Home - List All Discussions

One "choice" that the proaborts do NOT support..

And they don't want to talk about it, either......

by: yoda

Actually, it's more than one........ it's a lifetime of choices. It's the choices that the aborted baby would've been able to make for him/herself had they not been aborted.
Those choices apparently mean nothing, or less than nothing, to the so called "choicers".
They insist that the mother have ALL the choices, and the baby have none... and NEVER have any, if Mom makes the "choice" to kill that baby.
But that's the "choices" they don't want to talk about, don't you know?

reply from: boinky78

If you believe in fate that means the fetus was suppose to be aborted if not it would have been born

reply from: deannat

I have a friend who was abused by her adoptive parents. She told me once that she wished abortion had been legal when her biological mother was pregnant with her so she wouldn't have had to live through all the pain. Of course, there's no way of knowing if her birth mother would have chosen abortion even if it had been available. This is just how my friend feels about the circumstances of her birth and upbringing.

reply from: whydeath

I have a friend who was abused by her adoptive parents. She told me once that she wished abortion had been legal when her biological mother was pregnant with her so she wouldn't have had to live through all the pain. Of course, there's no way of knowing if her birth mother would have chosen abortion even if it had been available. This is just how my friend feels about the circumstances of her birth and upbringing.

Death is never the answer to a problem rather it be suicide or abortion.
Sounds like your friend really needs some help to adress these issues. Teens often say "I wish I were never born". But this doe snot mean that all these kids should have been aborted.

reply from: Beprolifewithme

Thank you Yoda, i ttly agree with you. I'am glad someone pointed that out. And boinky...I thought you were barely coming on. WHat hapenned to that, couldn't stay away from defending the women's right to kill her child? Typical.

reply from: lukesmom

Guess this is what is so hard for proaborts to understand. Your friend now has the choice of what she wants to do with the life that was given to her. She can continue to live or she can chose to die. Her choice. She can also continue to wallow in the pain of the past or, like so very many, she can chose to let go of the past and the pain and make her own joy in life. Her CHOICE. A choice she was given by her (sounds like less than adequate) parents by being allowed to live. The arguement is, her mother gave her life and then chose to abuse that life. Your friend has made her choice to continue her life and be miserable. That is her choice. She could now chose to end her life or to find happiness and let go of her misery. Again it is all about CHOICES. HER CHOICE.

reply from: yoda

"Fate"? What is that, some new religion of yours?
No, I don't believe in "fate" as you put it. If you do, then that means it would be "fate" if someone assaulted you today, right? And you wouldn't do a thing to try to stop it, right?

reply from: yoda

You know, lots of young folks go through suicidal thoughts, some more than once. For some of them, life gets better as they age. Who knows which will overcome the past and which will not.
But the thing is, with abortion there is NO chance for a better life, or even a "bad" life. There is nothing at all.
But with a live birth, that person may get to grow up and DECIDE THEIR OWN "FATE".... instead of SOMEONE ELSE taking away that "choice".

reply from: jujujellybean

I saw this...I don't think it recieved the attention it deserved. It just must be hard for the choicers to admit that they aren't really pro choice. Stick up for yourselves and respond to this!

reply from: LolitaOlivia

I saw this...I don't think it recieved the attention it deserved. It just must be hard for the choicers to admit that they aren't really pro choice. Stick up for yourselves and respond to this!
When a woman has a baby against her will, she looses a lot of choices too. She could've chosen to go to college, but all the money went to the baby. She could've chosen to go out and have fun, but it's hard to do that with a big baby belly. She could've been President, but there was no time for her to run for office. And since she's capable of voicing her choices, hers should probably come first.

reply from: 4given

All selfish reasons. Her(your) choice to mutilate another human being is actually the most damaging one to be met. How does someone come to that choice? Have you had an abortion? Did you justify your reasons for doing so because you "wanted to have fun"?.. Your arguement is typical. That poor woman.. sigh.. she never got to go out and party or be president because of the CHOICES she made to have sex.. 9 months! How does that deny any of the above?

reply from: lukesmom

I went to college when I was pregnant and had a 2 yr old AND I worked part time. There are actually organizations who will pay for you to go to college when pregnant. I was able to pay for it with my own money, and credit cards. Geeze, we sure are nasty prolifers wanting to take anyones "fun" away for a short 9 months. I mean REALLY! Sad to think "fun" is more important than another life. Wonder how much "fun" you'll all be having in the next life. I do pity you and those who think as you do. As for president, well we can't all try to be like Hillary (gag me, finger down throat) . No, once she is pregnant with another life, that life has equal rights. I agree with 4given, the proabort movement is all about selfishness and not about choice.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

