Home - List All Discussions

"Why I am an abortion doctor"

by: LolitaOlivia

A real hero!
Link:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=283931&p=3

reply from: sheri

so do we have this guys home address? wouldnt it be fun to picket the bum?!!!!!!!!

reply from: joe

Your mom should have utilized the services of your hero when she was pregnant with you.
Then this doctor would be considered my hero.

reply from: sheri

Joe, why say something like that? where does it get us? that kind of statement only gives them ammo against us.

reply from: Skippy

Your mom should have utilized the services of your hero when she was pregnant with you.
Then this doctor would be considered my hero.
So you're one of those guys who would have aborted Hitler if you could, eh?

reply from: joe

She is having fun at our expense so I decided to have a little fun. This is after all who they consider their hero, someone that could have easily ended their life.

reply from: sheri

Showing disregard for her life only plays into her hand, you should be repulsed by all abortions or non.

reply from: faithman

She is having fun at our expense so I decided to have a little fun. This is after all who they consider their hero, someone that could have easily ended their life.
Oh my gosh Joe!! Don't you know we should care more about what bortheads think insted of being involved in defeating them? It is better to lose pretty, than to win ugly if nessisary. But the hypocracy is that some would use imagry that makes more enemies, and yet would have the audasity to corect your quips on a forum that few will actually read. Go figure......

reply from: lukesmom

So much rationalization from this man. I guess that is what he needs to do to survive emotionally. This reenforces my belief that most of our children's heros today are scum, rotting our children's minds and souls...
The real heros are parents that have the courage allow their children to live dispite obsticles.

reply from: sheri

stay out of it fboy i cant rein you both in at the same time, that amount of stupid in one post is overwhelming.

reply from: joe

I was using sarcasm to prove my point that she lacks reasoning.

reply from: joe

Personally I agree with you 100%. I am sick and tired of how we are supposed to act. This is not a presidential race, this is a struggle to save actual human life.

reply from: sheri

It was a poorly thought out responce, stuff like that makes you an easy target.

reply from: joe

Pro choice advocates are the least of my concern. Their reasoning is as developed as a child otherwise they would be pro life. As a matter of fact a child has more reasoning, I guess a snake would be the equivalent.

reply from: sheri

If they concern you not, answer them not.
You could however, use these tete tate as an opportunity to sharpen your wits, well developed responces can be the only thing standing in the way of a mother considering having an abortion. Peoples lives are at stake here.

reply from: joe

Here and now, I was simply having fun with her reasoning.

reply from: IChoseLife

I agree!! I feel like I am a hero to my daughter because I didnt take the "easy" way out. I gave up so much for her, and I would do it all again in a heartbeat.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Your mom should have utilized the services of your hero when she was pregnant with you.
Then this doctor would be considered my hero.
I thought this humorous and laughed. I thought the purpose of Joe's comment was to make Lolita think about how abortion affects lives; such as being a direct threat to her personally in early life. I didn't think Joe was serious that he would actually like to see Lolita aborted and dead. I did have an angry woman shout at me that my mother should have aborted me; she was angry, loud and serious (I was holding a 3' X 5' picture of an aborted baby). My wife was nearby and took offense.

reply from: sheri

The "what if you had been aborted?!" line has never been an effective one for me, they have no respect for human life so they will respond with " I/the world would not know the difference" or "i would have been better off aborted", coming out with that old chestnut can make you look callous and always makes you an easy target. If you must make a statment to that effect why not try 'Thank God you were not aborted ect."

reply from: carolemarie

I don't doubt that he thinks he is doing a service for women and helping them. That still doesn't make it true.He is deleuded and wrong. And it is horrible that some idiot shot him and stabbed him!
Abortion doesn't HELP women in any way. There is not a need for it at all. There is adoption as an alternative which is a win-win situtation for the baby and the mom.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I've never used that line because I was born a couple decades before Roe v Wade. AARP will probably be contacting me. However, there now are many of childbearing age who were born after Roe v Wade and could have been victims of the "procedure" themselves. I'm a little more blunt, I tell them they are selfish and murderers, I don't get them to reflect on, "Well, what if I'd been the one aborted".

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Actually, I know of a lot of women abortion has helped. Helped them finish their educations, keep their jobs, keep their relationships, follow their dreams, follow their beliefs, take care of their children, a lot of things.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No. Many woman would have trouble caring for their born children if they remained pregnant.

reply from: jujujellybean

Personally I agree with you 100%. I am sick and tired of how we are supposed to act. This is not a presidential race, this is a struggle to save actual human life.
I agree. We need to save lives, but if you insult and ridicule you are stooping to their level and making things hard. They want to be able to say we are mean, and if we give them examples, we can't say no. Love is the only way, and patience.

reply from: carolemarie

Actually, I know of a lot of women abortion has helped. Helped them finish their educations, keep their jobs, keep their relationships, follow their dreams, follow their beliefs, take care of their children, a lot of things.
Here is the deal--without abortion, they could have done the very same thing!
They could have finished their educations if they had the baby and placed it for adoption or raised it...kept their jobs (it is against the law to fire you for being pregnant, they would have had a juicy lawsuit if they had protected the rights of all women by filing) take care of your born children--being pregnant doesn't keep women from doing anything they want to do.
All of those reasons,with the possible exception of keeping a relationship with an abusive man who is being a bully to threaten her with ending their relationship-( I can't believe a feminist would defend that as a good reason to undergo surgery!)
So it wasn't necessary for anyone to have an abortion to accomplish any of these things. They had abortions because it was easier to under go the procedure. In other words, they were selfish and decided that killing a child was okay if it made their lives simpler. And you name one belief system that hinges on having an abortion!

reply from: joe

Oh yeah he is sending the unborn children straight to heaven, good "doctor".

