Home - List All Discussions

silent no more excerpt

for those who have not read the book.

by: galen

link: http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1139/53/

reply from: carolemarie

That was a very sad story. Abortion isn't good for anyone.

reply from: sander

Why do we fight?
This is beyond sad, but it happens everyday. Everyday thousands of babies are butcherd, burned alive, sucked into jars, torn apart from limb to limb.
It has to stop. Dear God, please help us make it stop.

reply from: galen

here you go spinwiddy... tell me there are no complications... that everyone is just crazy anyway... please i want you to.

reply from: 4given

Again.. sad! Immensely sad. I hope this woman reaches far more than the willing to read (us).. I can imagine how excruciating a saline death is. It is my understanding that saline abortions are no longer performed because of the "effect on the mother". Obviously, to not be moved or damaged by the killing ordered.. well I believe one would have to be less than sane.. Sad!

reply from: galen

actually the people who track these things report that although saline abortions are rare they are still preformed by a few die hard believers in this method.
Partial Birth Abortion and Saline Abortion are no more than murder.

reply from: 4given

One of my sources- actually the initial reason I searched was because scarifairy (the abortion clinic worker)claimed they were no longer done and had not been performed for many years.. It was difficult to find a current abortionist that offered to kill a child that way. Die hard, eh? How befitting a term..
I agree obviously. Just as abortifacient death.. any method of abortion- still murder.. so again, I agree..

reply from: galen

try this link... these are the latest #s out right now..
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/04/saline_abortion.html

reply from: 4given

That is sickening.. Thank you for the link. I searched for saline abortion and did not find any recent stats etc... If only I knew to look for "Intrauterine Instillation abortion".. and "prostaglandin" instead of saline only..
1995 - 6,000 (approx) saline abortions
2000 - 3,400 (approx) saline abortions
2002 - 6,800 (approx) saline abortions
2003 - 7,600 (approx) saline abortions
2004 - 4,500 (approx) saline abortions
When it is put in numbers it makes a bit of difference, doesn't it? Now let's break it down further.
In 2004 there were:
375 saline abortions every month
87 saline abortions every week
12 saline abortions every day
Note: The medical term for this procedure is "Intrauterine Instillation abortion" The chemicals used can be consisting of either saline, urea or prostaglandin.
How disgustingly sad!

reply from: galen

here is another link... for the drug urea...
http://www.ashp.org/mngrphs/ahfs/a382513.htm