All selfish reasons. Her(your) choice to mutilate another human being is actually the most damaging one to be met. How does someone come to that choice? Have you had an abortion? Did you justify your reasons for doing so because you "wanted to have fun"?.. Your arguement is typical. That poor woman.. sigh.. she never got to go out and party or be president because of the CHOICES she made to have sex.. 9 months! How does that deny any of the above?
Wanting to have fun is normal for young women. Just look at women like Britney Spears. She had two babies, and that didn't stop her. Isn't it better that they have fun without having babies (born or unborn) in the picture?
And yes, I've had an abortion, but it's quite irrelevant as many pro-choicers (male and female) have never had personal experience with the issue.

I've never come across any of those organizations to "help". And not everyone has extra money to spend on a baby and college. Nine months isn't short. It's a whole school year you could miss. And if you try and stop them from having fun, they'll all probably end up giving their babies fetal alcohol syndrome.

reply from: lukesmom

Did you ever actually look for help or did you just go kill your baby without much thought? Extra money, LOL, I've NEVER had that. Do you really think all prolifers have money? Darlin, I was young and I had fun, fun, fun AND managed not to get pregnant. There are ways you know AND you can also have fun without sex if you are not wanting to get pregnant and worry about fetal alcohol syndrome. If you think you are mature enough to have sex that you darn well better be mature enough to have a baby.
Now, my fun Friday nights were done many years ago and my kids are all in bed and that is were dh and I are going. Night.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Did you ever actually look for help or did you just go kill your baby without much thought?
Considering I didn't want a baby and didn't have time to have one either way, they wouldn't have done much for me.

reply from: joe

Originally posted by: LolitaOlivia
And yes, I've had an abortion,
You killed an innocent human being.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

You killed an innocent human being.
Really? I've never heard it that way before! My life has been nothing but a great sin! I shall repent and spend the rest of my days yelling at pregnant little girls so that they do not end up like me! Thank you for showing me the error of my ways! [/sarcasm]

reply from: yoda

Now this is the prochoice mentality I want to draw attention to. First, we're told that a single pregnancy ruins the rest of a woman's life, that no woman who has given birth can be president. Then second, we're told that the more powerful, more developed of the two should "come first", simply because she's bigger, stronger, smarter, and more fully developed. In other words, power to the powerful!! Might makes right!! Only the strong survive, because they kill the weak!!
The law of the jungle, maybe?

reply from: faithman

Did you ever actually look for help or did you just go kill your baby without much thought?
Considering I didn't want a baby and didn't have time to have one either way, they wouldn't have done much for me.
What a cold blooded little death scanc we have here. Go spread your legs in the name of fun, then have the double joy of murdering your own child. How does it feel to kill your own flesh and blood? Did you get that wonderful feeling of empowerment when the abortionist crushed your childs skull? Did you feel it? Could you her and feel the bones crunching? Did they grind your child up in a comercial garbage desposal, and rince him/her down the sewer? Or did the freezer truck pick up what was left for experiments in the lab? How Nazi-esk.

reply from: jujujellybean

Now this is the prochoice mentality I want to draw attention to. First, we're told that a single pregnancy ruins the rest of a woman's life, that no woman who has given birth can be president. Then second, we're told that the more powerful, more developed of the two should "come first", simply because she's bigger, stronger, smarter, and more fully developed. In other words, power to the powerful!! Might makes right!! Only the strong survive, because they kill the weak!!
The law of the jungle, maybe?
Yoda, you know have the right to kill me, and so does so many other people. I am not very strong, so my friends could kill me and so could lots of other people. How stupid, but that is what they think!

reply from: yoda

Yep, abortion is the "law of the jungle"...... the strong kill the weak. And sometimes, they even laugh about it.

reply from: joe

Originally posted by: LolitaOlivia
My life has been nothing but a great sin! I shall repent
Facts:
1. Innocent
2. Human
3. Killed
You ignore the facts with sarcasm. You mock the only path of your salvation. God have mercy on your soul.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Did you ever actually look for help or did you just go kill your baby without much thought?
Considering I didn't want a baby and didn't have time to have one either way, they wouldn't have done much for me.
What a cold blooded little death scanc we have here. Go spread your legs in the name of fun, then have the double joy of murdering your own child. How does it feel to kill your own flesh and blood? Did you get that wonderful feeling of empowerment when the abortionist crushed your childs skull? Did you feel it? Could you her and feel the bones crunching? Did they grind your child up in a comercial garbage desposal, and rince him/her down the sewer? Or did the freezer truck pick up what was left for experiments in the lab? How Nazi-esk.
Actually, I just took a pills, got really bad cramps, and had a really heavy period. It took a few days, but I passed the time watching Family Guy DVD's and reading the new Harry Potter book. Did you know Snape was in love with Lily? I sure didn't see that one coming!
God's dead. The little girl from The Golden Compass killed him.
Actually, it's more that I want to defend the right to choose so other women can have a choice like I did.