reply from: joe

35 years should be proof of patience, or maybe 35 more would really prove we are patient. Why not just be patient forever and never criminalize abortion that would really show them how nice and loving we are.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Do you know how hard it is to take care of two babies while you're eight months pregnant? And they can't fire you, but you'll still have to take time off, which can make you very behind. Some schools don't handle pregnant students very well and purposely make it hard for them to keep working. There's a lot pregnant women can't do. They can't work as hard, they can't take their medications, they can't smoke or drink or go to an amusement park.
And it's not always an abusive relationship if a man doesn't want a baby. Many men are childfree, and would be very upset if their girlfriend or wife had a baby. Some men make it clear in the beginning of the relationship that they never want children and feel betrayed when a woman goes against their wishes. I'm not saying they should be able to force her to abort or anything, just that they have a right to their opinions.
And for beliefs that support abortion there's the Church of Euthanasia (only comandment, Thou Shalt Not Procreate) , as well as some pagan groups that don't believe in having unwanted babies.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Those people are mentally ill.
The creation is here for a reason. Isaiah 45:18 "...God formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited."
Shouldn't a person appreciate abundant flourishing life? The mentally ill at the Church of Euthanasia sound like they would enjoy a dead rock orbiting the sun with no life on it.
Let's celebrate life. Get off your death kick Lolita.

reply from: ProInformed

http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/
Someday Lolita's hero may end up being quoted at the above site, as a FORMER abortionist who has become pro-life.

reply from: ProInformed

GodsLaws4UsToLive:
I can't even remember the number of times choicists have told me they wished I had been aborted by my mother.
IMHO their anger is fear - fear of facing the truth about fetal develoment and abortion methodology and fear of facing the truth about the abortion(s) they've had themselves.
I wish the media would sometimes show how insanely and rabidly they behave at abortion-related events.
http://prochoiceviolence.com/

At least the abortion industry and biased media isn't able to effectively cover up the truth when choicist extremists post online. (BTW, whenever you see evidence online that a choicer is not really what they claim to be: 'feminist', pro-'choice', rational, compassionate, etc... make sure you quote it and refer to it when other choicers claim such silly things as 'there's no such thing as pro-abortion, only pro-choice'.

reply from: ProInformed

Lolita, you have been here long enough to know that abortion does not help women and children. In fact women beign willing to submit to abortion instead of expecting real support and solutions is probably THE biggest roadblock to women and children getting what they really want/need.
You are lying when you pretend abortion helps women.
And you are also lying when you pretend you even care about women and children.
You have already revealed here that your #1 priority is to be able to have sex without responsibility. The reasons you stated for killing your own unborn baby had nothing to do with feminism - just selfishness to the point of justifying violence against an innocent victim. That is not even a mature adult reason for defending abortion, let alone a feminist or compassionate reason.
You have also revealed in discussions about forced avortions that you are not even pro-choice as you claim. You are pro-abortion and pro-promiscuity - PERIOD.

reply from: ProInformed

http://www.feministsforlife.org/cop/index.htm

reply from: ProInformed

Lolita you said:
"Actually, I know of a lot of women abortion has helped. Helped them finish their educations, keep their jobs, keep their relationships, follow their dreams, follow their beliefs, take care of their children, a lot of things."
What have you personally done to help women finish their educations and keep their jobs so they do NOT have to do something so drastic as killing their own babies to do so? What have so-called pro-'choice', pro-'women' groups done?
'Defending' abortion doesn't defend or help women.
Women deserve much better than to basically be told: 'don't bother us - go kill your baby if you want to finish your education or keep your job'! That is NOT concern for women or 'heroic'! That is disgustingly apathetic and anti-woman. The fact that you believe otherwise just shows how callous, brianwashed, and apathetic you've become Lolita.
And as to your own admission that sometimes women kill their own babies just to keep a relationship - yes that's true... But in no way is that an example of feminism. Is that what you did, Lolita? Did you kill your own baby to keep your boyfriend? Would he have stayed with you if you'd let your baby live? Were you worried he'd lose interest in you if you looked pregnant? How long do you think he's going to stay with you? Just how much 'committment' from him did you think you were paying for with the life of your baby?

reply from: ProInformed

"There's a lot pregnant women can't do. They can't work as hard, they can't take their medications, they can't smoke or drink or go to an amusement park."
Lolita, odds are someday you will stop defending abortion and will regret having killed your baby.
Then you will be ashamed of the stupid things you said in your compulsion to defend the abortion industry.
Oh, and smoking, drinking, and going to amuzement parks are supposedly important enough excuses to kill an innocent human baby?!?
That's right up there (um DOWN there) with the female who killed her unborn baby because bikini season was coming up... (feminist? NOT!)
Just how old are you anyway, Lolita? 12?
So when the citizens gain the right to choose the exact legal status of abortion, I guess youll be voting for it being legal to abort for the 'want to go to the amuzement park' reason, huh?
Yup - this being able to discuss abortion online, relatively uncensored, is going to finally be the downfall of the abortion industry... blab on with your bimbonic justifications for abortion LOLita.

reply from: ProInformed

hmmmm....
Wonder how Lolita is going to feel when her 'hero' becomes a FORMER abortionist, becomes pro-life, and starts speaking up against abortion?
http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/

I did a pro-life speaking assignment with a former abortionist and he thought he was doing something good for women too... for a while...
I wish each time an abortionist turns pro-life that all the women he did abortions on were notified with an apology from the abortionist.

reply from: ProInformed

Because women deserve better than the callous 'solution' offered by the Lolita's of society:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/

reply from: ProInformed

As to the argument that women would have so much trouble caring for their already born children if they don't kill their unborn baby:
http://www.survivors.la/
">http://www.survivors.la/
Try explaining to the children you allow to live why you killed their brother or sister...
Oh, and no fair pretending you did it for some 'feminist' or 'health of the mother' excuse when you probably really did it just to keep your boyfriend (or so you could go to the amuzement park...)
My daughters and MOST of their friends are plenty upset over how 1/4 - 1/3 of their generation was killed by abortion! They know that the killing off of that many of their siblings, cousins, friends, classmates, was NOT done FOR them but because of the selfishness of their parents' generation!