reply from: nancyu

"Introduction
Urea 40 - 50% injections are hypertonic injections that are used as abortifacients.
Uses
Although not included in the labeling approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the commercially available sterile urea preparation (Ureaphil®), injections of 40 - 50% urea are used by transabdominal intra-amniotic instillation†, in conjunction with continuous IV infusion of oxytocin, to induce abortion late in the second trimester of pregnancy (beyond the 16th week of gestation). Continuous IV infusion of dilute solutions of oxytocin is usually used in conjunction with intra-amniotic hypertonic urea† to shorten the induction-to-abortion time and decrease the incidence of failures. Intra-amniotic dinoprost tromethamine (no longer commercially available in the US) and laminaria tents also have been used as adjuncts to hypertonic urea for these purposes. The mean induction-to-abortion time following administration of usual dosages of intra-amniotic urea† (see Dosage and Administration) with IV oxytocin in second trimester pregnancies is 18 - 30 hours; abortion occurs in about 80% of patients within 76 hours.
When abortion fails to occur, the presence of uterine malformations or abnormalities (e.g., extrauterine pregnancy, ovarian cyst) should be considered; surgical intervention may be necessary. Oxytocin also has been used to induce abortion when the patient has failed to abort within 24 - 36 hours of urea and dinoprost administration. Additional infusion of dilute oxytocin solution or curettage may be used if the placenta fails to abort spontaneously within 1 hour after delivery of the fetus; however, some clinicians maintain that oxytocin may hinder, rather than assist in, expulsion of the placenta. Because concurrent use of urea and oxytocin may produce uterine contractions of such intensity that cervical laceration may be more likely to occur, patients should be carefully monitored.
For inducing second trimester abortions between the 12th and 16th week of gestation, most clinicians recommend dilatation and evacuation or intravaginal dinoprostone. Because the amount of amniotic fluid is small in relation to the size of the fetus and uterus between the 12th and 16th week of gestation, amniocentesis and subsequent intra-amniotic instillation of hypertonic urea may be difficult and technical failure may result. However, abortion should not be deferred until after the 16th week for purposes of administering intra-amniotic abortifacients.
Although some clinicians recommend dilatation and evacuation or, as a second choice, hypertonic abortifacients for abortions beyond the 16th week of gestation, other clinicians have preferred intra-amniotic dinoprost tromethamine, but the latter agent is no longer commercially available in the US. One multicenter study showed that when inducing second trimester abortions beyond 16-weeks' gestation, dilatation and evacuation was associated with a lower incidence of major complications than were the intra-amniotic abortion methods; however, these results may reflect the fact that physicians performing dilatation and evacuation procedures in this study were more skilled than are most physicians performing such procedures. Conflicting reports have shown that, when used for abortion beyond 16-weeks' gestation, the incidence of major complications with intra-amniotic dinoprost was greater than or less than intra-amniotic instillation of 20% sodium chloride injection. In addition, the fact that prostaglandin abortifacients, unlike hypertonic abortifacients, are not feticidal and some live births may occur late in the second trimester should be considered. Although use of intra-amniotic urea† (augmented with IV oxytocin) is associated with higher failure rates and longer induction-to-abortion times than is intra-amniotic hypertonic sodium chloride, some clinicians believe hypertonic urea may produce a lower incidence of life-threatening adverse effects and may be safer than hypertonic sodium chloride in high-risk patients (i.e., those with cardiac, renal, or hypertensive disease).
For information on the osmotic diuretic and topical uses of urea see Urea 40:28.12 and 84:28, respectively.
Dosage and Administration
Although not included in the labeling approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the commercially available sterile urea preparation (Ureaphil®), injections of 40 - 50% urea are administered intra-amniotically†. Care must be taken to ensure that the drug is administered directly into the amniotic fluid.
To prepare intra-amniotic hypertonic urea injection†, a sufficient volume of 5% dextrose injection is added to 80 g of lyophilized urea (2 commercially available vials) to make 150 or 200 mL of reconstituted solution providing approximately 50% (500 mg/mL) or 40% (400 mg/mL) urea solutions, respectively.
After performing a transabdominal tap of the amniotic sac, at least 1 mL of amniotic fluid is withdrawn and the nature of the fluid is determined. Amniotic fluid can be identified by its pH (7.4) and its ability to fern. If the fluid contains blood or if no amniotic fluid is obtained, the needle should be repositioned. All amniotic fluid (usually 30 - 250 mL) should then be removed to prevent sudden increases in intra-amniotic pressure when hypertonic urea is instilled and to ensure an adequate intra-amniotic concentration of urea. A solution of 40 - 50% urea, in volumes equal to the amount of amniotic fluid removed or a maximum of 200 - 250 mL (usually a total of about 80 g of urea), is then administered slowly over a period of 20 - 30 minutes while observing the patient for signs and symptoms that may indicate that the drug is not being administered into the amniotic fluid.(See Cautions: Precautions and Contraindications.) If adverse reactions occur at any time during administration of the drug, it should be discontinued and the condition of the patient and placement of the needle or catheter evaluated. Concurrent IV infusion of a dilute solution of oxytocin usually is started within 1 - 2 hours of urea instillation, generally at a rate of 10 - 100 milliunits/minute. An additional 80 g of urea may be instilled after 48 hours if uterine contractility, cervical effacement, and/or cervical dilation are inadequate or if the membranes are still intact and abortion does not appear imminent.
