is something wrong with one or both of them, so that if they join and grow, when their brain develops in the third trimester it will experience pain, and upon it's birth, it will be aware and will gasp for breath and suffer immensley as it dies within an hour after birth, what would you do?
I, for one, would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS go ahead with that pregnancy. It is cruel and barbaric.
Choosing to avoid conception is not even close to being the same thing as ending the life of a human being once conceived. You are essentially comparing contraception to abortion. They are not the same thing. In one case, a human being is prevented from ever existing. In the other, an existing human being is intentionally killed. A human being that never existed could obviously not be harmed in any way, since, well, they never existed to begin with...
So the only difference between what you believe and what I believe is how far apart the egg and sperm are? So if we nudged them closer together in my scenario so that they are touching, now would you go ahead with that pregnancy?

reply from: MC3

POOKIY 1980,
First, you continue to suggest that the AMA's position on abortion is a matter of my opinion. You do this, despite the fact their position is clearly stated on their website and I quoted it to you in my previous post.
Meanwhile, your fellow traveler, FUTURESHOCK, talks about continuing a pregnancy that does not exist. For some reason, he thinks we are ignorant enough to believe that getting sperm and eggs closer - even to the point they are touching - constitutes a pregnancy.
In an earlier post, I said, "With the pro-choice crowd, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether they are being intentionally dishonest or if they are truly as moronic and immoral as they seem."
You and FUTURESHOCK are proving the point. However, while it is still not settled whether you two are liars or just complete idiots, I'm beginning to suspect the former. After all, no one could be that stupid. Could they?

reply from: whydeath

WOW! This topic continues? Although it has nothing to do with the origional topic at hand.
The name calling continues and now I am a "wonderer" too, are we back in grade school?

reply from: faithman

Sometimes when you are talking to grade school mentalities, you have to put things at their level.

reply from: yoda

First you say "Yes this statement does point to pro-abortion.", and then you say the opposite.
Which is it?

reply from: pookiy1980

First you say "Yes this statement does point to pro-abortion.", and then you say the opposite.
Which is it?
The policies and terms (other then the financial one) does not make them pro-abortion.
I am not saying the opposite the one policy does the others don't. If one policy in your eyes makes them pro-abortion so be it.

reply from: yoda

Ah, well....... in the absence of any prolife policies, it seems logical to me that in order for them to have even one proabort policy, they would have to be porabort, yes.
Btw, did you ever find any "prolife" articles in JAMA?
I'd really love to read one of those.........

reply from: pookiy1980

What is a prolife policy in your eyes? That a MD can not perform an abortion? What kind of research then would you propose they conduct? Ones on why choosing life is better then death? we already know this.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/269/5/593?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion+risks&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/4/283?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion+risks&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/15/1867?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
There are many on transplantations, dx treatments exc. you should check it out.

reply from: yoda

Um... one that recognized the humanity of unborn humans, maybe? One that opposed the legal status of abortion, maybe? (Since that's the definition of "prolife", that kinda makes sense, don't you think?)
See any AMA policies like that?
Are these supposed to be examples of "prolife articles" in JAMA?????
"Moderate caffeine use and the risk of spontaneous abortion and intrauterine growth retardation"
"Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer"
"Plasma Folate Levels and Risk of Spontaneous Abortion"
Two of them reveal possible ways to induce miscarriage, and the other is a grudging, qualified, half-hearted acknowledgment of dozens of scientific studies on the subject.
And you call those "prolife"???????
Hey! I rest my case!

reply from: pookiy1980

Yep they sure are, reducing spontaneous abortion...If you can prevent it then yes it is pro-life
Possible ways to induce miscarriage??? EXACTLY!! reduce the caffine and therefore PREVENTING FETAL DEATH.
Breast cancer is also a biggie one of the reasons PL'rs explain to woman why abortion is bad is it can increase breast cancer so yes this study supports this so it is pro-life.
How many other ways can this be explained?? There is no pleasing you so I give up think what you want in your own little world.
Glad you have rested your case.