reply from: ProInformed

and every now and then... on very rare occassions... somebody would attack a Nazi in a concentration camp. It had very little effect on the willingness and ability of the Nazis to legally slaughter their victims.
IMHO such acts of violence against prenatal hitmen are acts of desperation and/or grief over the killing of unborn babies that were brutally killed by those abortionists.
The way the abortion industry arrived at the current legal status of abortion (UNdemocratically), and the frustrating media bias behind which the abortion industry hides the truth about their dirty deeds, has created the circumstances in which such violent acts of desperation happened.
Translation in choice-ese:
You know how the frustration of maybe not being able to go on all the rides at an amusement park just makes you want to kill your unborn baby?
Well I guess the tyranny of stripping the citizenry of their right to choose the exact legal status of abortion and even the right of a father to protect his own baby, maybe makes some people feel like killing those who kill innocent babies?
Neither is something I endorse BTW.
When the citizens win back their right to choose the exact legal status of abortion and fathers win their right to protect their own babies, then my guess these rare cases of violence against pernatal hitmen will become even rarer.
In fact, one very effective way for choicers to prevent such violence acts against abortionists would be to give up the dictatorial status quo and allow the citizens to choose what abortionists can legally do....
but APPARENTLY defending 'free sex' and 'abortion-on-demand' is more important to the choicers than the lives of the abortionists. Choicers defend the status quo INCLUDING the stripping of citizens of their democratic right to determine the laws of the land and even their right to defend their own innocent children and grandchildren, and thereby choicers support all the resultant grief and frustration that ensues, including the rare act of violence that may lead to.
So the truth is, no matter how much choicers pretend to care about abortionists being harmed, they really don't care themselves. This is just another one of the choicer false pretenses of concern... they don't really care about women, victims of child abuse or rape, poverty... or abortionists... ALL they really want is to have sex without having to grow up and care for their babies. They don't care how many babies are killed by abortionists, or how many women are injured or killed by abortionists, OR how many abortionists are killed by grieving fathers or frustrated citizens... they just want to have more and more mindless sex.
BTW, exactly how many innocent baby's lives PLUS women lives (killed by so-called 'safe' legal abortion) does it take to come anywhere near the value of a male abortionist's life? hmmmm.... doesn't sound very pro-woman/pro-child to me.
Just like every other day for the past 35 years, thousands of INNOCENT babies will be brutally ripped apart by prenatal hitmen today... and just like the vast majority of days, it's doubtful a single abortionist will be harmed by anyone out of frustration or grief over the abortionists' dirty deeds.

reply from: ProInformed

http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

reply from: LolitaOlivia

It does. It's made my own life better, and improved the lives of plenty of people I know.
They aren't "forced to submit". You pro-lifers seem to think women are incapable of knowing what they want and what's good for them. I trust women's' abilities to make decisions.
I do care. If you can't see that, that's your problem.

So? Sex isn't a crime. People who think it is need to get laid more often.
It is feminist, the right for women to make their own medical decisions and decide when and if they have children.

Plenty of feminist groups have helped out a lot. But it's a fact that having an unwanted baby will put you at a disadvantage in life. In a perfect world women would be able to have children without fear of loosing anything, but in a perfect world there would be no unwanted pregnancy so abortion wouldn't even be an issue.
Women deserve the right to decide when and if they carry a pregnancy to term. We're not the ones telling them they have to abort to keep their jobs/stay in school. That's the way our society is at this point. It sucks, but it's been a slow process fixing it.
What? Shouldn't people have the right to stay in a relationship on their own terms? It's a natural want to love and be loved.
No, I would've done the same thing had I never met him.
No idea.
Not really. His ex was a cow, so I doubt he cares much about weight.
Actually, we're living together now. We'll be getting married once he finishes law school. I expect on Valentine's day I'll be getting a ring to show off.
No, most women never do. They may wonder "what if?" but plenty of women get along fine.
They're reason enough if a woman thinks they are. You see, I actually value the woman's input on the issue.
Actually, it's plenty feminist to want your body to look the way you like. And for women who work in the modeling industry, being pregnant through swimsuit season could loose them half of their annual income.
20.
Actually, "any reason a woman can think of".
I doubt that's going to happen. If it did, I'd loose some respect for him.
I have friends who handled the issue okay. They just told their children that at the time they weren't able to manage with a baby or that they weren't old enough to be a mommy. Children are usually understanding.
No, we respect them and many precautions are taken to keep them safe. They are brave men and women who choose to help women, even if it means putting their own lives at risk. Why else would so many of them keep going even after an attack?
We care about all of the women and doctors. We care about them enough to trust them to make their own choices.

reply from: lukesmom

And I know alot of women, me being one, who did all the above AND allowed their children to live. These women are true women. The one's you've mentioned above, I woudn't put in the same classification.

reply from: ProInformed

Lolita, you posted:
"Women deserve the right to decide when and if they carry a pregnancy to term. We're not the ones telling them they have to abort to keep their jobs/stay in school. That's the way our society is at this point. It sucks, but it's been a slow process fixing it."
Oh yes you are effectively putting more pressure on woemn to abort instead of expecting real solutions, and you're not even smart enough to realize it.
EVERY time a woman spreads her legs to let an abortionist rip her baby apart in compliance with the status quo, she makes it even less likely that any real solutions will ever come.
You don't get it Lolita. The solutions aren't going to come as long as women will just go get an abortion instead. Abortion is a solution akin to the 'final solution' Hitler embraced. The abortion industry and it's brainwashed supporters are no more interested in helping women and children than Hitler was interested in helping the Jews. Margaret Sanger made it pretty clear she did NOT want to help anyone overcome poverty and discrimination. She was a racist eugenicist who wanted to get rid of the people who had those problems. Planned Parenthood today still has that agenda only it has carefully & cleverly hidden it's goals behind more positive-sounding slogans, and has successfully exploited the selfishness and sexual promiscuity of girls like you to make a killing (both by literalyl killing babies and by making lots of $$$$$$ doing so).
How can women EVER convince anyone that society needs to change if they maintain an 'oh never mind, don't bother yourselves, I just go kill my baby instead' attitude! Hey, if the changes women say they want are not even as important as the lives of their own babies, then why should society change? Abortion is NOT some brave or rebellious action AGAINST the status quo, but rather a humiliating submission TO the status quo. And you are helping maintain the status quo Lolita, both by killing your own baby and by 'supporting' this violent 'final solution' for other women too.
YOU Lolita have a right and a responsibility to help bring about the needed changes. But you'd rather kill your baby instead of asking society to change to accomodate both mother and child. And you'd rather have other women kill their babies to than to have society change to make the so-called 'need' for aboriton obsolete.
In fact probably the real reason choicers are always challenging pro-lifers ALONE to fix the problems, the reason choicers don't view it as their responsibility TOO, is because choicers probably don't even want the problems to be fixed. Choicers prefer to pretend they want abortion to stay legal for reasons that will make them appear compassionate... reasons like concern for women... so they don't have to reveal their REAL reason for wanting abortion to stay legal: So they can have mindless, soul-less sex with males who don't care about them or their babies.
Abortion has been legal for 3 1/2 DECADES and MORE women and children live in poverty now than before. Just how long do you think it's going to take Lolita for abortion to 'solve' the problems? How many more thousands of babies per day do you think should be killed to improve anything?
The real underlying reason for your preference has nothing whatsoever to do with your pretended concern for women either Lolita. You just want to have sex minus responsibility. You've already revealed that your claimed concerns about women's safety, rights, and 'freedom of choice' are lies. You don't really care about any of those more positive sounding excuses to defend abortionists. Again, you revealed that your concern was faked in the threads here about owmen being coerced/forced to abort, women dying from so-called 'safe' legal abortions, etc.
You don't even really care about abortionists being violently attacked either... you'd rather have a few of them die too than to give up your precious 'right' to 'free sex'.
And of course I'm not saying that sex is inherently bad. That is such a silly pro-abort lie intended to evade the issues by attacking the pro-lifers with a false stereotype. I enjoy sex. BUT if I was so sex-addicted and/or sociopathic that I thought sex was more important than human life I'd get some counseling!
Hopefully someday you will mature enough to realize that sex is not really so important that the sacrifice of innocent human lives is justified. And maybe someday you'll meet a MAN who respects, loves and cares for you enough that you won't feel like you have to kill your own baby to (try to) keep him.