reply from: joe

Why do you killers always ignore the facts with some dumb response? You have clearly committed murder.
Feeling guilty? You want more people to join you?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

You see, I don't see it that way, so I don't feel guilty. I feel worse about killing that little mouse that got in my house than the abortion.

reply from: joe

Killing a mouse is worse than killing a human?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Since they already do, what is your point? Do you feel that women are in danger of losing the "right" to kill their offspring? And you think that coming on this forum and having the logical inconsistencies of your views exposed will prevent that? Being forced to concede, at least by implication, that your arguments are actually hollow and meaningless, and that you basically just support abortion because what you want is more important than what is right and wrong helps this cause in your opinion?
I mean, look at your argument about a woman's "right" to refuse to allow her child to "use her body against her will...." You were forced to concede that you oppose laws that protect born children against criminal abuse/neglect in order to avoid abandoning this "justification" for abortion, admitting that, in your view, a mother is justified in starving her newborn in order to avoid breastfeeding if she does not wish to, simply because she does not wish to..
I haven't conceded anything. And the right to choose is in real danger. Most Americans still support it, but most of them are too lazy to vote. The fundies are coming out in alarming numbers to support candidates like Huckabee simply because they are pro-life. When Hilary's president, I won't have to worry as much, but right now it could go either way.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Didn't you say women have a right to refuse to allow their children to "use their bodies?" Didn't you back this up by conceding that a mother has a right to starve her born child in order to exercise this "right?"
CP:
LolitaOlivia:
?????????????????????????????????
I said yes, as she does have the right to refuse to breatfeed if she doesn't want to. I think you misread my post.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Didn't you say women have a right to refuse to allow their children to "use their bodies?" Didn't you back this up by conceding that a mother has a right to starve her born child in order to exercise this "right?"
CP:
LolitaOlivia:
?????????????????????????????????
I said yes, as she does have the right to refuse to breatfeed if she doesn't want to. I think you misread my post.
No, I didn't misread anything. The question was not whether a mother has a right to refuse to breastfeed, but whether this right extends to situations where the child will suffer or die if she does not. Perhaps you misread or misunderstood the question, or are being deliberately evasive....
I was answering the first question, you assumed it was the second. As for the second, she should be able to refuse no matter what the circumstances.

reply from: yoda

Boinky seems to have missed this one:
"Fate"? What is that, some new religion of yours?
No, I don't believe in "fate" as you put it. If you do, then that means it would be "fate" if someone assaulted you today, right? And you wouldn't do a thing to try to stop it, right?

reply from: yoda

And there you have it folks, the true prochoice position carried to it's logical extreme.......
The baby's life (even after it's born) is of no importance to them at all.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

And there you have it folks, the true prochoice position carried to it's logical extreme.......
The baby's life (even after it's born) is of no importance to them at all.
No, it matters, just not so much it should be able to use the mother's body against her will.

reply from: yoda

Well, I stand corrected! The baby's life matters to her, but not as much as her right to refuse to nurse it!
If she doesn't want to nurse, let the baby die!
How about a person dying of thirst, and asking for a drink of water from your well (which has plenty of water)?
Is your right to refuse them more important than the life of that dying person too? Or is it just "mother's milk" that is more precious than life?

reply from: jujujellybean

all hail mother's milk. I never knew they considered it so sacred before!

reply from: AshMarie88

It's quite ironic that you defend the "right to choice" by killing those who you feel are lesser than you, by taking away THEIR right to their own choices...

reply from: yoda

It's quite ironic that you defend the "right to choice" by killing those who you feel are lesser than you, by taking away THEIR right to their own choices...
Yes, that's the prochoice logic....... take away EVERY CHOICE you baby might ever make it it's whole life.... just so you can have the "choice" to kill it.
All for me, nothing for you. That's "prochoice".