reply from: MC3

Yodavator,
I think it is time to move on and forget this POOKIY person. She is a waste of time. Like every other pro-abort, she has created her own altered reality where she can only see what she wants to see and hear what she wants to hear. In her befuddled state of mind, the fact that the AMA's pro-abortion position is plainly stated on their website does not matter. Somehow, it is still only my opinion. If you can explain that I'd like to hear it.
In any event, if you want to keep jacking with her have at it. But I'm done with her.
By the way, have you noticed that, for some strange reason, this particular thread has always been a magnet for pro-aborts who lie about or refuse to acknowledge their own beliefs? In fact, it was created by just such a person. Of course, perhaps that isn't really so bizarre. After all, if you or I were pro-aborts we'd be embarrassed about it too.

reply from: faithman

Pro-aborts have no shame, and are incapable of embarrasment. They want to pretend to be pro-life, and then advocatre positions that undermine the cause. The Germans did the samething in world war 2. They parachuted special trained troops behind allied lines in MP uniforms who spoke perfect english. They switched sign post around, and caused major confusion amoung the Aillied advance. It is up to us ole veterans to recognize these imposters, defeat them, and warn the less experianced of this strategy of these womb child haters. when one is an advocate of PP sex ed, they are no friend of pro-life. Ignorance can only be claimed but for a very short season. If folk refuse to see historical fact, and promote agendas that undermine an effective pro-life stance, they are the most dangerous of enemies to the womb child. Our objective is the secured personhood of the womb child. When one devalues the actions that make them, one most assuredly devalues the child that is made by those actions. Either sex is the sacred act of procreation, or recreational sports. There is only one position for a pure pro-life stance. Guess which one it be?

reply from: pookiy1980

Agreed you all are a waste of my time. I have nada to proove to you I have let myself be pulled down you all's level of as FM says scum.
Your "personal experience" with AMA, PP, OR whatever is just about lame as the other pro-aborts who post PC links as their "proof".
I though this thread was a proabort magnet but you all are here...wait..I guess it's your altered reality...?? Got it

reply from: whydeath

Guys give it up already! You will never always agree with the same thing 100% of the time!! There is not some Pro-Life mold that someone had to fit into if you side with the pro-life definition then take that and be seated.
What the hell does these medical journals and fetal pain have to do with abortion anyway?? Who cares if they feel pain or not it is still a death!!!!! Would it be "ok" to give someone anesthesia prior to killing them because they would not feel pain???

reply from: Vikinggoddess

My dear lady, My God be with you and your family. I know my prayers will be with you, your family and dear, precious Sam. I don't think changing any laws will help this very rare situation, however. It would only open up more opportunities for others to exploit. I don't know the answer for you. I wish I did. When my son was born at 34 weeks he had a little girl in the crib next to his who was in a similar situation. Both sides of the family were there every day to hold and love her. I can tell you this, Just as that sweet child helped us with her silent witness to be grateful for our healthy son, as I was so worried about him, I think Sam will help others to see that their situation may not be so bad. I hope I am making sense. We wanted our son so badly and it was hard to see him there so tiny. That little girl helped me not to be angry and to count my blessings. My hope and wish is that Sam will do that for others.
God bless you.

reply from: yoda

Okay, this is the beginning of a "new case".
Posting that information had nothing to do with "reducing spontaneous abortion", pookiy, it's there to give abortion minded women ideas about how to do it themselves.
There's NOTHING "prolife" in JAMA......... NOTHING!

reply from: yoda

Sorry, I'm afraid that is beyond explanation. It's just there for all to see.
I think her ill-conceived thoughts do more to show the foolishness of the proabort position than a page full of my corrections, so I suppose I should just have more confidence that others can see it as well.
Yes I commented a while back about all the "new" posters who went straight to this thread, no matter how far back it is, and resurrect it. It's like they were on a mission to keep rubbing it in our face that she claims she's a "former" prolifer. I really don't think the prolife cause ever sank that low, personally.

reply from: pookiy1980

Okay, this is the beginning of a "new case".
Posting that information had nothing to do with "reducing spontaneous abortion", pookiy, it's there to give abortion minded women ideas about how to do it themselves.
There's NOTHING "prolife" in JAMA......... NOTHING!
Wow you really have gone over the deep end I deal with psych enough at work don't need to here. LoL! this is almost as funny as your "PP conspiricy"
Not everyone is out to get you dear, take your meds and have a good life.

reply from: yoda

You just don't get it, do you?
I'm here to speak for the babies, not for myself. I've never said one word about PP being "out to get me", have I?
Or maybe, you just don't want to "get it", is that it?