reply from: lukesmom

This has got to be the stupidest post I have ever seen! I would be LOL if I wasn't so much in disbelief at the sheer stupidity of this response. I should stop myself from answering but it is way too tempting.

I put myself through school while working parttime, had a one yr old and pregnant with another. Yes, when I discovered I was pregnant with my third child I had a 2 yr old, an d a 7 month old. I never had a problem with being pregnant while in school and I was doing demanding clinicals. Ever hear of discrimination??? No school in this day and age is going to risk a lawsuit for something so silly as discriminating against pregnant women. You have no idea how hard a pregnant woman can work as you killed your baby. You are really grasping at straws with all this and as Yoda says, pulling alot of stuff out of your butt. Can't go to an amusement park is ample reason to kill your child??? Girl, you really need to have the air pumped out of your head...
Now the "prochoice" movements says that a father has no say if the mother wants to kill her child. Why should it be fine for the proaborts if he forces a mother to kill her baby when she wants to keep it? His opinion? How come with abortion he gets an opinion but with allowing life, he doesn't? After all, that is what you are saying here isn't it? He legally has to provide for this child no matter what he wants to do. Once a life is created, then the parents need to be responsible enough to provide for that child or find other parents who will. If they can't be that responsible then maybe they should use Aspirin...between their knees...

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No, all we're saying is that banning abortion won't help women get any more options. It'll just take away one of the only ways out. In a perfect world there'd be no divorce. Does that mean we should ban divorce to make the world perfect? Banning abortion won't make things easier for anyone.
No, it's about the choice. The choice to have sex with whoever you want. The choice to have or not have a baby. I just think women should be able to decide for themselves what they do, not have the government choose for them.
What's wrong with that? Sex isn't a crime, and pregnancy shouldn't be the punishment.
No, I do care very much. They are brave men and women who are willing to risk everything to follow their beliefs. I personally think that anyone who harms them should suffer the harshest penalty possible.
Sure it's possible, so is pulling a car out of a ditch by your ears. Should we force everyone to do that if they come across an accident?
What? I think women should be able to get abortions for whatever reasons they choose. Besides, would you want a woman like that raising a child?
Did you read what I wrote? He shouldn't be able to force her to abort or give birth! He should get an opinion either way, I just don't think the woman should be required by law to agree. It's her body, after all.
So children are a responsibility? I think they should be blessings brought into the world by people who love them or at least care a little bit. If you make them a legal requirement and not a choice, you'll start seeing a lot more miserable kids.

reply from: ProInformed

from Pro-Informed:
"In fact probably the real reason choicers are always challenging pro-lifers ALONE to fix the problems, the reason choicers don't view it as their responsibility TOO, is because choicers probably don't even want the problems to be fixed. Choicers prefer to pretend they want abortion to stay legal for reasons that will make them appear compassionate... reasons like concern for women... so they don't have to reveal their REAL reason for wanting abortion to stay legal: So they can have mindless, soul-less sex with males who don't care about them or their babies."
Dishonest response from Lolita:
"No, it's about the choice. The choice to have sex with whoever you want. The choice to have or not have a baby. I just think women should be able to decide for themselves what they do, not have the government choose for them."
That lie might actually work Lolita if you hadn't already provided proof in other threads that you don't really care about women's 'choice'. When it comes to child molesters, rapists, and pimps hiding their crimes by taking their victims to get abortions, women being coerced or forced to abort, you have no probelm with that ANTI-CHOICE pressure being put on women to abort. In fact you make fun of those female victims of coercion and insultingly imply negative things about them.
I personally believe that women CAN and SHOULD be expected to behave as civilly as the best of males, that feminism has nothing to do with wanting to get away with acting like the lounge-lizard type of males; having the ability to act like male perverts as your ideal of the best women can hope to achieve is disgustingly anti-woman IMHO.
You are at least being honest when you admit that 'the choice to have sex with whoever you want' is your real priority. In fact that is SO important to you that it trumps not only the lives of innocent unborn babies but also the rights, safety, and lives of women too, right Lolita? Your desire (or compulsion?) to have meaningless sex is so important to you that it's OK with you that some women are forced to abort against their choice, that some women are mutilated or killed by so-called 'safe' abortion surgery, and EVEN more important to you than women and children being given REAL solutions and support.
You DEPEND on the societal problems that put pressure on women to abort to REMAIN because you want to continue USING those problems as an excuse to keep abortion legal, so you can continue to have meaningless sex - your MAIN concern.
IMHO you should seriously consider some sex-addiction counseling!

reply from: LolitaOlivia

The case you speak of was in regards to women who CHOOSE to do what they're told. It's still they're choice, they're just letting someone else make it for them.
No, I just think women should have the same abilities and same expectations as men. There's no reason for women to be held to a higher or lower standard.
No. It goes hand in hand with the right for a woman to choose when and if she gives birth or gets pregnant. Women choose abortion, no one's forcing them.
Those women still chose abortion. As long as a woman chooses it, she should get it.
Sorry, I'm not a sex addict. I've done it with four people my whole life, and haven't done anything for weeks at this moment in time.