reply from: LolitaOlivia

It's quite ironic that you defend the "right to choice" by killing those who you feel are lesser than you, by taking away THEIR right to their own choices...
Yes, that's the prochoice logic....... take away EVERY CHOICE you baby might ever make it it's whole life.... just so you can have the "choice" to kill it.
All for me, nothing for you. That's "prochoice".
Fetuses can't make choices. They don't even know what choices are.

reply from: yoda

Sure they can. You're an ex-fetus, aren't you?
Oh, you don't want to give them the chance to become "ex-fetuses"? You want to kill them first?
Oh, okay..... I understand now.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Sure they can. You're an ex-fetus, aren't you?
Oh, you don't want to give them the chance to become "ex-fetuses"? You want to kill them first?
Oh, okay..... I understand now.
We're not talking about ex-fetuses. Even without abortion, only one-third of embryos will end up being born. By your logic, getting your period is a sin, because that egg could've become a person who wouldn't have chosen for you to get that period.

reply from: yoda

OH HEEL YES we are!! Who appointed you boss of this forum????
QUIT LYING!!
We're talking about REAL babies, not "could've been" babies.
You know quite well you don't have any fun talking about killing "could've been" babies...... your only joy comes in talking about killing REAL babies, doesn't it? YOU're not going to let any REAL babies make ANY choices later in life, are you, baby killer?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

OH HEEL YES we are!! Who appointed you boss of this forum????
QUIT LYING!!
We're talking about REAL babies, not "could've been" babies.
You know quite well you don't have any fun talking about killing "could've been" babies...... your only joy comes in talking about killing REAL babies, doesn't it? YOU're not going to let any REAL babies make ANY choices later in life, are you, baby killer?
Fetuses are could've been babies, as many of them will not be born (not only due to abortion, but due to miscarriage). And I don't take pleasure in killing fetuses. No one wants an abortion, they just prefer it to having to have a baby.

reply from: yoda

LIES, LIES, LIES!!
Now, who are we to believe, you (a baby killer) or the dictionaries?????
I choose to believe the dictionaries over the baby killer every time!!
And YES, of course you enjoy talking about killing babies, why else would you be here posting your garbage?

reply from: Carifairy

TECHNICALLY, if a woman does not want to nurse or take care of the baby, ANYONE else can feed and care for the baby.
IF a pregnant woman wishes to no longer become pregnant and carry to term, NOONE else can take her place, abortion would be the only way to stop the pregnancy.

reply from: joe

It is too late. It is not an option at that point. It is human.
Do you ever analyze your rhetoric from a independent viewpoint. Think for yourself. Try it you might find it liberating. I understand admitting that you killed 3 unborn living human beings might be to much to handle. Is it easier convincing innocent mothers to commit murder to feel better about yourself? Is it Carifairy? Does it help you sleep at night?

reply from: kayluvzchoice

the "baby" is of capable of making a choice.

reply from: 4given

No. The blood is on the mother's hands or it is not..

reply from: 4given

Yoda, at what point do you decide to not engage these people? I think she is a waste of time. I hope she has learned something about herself though.. if not, I am willing to help her out w/ that. Nonsense. She is. Her posts are. I am bored with her. Anyone else?

reply from: lukesmom

I am guessing you had a typo and are saying sarcastically that a fetus is incapable of making a choice. After all my CHILDREN were born, I tried and tried to have them make choices but darn! they just couldn't do it until they got older and even then they sometimes have a tough time. Are you saying that even born children should be killed as the are incapable of making a choice. Geez, that would include a lot of adults I have dealt with.
You proaborts just keep talking out of both sides of your mouths and continue to make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
It is really boring "listening" to you all repeat the same dumb rhetoric over and over and over again. You are good bedtime reading. Good night, you have successfully put me to sleep again!