reply from: faithman

You just don't get it, do you?
I'm here to speak for the babies, not for myself. I've never said one word about PP being "out to get me", have I?
Or maybe, you just don't want to "get it", is that it?
Hey yoda. Mail me some of them meds. Maybe the killing of womb children won't bother me so much. On second thought, somethings should bother us.

reply from: MC3

Hey, Yodavator,
Notice that ol' POOKIY still hasn't said anything about the AMA's official abortion position as posted on their website. How mysterious.

reply from: faithman

She obviously thinks she is intitled to her own opinion, and facts. Even if the facts are false.

reply from: pookiy1980

just in case you did not see this the first time
'Agreed you all are a waste of my time. I have nada to proove to you I have let myself be pulled down you all's level of as FM says scum.
Your "personal experience" with AMA, PP, OR whatever is just about lame as the other pro-aborts who post PC links as their "proof".
I though this thread was a proabort magnet but you all are here...wait..I guess it's your altered reality...?? Got it '
Fm why would you pose as a pro-abort?

reply from: yoda

There are no meds for a painful conscience. And thank goodness for that.

reply from: whydeath

Jesus does it matter who gets the last word? Why don't you all act your age and move on. Honestly you all now look like you have nothing better to do. Really there are lost people on this very page and this kind of nonsense is not helping anything.
Can I have the last word for this little cat fight? Please??????

reply from: yoda

I think it's called "selective vision"...... when one only sees what pleases them, and is blind to the rest.
Or, to put it another way, "De Queen of De Nial".

reply from: yoda

Sorry, you spoke one second too late..... but tell you what, I'll make this my last post on this thread if you will....

reply from: whydeath

PLEASE!?!??!?!?!!??!!?!??
*raises hand* may I please have the last word??????

reply from: whydeath

LOL! a second to late here too!!!
"Good bye post hope you will not come back out from the grave and haunt us ever again"

reply from: Vikinggoddess

Is there something going on here I should know about? I don't like being made a fool of by anyone. If I've been set up I'd like to know. Is this story for real or not.

reply from: futureshock

As far as I can tell the story is real. Nothing in it gives me the slightest hint that it isn't. What makes you ask?

reply from: Vikinggoddess

Just the little cat fight between posters and something about posts being resurrected. Thanks

reply from: 4given

No, you have not been "set up".. odd. But this thread has gone on for quite awhile. NYKaren is pro-abortion. She is the alleged gmother of Sam- They fought to have her induced earlier than recommended so she could just move on w/ life, w/out the baby that was going to die anyway.. eventually he was born.. and died shortly after. This is about her changing the laws making a 3rd trimester induction available for other women in this scenario or similar. It would open the door to a potential frivelous abortion, as the law she spoke of had to do specifically w/ late term abortion. Even though the mother was not aborting the child, inducing labor early, so he could pass before his natural time, was essentially putting his life in their hands, and not allowing him to live in the safety of her womb until his due time. The long story short. (also noted is the many scenarios that are void of credibility posted to make the pro-life community look uncaring and cold. Nyk was suspected of just that- because as one understands it, there is no such thing as a former pro-lifer. One is pro-life, or one is not. Anyone that understands the brutality of abortion, would not change their views because suddenly the laws didn't allow 3rd trimester induction.. ie. abortion. Do you understand the problem w/ this thread and the scenario described?)
Welcome btw.

reply from: Vikinggoddess

You bet I do!!! I've got a few choice words for pro aborts like this! Bunch of lowlife turds!
Thanks for filling me in! Your right too! Once pro life always pro life.

reply from: nancyu

This is Exactly why personhood measures are so very important. Laws, that consider the health of the mother, beneath that of her child are just as unjust as those that do the opposite. If both baby and mother are both considered "persons" it would be the duty of any health care provider to do what is best for both mother and child.

reply from: yoda

Any decent OB-GYM will always say that he considers a pregnant woman to be TWO patients, not one.

reply from: 4given

Agreed Yoda! And decent human beings will consider the child in the womb as the person it is, regardless of its stage of development or the disability in question.We are worthy, because we were given life. Why is it so hard to understand? A unique being, worthy of the opportunities granted to you and I.


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