reply from: carolemarie

Do you know how hard it is to take care of two babies while you're eight months pregnant? And they can't fire you, but you'll still have to take time off, which can make you very behind. Some schools don't handle pregnant students very well and purposely make it hard for them to keep working. There's a lot pregnant women can't do. They can't work as hard, they can't take their medications, they can't smoke or drink or go to an amusement park.
And it's not always an abusive relationship if a man doesn't want a baby. Many men are childfree, and would be very upset if their girlfriend or wife had a baby. Some men make it clear in the beginning of the relationship that they never want children and feel betrayed when a woman goes against their wishes. I'm not saying they should be able to force her to abort or anything, just that they have a right to their opinions.
And for beliefs that support abortion there's the Church of Euthanasia (only comandment, Thou Shalt Not Procreate) , as well as some pagan groups that don't believe in having unwanted babies.
Once again, supporting the right to abortion isn't the same thing as requiring you to have one, like being a Christian would mean you r beliefs would prohibit you from getting one. (or should work that way)
How many children do you have? Your remarks about being pregnant and "unable to work hard" are silly and obviously written by someone who doesn't have children.
Being pregnant doesn't stop anyone from going to college. It is usually what do you do with the baby after it is born...adoption solves that probllem. The college doesn't care if you are pregnant, you just can't keep babies in the dorm.
Pleanty of pregnant women smoke. There is no law against it. Pregnant women can go to amusement parks and do most anything a non-pregnant women can, with the possible exceptions of skydiving.

reply from: deannat

A woman I work with had her seventh baby this past summer. She's in her mid-40's and I guess both she and her husband thought she was too old to get pregnant again. The pregnancy was very high risk and she spent the bulk of it flat on her back at home. By the time the baby was born she had not only used up all of her vacation and sick leave, her unpaid medical leave was gone too. She returned to work the day before the company would have become eligible to hire her replacement.
She should not have returned to work at all.
Although she has tried very hard to get back into the swing of things, the adjustment has been very hard for her, and us. The pregnancy did permanent damage to her health and she has had trouble doing her share of the work load. For a week now she has not been able to come in to work due to back and abdominal problems that are directly related to the pregnancy. If she is out next week too, she will likely be placed on medical leave again, meaning that the rest of my co-workers and I will again have to do our jobs under-staffed.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the argument that pregnancy doesn't impact a woman's ability to "work hard" is just not true. In the example I give above, the woman was hardly able to work during her pregnancy at all and may not be able to continue working afterward. While I support the choice that she made to have her baby, that choice impacted a lot more people than just her and her family. It impacted an entire department of a major corporation. Some women would be comfortable making that same choice, some would not. As long as abortion remains legal, however, it is still a choice.

reply from: ProInformed

here's info about a couple more 'heroes' (um baby killers):
http://www.klannedparenthood.com/DeathCamps/Holocaust1.cfm#TheTop

reply from: LolitaOlivia

You can still decide how long you want to remain pregnant and if you want to give birth.
Yes, it is. It's going to be hard either way, but if it's wanted it's worth all the hard stuff.
Simply put, yes. Besides, once you've had the baby you can give it up if the system *****s you over.
Still, as a side effect, all women would be required to continue their pregnancies.
It's one of many reasons. Women don't abort for just one reason.
But I do know that the most common reaction after an abortion is relief. And I've known plenty of women who had abortions and years later, still don't regret it.
Yes, I'm not going to deny it. It is her body, after all. Whatever reason is good enough for her is good enough for me.
But that's what it would do.
Of course, one person killing another person isn't for the best. Legally, only one of the people involved is a person. But even if they both were, I still don't think people have the right to use other people's bodies against their will.
That was addressing the argument that women have to give birth to "take responsibility" for their actions.
A person who's not using your body.

reply from: ProInformed

Lolita your posts reveal an absolute DESPERATION to defend legalized abortion, apparently based on your intense desire to have sex minus responsibility and your inability to deal with the abortion you had yourself.
Plus you have an exceedingly hostile viewpoint of innocent babies;
portraying them as if they are evil invaders out to victimize you or like a disease you must protect oursefl agaisnt.
Seriously girl, you should consider some counseling because your arguments reveal some very disturbing and abnormal though processes!
(and yet you persist in believing that there is no such thing as PAS? that having an abortion doesn't have the ability to warp a woman's emotions and capacity to nurture her own children? The more hate you reveal towards babies in your posts the more you confirm that you have been negatively affected by your abortion are in need of some therapy to return to a normal, natural, sane view of womanity, pregnancy, and babies!)

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No, I'm just pro-choice. I was before I had an abortion and before I even had sex.
No, I just don't think they should be forced on me or anyone else.
So, it's not normal for women to not want babies this very second? It's not normal for women to dislike something using their body against their will? Do you know how sexist that idea is? Women are no more inclined to children than men are. That they are is just one of the many lies patriarchy has been forcing down people's throats. The only reason women ever seem more attached is hormones.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Yes, it does. If a bag of nuts costs two dollars, whether or not you buy it not only rests on you being able to get two dollars, but whether or not you even like nuts. And unless they're living in poverty or have health problems, most women are not going to abort a wanted pregnancy. The difference between a wanted and unwanted pregnancy is like the difference between sex and rape. Consent does matter.
I'm not sure immediate relief would be possible, but within a week or two. And if there was no other way, most women would just abandon children like they did in ancient Rome and still do in some places. That's one of the reasons we have foster care and adoption systems, to prevent that.
Having to stop your car to save a life is different from having to use your body for nine months to sustain one.
If there was a way to end the pregnancy without killing it, I'm sure we'd do it. But there isn't, for the time being. Besides, we'd eventually run out of women to adopt all those embryos and fetuses. I think the woman has the right to get it out of her body. If it dies in the process, that's not her problem.
No, I just think the desire not to be pregnant is enough reason to not force women to remain so.
You think every woman who feels relieved is in denial? Isn't denial just the first stage of grief? Wouldn't that mean that after a year or so they'd all start regretting it? That doesn't seem to be happening. Women feel relieved, and they tend to stay that way.
Because it's called a debate? I thin being pro-choice is the only logical position. You feel differently.
Yes, it would. It would mean she'd have to remain pregnant until she could give birth. That is difficult, especially when you don't even want a baby.
The unborn have never been people. Not in any legal system in the world. Not in American law, not in English Common Law, where much of American law comes from. That's like saying there's never been a ruling to say cats aren't people. Of course they aren't. No legal system has ever thought otherwise.