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Wouldn't live birth "stop the pregnancy?" I think you mean "abortion would be the only way to stop the pregnancy" immediately. I would be forced to ask, why must the pregnancy be "stopped" immediately? The obvious answer is, "because that's what the mother wants." In reality, these mothers simply want to be rid of the child, and they don't want to wonder if the child might seek them out later in life if it is allowed to live, they "don't want someone else raising their child (even though they refuse to do so), or they contend the child would be "better off" dead. Since most mothers say they choose to abort for economic reasons, they are obviously not simply attempting to avoid the pregnancy. It is the child itself they wish to avoid, so they see it as best for them that the child die.
Or, maybe it's because it costs money to give birth, money for prenatal, and time for all of it, and they just don't have much to spare.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Wouldn't live birth "stop the pregnancy?" I think you mean "abortion would be the only way to stop the pregnancy" immediately. I would be forced to ask, why must the pregnancy be "stopped" immediately? The obvious answer is, "because that's what the mother wants." In reality, these mothers simply want to be rid of the child, and they don't want to wonder if the child might seek them out later in life if it is allowed to live, they "don't want someone else raising their child (even though they refuse to do so), or they contend the child would be "better off" dead. Since most mothers say they choose to abort for economic reasons, they are obviously not simply attempting to avoid the pregnancy. It is the child itself they wish to avoid, so they see it as best for them that the child die.
Or, maybe it's because it costs money to give birth, money for prenatal, and time for all of it, and they just don't have much to spare.
So now we're down to, "it's cheaper to just kill them?" Women who really can't afford prenatal care and childbirth are not denied treatment, hon. If you can afford it, but would just rather go to Disneyland, I see that as a cop-out...
I have friends who are still harassed by collection agencies for pre-natal care they got years ago. It can affect your credit rating too. And that's not the only reason, just one of many. Besides, the same argument is used to kill innocent cats and dogs in shelters, and prisoners. So it's not totally invalid.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Tell your bum friends to pay their bills....If they couldn't afford it, they could've gotten financial aid. Since they obviously could afford it, tell them to live within their means and pay their bills like the rest of us... Their financial irresponsibility doesn't justify anyone killing their offspring.
They couldn't fine any financial aid. The do live in their means. Minimum wage and a crappy apartment with just enough room for them and the kids. They can barely feed their kids, much less pay old bills. Do you know how hard it is to live on minimum wage? They haven't even bought clothing for anyone but the children since the first one was born seven years ago.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Tell your bum friends to pay their bills....If they couldn't afford it, they could've gotten financial aid. Since they obviously could afford it, tell them to live within their means and pay their bills like the rest of us... Their financial irresponsibility doesn't justify anyone killing their offspring.
They couldn't fine any financial aid. The do live in their means. Minimum wage and a crappy apartment with just enough room for them and the kids. They can barely feed their kids, much less pay old bills. Do you know how hard it is to live on minimum wage? They haven't even bought clothing for anyone but the children since the first one was born seven years ago.
I don't believe they were not eligible for financial aid if you are telling the whole story. Of course, their incomes by be enough to live better than they do, in which case they may not have been eligible for assistance. Some people piss away too much of their income on nonessentials. Some gamble, use drugs, etc. If you can't feed your kids {or pay for medical care) because you don't make enough, you can get help. If you make enough, but just spend unwisely, that's different.
You say "they couldn't fine any financial aid." I don't buy it. What state do they live in?
They make just enough to not get help from the government, but not enough that they can pay for things. In order to get money from the government, you need to be pretty much unemployed or only working part time. And not everyone wants to live on government hand outs their whole life. Once you get on, it's hard to get off.

reply from: yoda

TECHNICALLY....... SO WHAT?
What does the identity of the person upon whom the baby is dependent have to do with the morality of killing that baby?
Since WHEN has being "depended upon" given ANYONE the MORAL right to kill the dependent person?
HOW can you TURN dependency into a "MORAL FLAW"?????
(Prediction: There will be NO proabort response to this question.)

reply from: yoda

How do newborns make choices?

reply from: yoda

That's a good question. As far as "convincing" her, I gave up on that a long time ago. I see responding to posters like her to be simply a way of speaking to the "lurkers" who don't post here, but read here. Because of them, I usually respond to false statements.
Of course, there are some posters (like vexing) who spam the forums so much that it's obvious that their ambition is to drown us in their spam, and thus render the forum useless. So far, I haven't concluded that this poster has engaged in that tactic.
It's a judgment call, and I respect your objections.

reply from: yoda

That's a really good question, and I'll be shocked and amazed if you get any kind of response to it at all, even a sarcastic one.

reply from: yoda

What a really stupid argument. Thanks for making it, and making your side look stupid again.
Poor, destitute women have been successfully having healthy babies, mostly without complications for years, haven't they? And most hospitals are required to accept emergency patients whether they have money or not (think illegal aliens).
And to top it off, you want to compare unborn babies to pets, stray animals, and condemned killers? Wow, thanks again for making your side look stupid.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

TECHNICALLY....... SO WHAT?
What does the identity of the person upon whom the baby is dependent have to do with the morality of killing that baby?
Since WHEN has being "depended upon" given ANYONE the MORAL right to kill the dependent person?
HOW can you TURN dependency into a "MORAL FLAW"?????
(Prediction: There will be NO proabort response to this question.)
When it's using her body and resources against her will.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

You have to be Christian or at least pretend to be Christian to get all that stuff. They did make their needs known, and the hospital got them a carseat and some diapers. That's all they give anyone.
Some people prefer animals to children. And criminals are still human, and aren't all human loves equal in your eyes?

reply from: lukesmom

Tell your bum friends to pay their bills....If they couldn't afford it, they could've gotten financial aid. Since they obviously could afford it, tell them to live within their means and pay their bills like the rest of us... Their financial irresponsibility doesn't justify anyone killing their offspring.
They couldn't fine any financial aid. The do live in their means. Minimum wage and a crappy apartment with just enough room for them and the kids. They can barely feed their kids, much less pay old bills. Do you know how hard it is to live on minimum wage? They haven't even bought clothing for anyone but the children since the first one was born seven years ago.
Cry me a river. I have been with no insurance and not qualify for assistance with one of my children. Long story. It took until he was in Kindergarten to pay off his prenatal and delivery bills. Some bills I paid $5 a month until it was paid off. No collection agencies came after us because I took the initiative to call the people we owed and set up some sort of payment plan and have our bill reduced. There are ways but you have to be willing to look for the solution instead of sitting on your butt moaning about how pittiful you have it. No new clothes for 7 yrs? Booo Hooo. Poor babies can't have 50 pairs of shoes and 2 outfits for every day. Get a grip, most mid to low income people live like this. I remember being a kid and getting boxes of used clothes from relatives. My parents didn't get any and we all survived without problems. Ever here of thrift stores, garage sales? That's how my kids were all clothed. And we still pass clothes and furnature around in the family. What planet are your friends living on anyway?
When I worked in an ER we VERY often would get people coming in asking for diapers and formula. No problem except every single person would inevitably either have a cigarette hanging out of their mouth or reek of smoke. They would rather pay through the nose for cigarettes than buy necessities for their kids.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Not all people can't afford bills because they live beyond their means. Have you ever seen the episode of Thirty Days where they lived on minimum wage? They found the charities and got the cheapest apartment in the area, and there still wasn't enough money.
Not everyone has relatives to borrow off of. I've given the wife some of my old stuff, but she's a ten and I'm a two, so it doesn't work out so well. The only thrift store near by costs as much as Walmart and no one has garage sales anymore since they invented ebay. The last time I saw one was in 2005. Sometimes Churches or schools with have charity sales, but that's only a few times a year, and it usually only covers children. And it's nice that you could work out a payment plan, but not all hospitals allow a long term one.

reply from: yoda

Wow.... I was wrong.... one proabort actually did "respond".
But it's such a stupid response, I can't think anyone will be swayed by it.
It's like saying "If someone forces me to give small amounts body fluids against my will, I have the right to kill that person".
Well you don't.... not the moral, nor the legal right. It's just that simple.

reply from: yoda

No, you don't. That's an outright lie.
Yeah, proaborts especially prefer animals to children. Thanks for admitting that.
And no, not all humans lives are "equal".... especially not those that are trying to kill you at the time, or have been convicted of killing someone. They certainly don't deserve their freedom. To compare them to an innocent unborn baby simply shows the depth of your depravity.