reply from: ProInformed

I think Lolita, like so many other young females unfortunately, are MOSTLY concerned with looking sexually attractive to the males who have sex with them minus love and committment. And they are so afraid of looking pregnant that they insist on being allowed to kill their preborn babies. So even though it is true that most of their excuses for justifying abortion can be countered with adoption and/or better support services for women and children, that doesn't matter to them. Because while they may prefer to pretend they kill their babies before birth because they aren't willing or prepared to care for them after birth, the truth is they just don't want to look pregnant.
And the logical solution to them not wanting to look pregnant, to therefore not have sex until they are prepared to nurture a child, at least until the baby is born and can be adopted, doesn't sway them either BECAUSE the REASON they are so afraid of looking pregnant is because they are trying to get their need for self-affirmation and 'love' met by allowing males who don't commit to them to have sex with them.
Sex is a natural and good thing, but not if it is coupled with an unnatural fear and prejudice against normal female biology, pregnancy, and babies. And not if it is given to males who don't care about you and your babies, in a VAIN attempt to feel 'loved'.
And females who feel so little self-esteem and so low a opinion of uniquely female abilities and biology, are not feminist.
"Still, as a side effect, all women would be required to continue their pregnancies."
is not something a real feminist would say. It is said out of fear of pregnancy, based on fear of rejection from the playboy mentality male.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Not wanting to look pregnant is very rarely a reason. If it is, it's because the women in question are models or dancers who need to look thin to make a living.
A lot more happens during pregnancy. Women get sick and moody and may be in pain. There are a lot of reasons to not want to be pregnant and looks is one of the more minor ones.
Besides, some men have a pregnancy kink.
I don't have a low opinion of female biology, I just think it should be optional. Women should be able to get pregnant and stay pregnant only when they want to.

reply from: ProInformed

http://prochoiceviolence.com/

And most likely the voilent choicer in the video pretends PAS is just a myth...

reply from: ProInformed

http://www.gargaro.com/otherside.html

reply from: ProInformed

http://www.gargaro.com/abortion/henry.html

reply from: ProInformed

"Women should be able to get pregnant and stay pregnant only when they want to. "
Lolita, maybe nobody's told you the facts of life yet, hon.
There is a very effective and safe way to avoid pregnancy. It's sort of an 'oral contraceptive'... you just say "no" (and then don't spread your legs). The only time this method of contraception fails is in the extremely rare case of pregnancy resulting from rape.
And there is no such thing as a permanent pregnancy, all pregnancies end after about nine months.
It is a big fat lie (and a pathetically tired old one at that) to pretend pro-lifers are trying to force women to get and permanently remain pregnant against their will.
But hey, even YOU realize that it's probably better to pretend some less promiscuous and selfish reasons for abortion, eh?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Emotionally it would. A labor of love is easier than just plain labor.
1. Yes.
2. If possible, but within a week or two no matter what. I mean, you can't get an instant abortion either.
Cat's have never been considered people. That's how we know they aren't. We don't need a ruling.
0
Not everyone is cut out for that. Just like not everyone is cut out to take a pill every day for birth control. If you can have a normal relationship and a fulfilling life without sex, more power to you. But it won't work for everyone.
But you do want them to remain pregnant for nine months against their will.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Assuming you could find another woman to take on the pregnancy, yes. If not, I don't think they should be forced on a waiting list for more than a week or so (the time it would normally take to schedule and abortion)remaining pregnant. At first I'd imagine there'd be a lot of women who have trouble conceiving, but eventually the supply will go beyond the demand.
I can't. But I know of no legal system has seen them as such. Even in ancient Egypt where they worshipped cats, they still didn't put them on same level as people (they were on a special level as gods, IIRC).

reply from: ProInformed

Lolita,
The choicer in this video is behaving in an irrational and illegal way:
http://prochoiceviolence.com/
">http://prochoiceviolence.com/
Such emotionalism is not normal and is most likely caused by unresolved emotional issues over involvement in an abortion. (PAS)
BTW, Lolita, your extremism and obsession with defending abortion is also a symptom of your PAS.
If you feel better
BEING cruel
BEING unfeeling
we all notice
If it's feels necessary for you
If it helps you out
BEING heartless
you still killed your baby
and someday you will STILL face the truth
that it was not alright

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Assuming you could find another woman to take on the pregnancy, yes. If not, I don't think they should be forced on a waiting list for more than a week or so (the time it would normally take to schedule and abortion)remaining pregnant. At first I'd imagine there'd be a lot of women who have trouble conceiving, but eventually the supply will go beyond the demand.
OK, so we have an absolute right to be rid of the child, but we seem reluctant to draw a clear line regarding whether she has an absolute right to immediately be rid of it. I assume an absolute right to apply in all circumstances, so just to be clear, this applies to born children in your view? A mother may not be forced to care for her born child? She has an absolute right to refuse, a right to "be rid of it?"
Yes. No one should be forced to do anything. That's slavery.
Then how do you explain that I debated on forums like this and used the exact same arguments years before the abortion?
And how do you explain the other pro-choicers on this site who've never had one? Hell, how do you explain all of the gay men who are rabid choicers?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Yes. No one should be forced to do anything. That's slavery.
Now we're getting somewhere. You assert that, if a mother can rid herself of her child without killing it, she is not justified in killing it, but that she does have a right to be rid of it, and if the only way she can be rid of it is to kill it, she has that right. The right to be rid of the child is absolute, and outweighs the child's right to live. This right is both valid and absolute, and applies always, whether the child has been born or not, correct? Have I accurately summed up your position?
Not the right to be rid of it, just the right to not care for it anymore.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Yes. Motherhood should always be consensual. The government has no right to force people to do things.

reply from: ProInformed

Lolita is sociopathic.
She may have already been sociopathic before she killed her baby, and that's why she did it supposedly knowing the full truth (although all she apparently 'knew' about her baby was that he/she was the size of a kidney bean and frog-like... ).
Or her abortion has so affected her mentally that she has become sociopathic because of the abortion.
A request to the moderator:
Please do not edit the obscenity out of Lolita's post:
"She still chose to get that abortion. If she was just upset over it, I'd feel bad for her. It's that she's trying to ban it for everyone else because she didn't like it that makes her a stupid cunt."
It is important to reveal to the public that choicers who claim concern for women are sometimes lying.