reply from: lukesmom

Not all people can't afford bills because they live beyond their means. Have you ever seen the episode of Thirty Days where they lived on minimum wage? They found the charities and got the cheapest apartment in the area, and there still wasn't enough money.
Not everyone has relatives to borrow off of. I've given the wife some of my old stuff, but she's a ten and I'm a two, so it doesn't work out so well. The only thrift store near by costs as much as Walmart and no one has garage sales anymore since they invented ebay. The last time I saw one was in 2005. Sometimes Churches or schools with have charity sales, but that's only a few times a year, and it usually only covers children. And it's nice that you could work out a payment plan, but not all hospitals allow a long term one.
I never said "all people" live beyond their means. We never did but struggled. I have never seen "Thirty Days" as I have much better ways to occupy my time than the "boob tube". Where if God's name do you live? Also no collection agency can do anything IF you are showing that you are making payments monthly and are attempting in good faith to pay your bill. Now, how many TVs, DVDs, playstations, computers, cars etc do your friends have? The so called poor in this country are richer then they let on. In fact I consider my family to be ok financially but I go into homes/appt of the "poor" and am amazed at all the fancy "toys" they can afford but not be able to buy medicine and food.
Maybe they don't have relatives to borrow off of because their parents killed their sibs instead of letting them be born.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Not all people can't afford bills because they live beyond their means. Have you ever seen the episode of Thirty Days where they lived on minimum wage? They found the charities and got the cheapest apartment in the area, and there still wasn't enough money.
Not everyone has relatives to borrow off of. I've given the wife some of my old stuff, but she's a ten and I'm a two, so it doesn't work out so well. The only thrift store near by costs as much as Walmart and no one has garage sales anymore since they invented ebay. The last time I saw one was in 2005. Sometimes Churches or schools with have charity sales, but that's only a few times a year, and it usually only covers children. And it's nice that you could work out a payment plan, but not all hospitals allow a long term one.
I never said "all people" live beyond their means. We never did but struggled. I have never seen "Thirty Days" as I have much better ways to occupy my time than the "boob tube". Where if God's name do you live? Also no collection agency can do anything IF you are showing that you are making payments monthly and are attempting in good faith to pay your bill. Now, how many TVs, DVDs, playstations, computers, cars etc do your friends have? The so called poor in this country are richer then they let on. In fact I consider my family to be ok financially but I go into homes/appt of the "poor" and am amazed at all the fancy "toys" they can afford but not be able to buy medicine and food.
Maybe they don't have relatives to borrow off of because their parents killed their sibs instead of letting them be born.
They have an old TV hey got as a gift and no cable. And one cellphone for emergencies. No playstations or anything like that. And collection agencies will harass you until they bill is paid, that's their job.
Yes, you do. If you go to a Church asking for assistance, they will try to convert you, and failing that, they will be unable to help you.
So, it's about innocence? Do you feel certain sins make a person unworthy of life? Besides, innocent people have been convicted of crimes. It's possible for an innocent person to be executed for a crime. It's rare, but possible.
Link:
http://www.geocities.com/gfadp/innocent.html

From the site:
No, you have the right to refuse them those fluids, even if it kills them. People are dying because there isn't enough blood for them. Should you be required by law to give blood to these people?

reply from: yoda

You're still trying to fill up the whole forum with each post, aren't you? Is that just plain laziness or can't you figure out how to eliminate all the blank lines?
As far as the moral right to be left alone, yes it is. I'm sure you'd like to see all criminals turned loose, but we just can't do that.
I honestly don't think you're that stupid, I think you're pretending not to understand what you read.
My statement had to do with someone forcing you to donate small amounts of bodily fluid AGAINST YOUR WILL,NOT whether or not you had the "right to refuse".
Surely you can figure out the difference between those two situations, can't you? Or was I wrong?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

I'm sorry, I'm not used to this. I've never seen another forum on the internet with that kind of posting system.
I don't want to turn them loose, I just don't see why we should kill them.
By aborting the child, you are refusing it access to your body. Nothing should be done to your body against your will.

reply from: lukesmom

EXACTLY! Now you get it! This also pertains to the body of the unborn, who have not expressed a willingness to be killed.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

EXACTLY! Now you get it! This also pertains to the body of the unborn, who have not expressed a willingness to be killed.
So the woman's body is irrelevent in your eyes?

reply from: yoda

Are you aware of anyone who advocates that every abortion should kill the mother?

reply from: sk1bianca

Lolita, once you're pregnant another human being IS ALREADY in your body. "refusing access" is too late.
pregnancy isn't something that shockingly or miraculously happens after sex. it isn't a weapon or something evil that someone "did" to a woman. it's normal and natural and therefore should be expected to happen.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Lolita, once you're pregnant another human being IS ALREADY in your body. "refusing access" is too late.
pregnancy isn't something that shockingly or miraculously happens after sex. it isn't a weapon or something evil that someone "did" to a woman. it's normal and natural and therefore should be expected to happen.
Sorry, bad wording. You're refusing it to access your body anymore.

reply from: yoda

And knowingly killing the baby.
You forgot to add that.

reply from: jujujellybean

EXACTLY! Now you get it! This also pertains to the body of the unborn, who have not expressed a willingness to be killed.
So the woman's body is irrelevent in your eyes?
Riddle me this: if somehow two people get attached together and couldn't get apart, and you could save one by killing the other, does that make it right? Same thing. And answer the question it will be interesting...

reply from: LolitaOlivia

EXACTLY! Now you get it! This also pertains to the body of the unborn, who have not expressed a willingness to be killed.
So the woman's body is irrelevent in your eyes?
Riddle me this: if somehow two people get attached together and couldn't get apart, and you could save one by killing the other, does that make it right? Same thing. And answer the question it will be interesting...
Yes. It's unfair to ruin one's life so both can live. That's not a full life. I wouldn't want to live like that.