reply from: carolemarie

A woman I work with had her seventh baby this past summer. She's in her mid-40's and I guess both she and her husband thought she was too old to get pregnant again. The pregnancy was very high risk and she spent the bulk of it flat on her back at home. By the time the baby was born she had not only used up all of her vacation and sick leave, her unpaid medical leave was gone too. She returned to work the day before the company would have become eligible to hire her replacement.
She should not have returned to work at all.
Although she has tried very hard to get back into the swing of things, the adjustment has been very hard for her, and us. The pregnancy did permanent damage to her health and she has had trouble doing her share of the work load. For a week now she has not been able to come in to work due to back and abdominal problems that are directly related to the pregnancy. If she is out next week too, she will likely be placed on medical leave again, meaning that the rest of my co-workers and I will again have to do our jobs under-staffed.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the argument that pregnancy doesn't impact a woman's ability to "work hard" is just not true. In the example I give above, the woman was hardly able to work during her pregnancy at all and may not be able to continue working afterward. While I support the choice that she made to have her baby, that choice impacted a lot more people than just her and her family. It impacted an entire department of a major corporation. Some women would be comfortable making that same choice, some would not. As long as abortion remains legal, however, it is still a choice.
You can always find an exception to anything, like your example.
But most pregnancies and most pregnant women have no trouble working hard. Pregnancy doesn't make you weak.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

I think parenthood should be consensual. The law has no place in requiring people to do anything for anyone else.

reply from: deannat

If women are young and healthy, then yes. Working while pregnant should not be an issue. When I was pregnant with my daughter I worked right up until I went into labor. My water broke while I was sitting at my desk!! I was 28 years old, the healthiest I've ever been in my life, and scared silly of losing my job if I took any time off.
However, the "exception" happens more often than you might think, especially for women over the age of 35. Every pregnant woman I've known or worked with in that age group has had to face health issues that impacted her ability to keep up a normal work schedule. One woman I worked with in a previous job was in her late 30s when complications with her pregnancy forced her to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave. How many people are prepared to go that long without a paycheck?I have a friend in her early 40's who gave birth to her first child two years ago. She had some serious complications with high blood pressure and water rentention. She's still not able to go back to work full time, and probably won't as long as her employer allows her to keep the current arrangement. She goes into the office for staff meetings one day a week and telecommutes for 6 hours a day the rest of the week. On the plus side, the arrangement gives her a lot more time with her baby. I wish I could get that kind of deal.

reply from: ProInformed

IF the real reason most women aborted was because they would not be able to easily work right up to the moment of birth then Lolita's excuse for justifying killing babies before birth might be somewhat relevent...
But the in reality very few women work right up to the moment of birth, and very few women abort for that particular reason. Why ignore the facts that there is such a thing as maternity leave, not all pregnant women are working women, not all aborting women are working women, and when asked most aborting women do not state this particular reason for killing their baby (except for maybe when they are frantically trying to come up with more excuses to defedn the abortion industry).
And anyway, how does the difficulty of being both pregnant and working factor into Lolita's defense of killing or neglecting to death newborn babies?
AND if females ONLY have sex when they are in a committed relationship with the father of the baby, a pregnant woman's ability to work HARD wouldn't really be that relevent would it? Males who love the mother's of their baby would work harder themselves and/or take on a second job, or at least use NFP to delay becoming parents, so that their wife would not have to do hard physical labor jobs period - let alone while pregnant. When females refrain from having sex with males who don't care about them enough to grow up and actually be willing to take care of them and their baby when needed, then what do they expect?

reply from: xnavy

i have a co worker who gave birth in her early 40's to a beautiful baby boy and she
worked up almost to the day of birth and she is still working here and she is still in
perfect health.

reply from: TinkNPink2009

This man is a cold blooded murderer. Someday he will stand before the LOrd Jesus Christ and will be punished for his hanis crimes.

reply from: ProInformed

A 'hero"? Nope.
"Vilis Kruze was a former SS officer who after the war worked as an abortionist for Kaiser Permenente in Ohio and Hawaii. It seems you can take the doctor out of the killing camp, but you can't take the killing camp out of the doctor."

reply from: ProInformed

Twenty-five years ago, when Kanwaljeet Anand was a medical resident in a neonatal
intensive care unit, his tiny patients, many of them preterm infants, were often
wheeled out of the ward and into an operating room. He soon learned what to expect
on their return. The babies came back in terrible shape: their skin was gray, their
breathing shallow, their pulses weak. Anand spent hours stabilizing their vital signs,
increasing their oxygen supply and administering insulin to balance their blood sugar.
"What's going on in there to make these babies so stressed?" Anand wondered.
Breaking with hospital practice, he wrangled permission to follow his patients into the
O.R. "That's when I discovered that the babies were not getting anesthesia," he
recalled recently. Infants undergoing major surgery were receiving only a paralytic
to keep them still. Anand's encounter with this practice occurred at John Radcliffe
Hospital in Oxford, England, but it was common almost everywhere. Doctors were
convinced that newborns' nervous systems were too immature to sense pain, and
that the dangers of anesthesia exceeded any potential benefits.

reply from: ProInformed

Pro-Choice Protestor Assaults Pro-Life Advocates 02/05/01
Santa Cruz, CA -- A pro-abortion man was arrested Saturday on suspicion of battery against pro-life advocates.
A 37-year-old man named James Wilson was arrested after he allegedly punched and kicked two members of Voice For Life, a pro-life group protesting in front of the Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center abortion facility in Santa Cruz, California.
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office said Wilson also brandished a knife and told one protester he was going to stab him. Wilson was arrested on suspicion of battery and brandishing a knife, both misdemeanors.
San Jose Mercury News; February 5, 2001

reply from: ProInformed

A documented incident in Los Angeles several years ago showed that Frank Mandiola called several abortion clinics and pro-choice leaders -- including himself -- with bomb threats. When caught, he was presented by the newspaper as being a poor confused dear who had caused a lot of problems but whose heart was in the right place, since he was wanting to have the media come down harder on prolifers. The idea that this was a slander against prolifers didn't occur to the court or to the reporter. To the contrary, the reporter was quick to say there was some truth in what he was doing, since the media had paid attention in other parts of the country. (Los Angeles Times, December 10, 1987).
So in other words, the media seems to think that it's ok for pro-choicers to lie about pro-lifers, and to claim that they are being threatened when they are not. Can anyone imagine what would happen if a pro-lifer pulled this kind of stunt?

reply from: ProInformed

Associated Press
New Jersey -- A federal law aimed at protecting abortion supporters from threats and violence must also be used to protect pro-life supporters, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
A Hasbrouck Heights woman who received death threats because she helped women with pregnancy counseling and prenatal assistance won the landmark ruling when U.S. District Judge Maryanne Trump Barry said she deserved the same protection against violence the federal government guarantees to employees of abortion facilities.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was enacted in 1994 in response to a rising number of attacks at abortion facilities. It bans all use of threats, blockades, and other violence at these sites.
Janet Greenhut's civil case marks the first time pro-life supporters have used the law against someone on the pro-abortion side, legal experts said.
The case centered on two midnight telephone calls Greenhut received in January 1995, when, as a volunteer for Birthright of Maywood, she provided helpful pregnancy counseling and drove young pregnant women to prenatal appointments. A pro-abortion woman left this message: "Janet, get your pro-lifers away from our clinics or we will kill you," according to police transcripts.
The woman called back later: "You will be killed," the transcript said.
The caller, Alice Hand, an abortion advocate who volunteered at a Suffern, N.Y., abortion facility, also threatened the life of another Birthright worker in Nanuet, N.Y., as well as a priest in Suffern, according to police records.
Hand pleaded guilty to harassment and making terroristic threats and was sentenced to probation, Teich said. Officers said they did not believe she planned to carry out any of the threats.
Greenhut wasn't satisfied with the conviction. She pressed the civil case in federal court because she wanted to prove a point: She wanted the same protection that abortion proponents have received under the law.
"A lot of the pro-abortionists are capable of inducing terror and I was truly terrorized by what she did," she said.
Barry agreed, awarding Greenhut $5,000 for each of the two phone calls. "For the first time, FACE is being invoked to penalize threats directed against a pro-life volunteer," Barry wrote in her decision. Barry ruled that it should also include programs that offer alternatives to abortion.
"When we brought this suit, the most common reaction was, 'The law doesn't apply to pro-lifers.' We have proven them wrong," said Russell J. Passamano, Greenhut's attorney. "Pro-lifers are threatened all the time," he said. "They need protection from this violence."

reply from: ProInformed

GUNMAN THREATENS PEACEFUL PROLIFERS AT CLINIC
Pro-life activists picketing an abortion clinic in Aurora were threatened on March 21 1998 as an abortion rights supporter drew a gun after asking if a pro-lifer holding a sign depicting an aborted child was "ready to die." Police arrested Justin Jordan after receiving his license plate number from the pro-lifers and he turned over the gun to police. Most local media outlets chose to ignore the story.
After yelling threats at various demonstrators from his car, the abortion rights supporter called out to activist Randy Means carrying a sign showing Baby Malachi, ordering him to take the sign away. When Means failed to comply, the driver then asked Means if he were afraid to die to which means responded "No, I am here in the service of my Lord and I have him as my Savior." The assailant then drew a Colt 45 and aimed it at Means saying, "Are you sure you are ready to die?" After keeping the gun aimed at Means for some time he drove off.
For more information contact Dennis Duehning dduehning@ameritech.net

reply from: ProInformed

A 35-year-old woman was arrested in Huntsville, Alabama and charged with murdering 51-year-old Jerry Simon, a minister who had been co-hosting with his wife a daily radio program and who was very active in the pro-life movement. Police were held at bay by pro-choice activist Eileen Orstein Janezic, the alleged killer, for six hours.
World, Sept. 18, 1993.

reply from: ProInformed

ABORTION CLINIC OWNER, SUSPECTED ARSONIST, ADMITS FRAUD
By Paul Likoudis
The Wanderer
Thursday, December 3, 1998
Right in the middle of a coordinated media campaign to vilify America's pro-life citizens as bombers, arsonists, and murderers, a Miami businessman pleaded guilty Oct. 28th in federal court in Trenton, N.J., to committing insurance fraud and authorizing unsafe medical practices at an abortion facility he owned here.
Alan I. Weisberg, who will be sentenced on Jan. 29th, could face up to one year in jail and fines equal to double the amount for which he bilked five insurance companies and health maintenance organizations.
Weiselberg, who remains the prime suspect in the April 22nd, 1991 arson of his Woodbridge, N.J. clinic, which caused more than $500,000 worth of damage, was not charged with the arson because the statute of limitations on the blaze had expired.
As local writer Rick Malwitz observed in a Nov. 8th newspaper column: "There was never any evidence that linked the fire to anyone in the pro-life movement, according to persons involved in the investigation."
Nevertheless, the Woodbridge clinic was featured on a map of the United States depicting "anti-abortion violence" - clinic bombings, arsons, and shootings - printed in most mass-circulation magazines and newspapers. The map was provided by the University of Illinois and distributed via Associated Press in the aftermath of the slaying of Buffalo abortionist Barnett Slepian.
"However," continued Malwitz, "when investigators looked at the operation of the clinic, they found violations potentially more serious than an arson with no injuries." Agents from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, continued Malwitz, "discovered illegal medical procedures, including the reuse of instruments that were intended to be discarded after each abortion procedure."
When a pre-dawn fire destroyed the abortion facility, pro-abortion zealots in the state immediately blamed violent pro-lifers for the blaze.
The head of New Jersey Right to Choose screamed that it was the work of "religious zealots." "This is like Hitler." said an outraged clinic employee. And not to be outdone, New Jersey's then- Gov. Jim Florio announced, "None of us can be silent in the face of such purposeful violence."

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Your mom should have utilized the services of your hero when she was pregnant with you.
Then this doctor would be considered my hero.
So much for being pro-life. hah!

reply from: kayluvzchoice

She is having fun at our expense so I decided to have a little fun. This is after all who they consider their hero, someone that could have easily ended their life.
Why do you assume every person who helps with abortion is a pro-choicers hero? If I had a hero it certainly would not be a random doctor.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Are you more concerned about him saying something hypocritical or more concerned about him thinking something that is hypocritical?

reply from: sheri

My primary concern was that someone would read it and think that it was a serious pro-life responce. You are right it is crazy to think this bad man could be anyones hero, even slave ship captins had enough brains to know they were devils, yould think after killing babies for so many years he would be a little more self aware then that.

reply from: Teresa18

The irony is that you would have supported Lolita's parents' decision to abort her if they so desired.


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