reply from: yoda

Wow...... you take up nearly a whole page of webspace just to say you think a baby's life ought to be sacrificed to preserve the mother's lifestyle.
Can't you just post a short note that says "I'm a selfish, babykilling sociopath"?

reply from: jujujellybean

sounds to villainish. They need to make it sound humane. Otherwise, they would be killers. So....they just fancy it up to make it look like they are really caring.

reply from: yoda

They are. They care tremendously about themselves.

reply from: yoda

~bumpy-poo for Skippy-poo~

reply from: carolemarie

Yet she continues to live, when she could kill herself? I guess she values her life.

reply from: ronin82

"By aborting the child, you are refusing it access to your body. Nothing should be done to your body against your will."
It wasn't the child's will to be in your body, though - the child is an innocent non-agressor, and this is what truly makes abortion a criminal and disgusting act. The way you put it is wrong. "Refusing access" is misleading because it invokes the image of a child wanting to get in. You placed the child there, your willful act (unless you were raped of course) placed the child there. Lethal force is only morally or ethically justified against violent agressors.
You ask later on if your body is "irrelevant". It needs to be put in context. The overriding concern is parental obligation. If for some strange reason your born child had to be attached to you for another 9 months, say it was superglued to your hip or your breast, it would be illegal to kill it at that point. Society would rightfully intervene and put a stop to it. Life takes precedence over liberty. You don't get to kill someone else to make your life easier.
Sophisticated abortion advocates such as Peter Singer admit that the location of the child is irrelevant, whether it is in your body or next to it. At any rate, all the pro-life movement asks is that women bring their children to term. Pro-life does not necessarily mean pro-motherhood.

reply from: yoda

Excellent points, thanks.

reply from: jujujellybean

EXACTLY! Now you get it! This also pertains to the body of the unborn, who have not expressed a willingness to be killed.
So the woman's body is irrelevent in your eyes?
Is the child irrelevant in your eyes?

reply from: jujujellybean

EXACTLY! Now you get it! This also pertains to the body of the unborn, who have not expressed a willingness to be killed.
So the woman's body is irrelevent in your eyes?
Riddle me this: if somehow two people get attached together and couldn't get apart, and you could save one by killing the other, does that make it right? Same thing. And answer the question it will be interesting...
Yes. It's unfair to ruin one's life so both can live. That's not a full life. I wouldn't want to live like that.
New question, Lolita: what if you were the person who had to die. Should you still make that sacrifice?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Yes. I wouldn't want to use someone's body against their will.

reply from: jujujellybean

Yes. I wouldn't want to use someone's body against their will.
You wouldn't be: they would be using yours just as much as you would be using theirs. But if they remove you, the other person goes back to normal, and you have to die.
Also,answer the question above: is the child irrelevant in your eyes. You missed it.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Yes. I wouldn't want to use someone's body against their will.
You wouldn't be: they would be using yours just as much as you would be using theirs. But if they remove you, the other person goes back to normal, and you have to die.
It wouldn't matter if they were using mine too, it would still be wrong to use there's against their will.

reply from: yoda

Nah, she didn't miss it, she just thought the answer was obvious.... she doesn't give a red rat's behind about children.... of any age.

reply from: jujujellybean

Yes. I wouldn't want to use someone's body against their will.
You wouldn't be: they would be using yours just as much as you would be using theirs. But if they remove you, the other person goes back to normal, and you have to die.
It wouldn't matter if they were using mine too, it would still be wrong to use there's against their will.
So say that's true: then answer this. What if both could be saved if the other died. Would you be willing to sacrifice your life for the other to live, even if it were you that could live?

reply from: jujujellybean

Nah, she didn't miss it, she just thought the answer was obvious.... she doesn't give a red rat's behind about children.... of any age.
She didn't even try. Most of em will at least try to defend their place...she gave up without even a skirmish.

reply from: yoda

Lolita gets bored when we don't play her game.......

reply from: faithman

Lolita gets bored when we don't play her game.......
When are we going to quit this crap? Is abortion on demand murder? If not, then go home and shut up. If yes, then when are we going to start acting like it, and restrain evil doers to protect the innocent? But pro-lifers would rather protect an abortionist on his way to work, than the womb child he is going to work to kill.

reply from: yoda

I simply don't know how to do that without endangering the unborn child we are trying to protect.

reply from: faithman

I simply don't know how to do that without endangering the unborn child we are trying to protect.
SSSSSSSOOOOOOOOO they are not endangered already? We don't stop them from being killed because we might endanger them doing so? Let the monkies chase their tail around that mulberry bush, I believe you are smarter than that.


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