In patients who fail to respond to the second dose of hypertonic urea, additional IV infusion of a dilute solution of oxytocin or dilatation and evacuation may be used.
Cautions
Adverse Effects
The most frequent adverse reactions of intra-amniotic urea are nausea and vomiting. Headaches and, rarely, diarrhea also may occur.
Cervical laceration and perforation have occurred during hypertonic urea-induced abortion. These effects have occurred in primigravida patients and in those receiving concomitant IV oxytocin and intra-amniotic hypertonic urea. Placentas may be retained in some patients undergoing abortion with hypertonic urea; when abortion is delayed, the risk of retained placenta with resultant hemorrhage, fever, and infection, including endometritis, is increased.
Coagulation changes, including decreases in platelet counts and levels of fibrinogen, have occurred following intra-amniotic instillation of hypertonic urea but less frequently than with hypertonic sodium chloride. The risk of hemorrhage caused by coagulation defects is virtually nonexistent, but a mild, asymptomatic, self-limiting form of disseminated intravascular coagulation occurs rarely in patients receiving intra-amniotic hypertonic urea.
Precautions and Contraindications
Intra-amniotic instillation of 40 - 50% urea injection should be performed only by physicians trained in amniocentesis, in a hospital where intensive care and surgical facilities are immediately available. Patients should be informed of the benefits and risks of hypertonic urea-induced abortions. A complete medical history and physical examination should be performed prior to administration of the drug.
When amniocentesis and subsequent intra-amniotic instillation of hypertonic urea are performed correctly, systemic absorption of urea is minimized and there is little risk of systemic effects. However, normal patients should take oral fluids freely during the procedure to prevent dehydration and facilitate urea excretion. Accidental intravascular, myometrial, or intraperitoneal injection of 40 - 50% urea solutions may produce myometrial necrosis and/or dehydration with secondary vomiting, hyponatremia, and hypokalemia or hyperkalemia. Intra-amniotic instillation of hypertonic urea is usually painless; therefore, instillation of the drug should be discontinued immediately if the patient complains of symptoms, such as lower abdominal pain, that may indicate the drug is not being administered into the amniotic fluid. Early signs of electrolyte depletion, such as muscle weakness or lethargy, may indicate the need for electrolyte supplementation before laboratory determinations confirm reduction of serum electrolyte concentrations. Patients receiving intra-amniotic urea should be monitored for signs of fluid and electrolyte imbalance and appropriate IV fluids should be infused if necessary.
Patients with cervical laceration with resultant retention of the placenta and severe hemorrhage may require blood transfusions. These hazards can be minimized by not administering urea to patients with a history of pelvic adhesions or pelvic surgery resulting in through-and-through uterine incisions. Because cervical trauma can occur without symptoms, each patient should be carefully examined after the abortion is completed to detect any cervical injuries.
Induction of abortion with intra-amniotic hypertonic urea is contraindicated in patients with severely impaired renal function (e.g., oliguric or uremic patients), frank liver failure, active intracranial bleeding, marked dehydration, or with major systemic disorders (e.g., diabetes mellitus, sickle cell anemia).
Drug Interactions
In one study, aspirin, in doses of 600 mg given with and once every 6 hours after instilling urea intra-amniotically, increased the normal intra-amniotic urea induction-to-abortion time in primigravida patients.
Pharmacology
Intra-amniotic instillation of 40 - 50% urea injection induces abortion and fetal death. (by nancyu: why won't they just say it kills the baby?) Although the mechanism has not been conclusively determined, some studies indicate that the drug's abortifacient activity may be mediated by prostaglandins released from decidual cells damaged by hypertonic solutions of urea. Hypertonic urea, in conjunction with continuous IV infusion of oxytocin, usually produces contractions sufficient to cause evacuation of both the fetus and placenta; however, abortion may be incomplete in 30 - 40% of patients.
Pharmacokinetics
Following intra-amniotic administration of 40 - 50% urea injection, about 10% of the drug diffuses rapidly into the maternal blood. Urea is distributed into maternal extracellular and intracellular fluids including lymph, bile, CSF, and blood in approximately equal concentrations. Following intra-amniotic instillation of 80 g of urea for midtrimester abortion, maximum mean BUN concentrations of 33 - 38 mg/dL occur within 4 hours, but BUN concentrations return to normal within 24 hours. The drug is excreted by the kidneys.
Chemistry and Stability
Chemistry
Urea, the diamide of carbonic acid, occurs as colorless to white, prismatic crystals or as a white, crystalline powder. The drug is freely soluble in water and soluble in alcohol and has a cooling, saline, unpleasant taste; it is practically odorless but may gradually develop a slight ammoniacal odor on long standing. Sterile urea is a lyophilized powder containing citric acid buffer; sodium hydroxide may be added to adjust the pH. Hypertonic injections used as abortifacients usually contain 40 - 50% urea and have a pH of 7 - 7.5. When reconstituted with 5% dextrose injection, a 40 or 50% urea solution has a calculated osmolarity of 6920 or 8586 mOsm/L, respectively.
The endothermic reaction which occurs on dissolution of urea may prolong reconstitution time. To shorten the reconstitution time, the diluent may be warmed in a water bath to a temperature of 60°C immediately before mixing with urea; the reconstituted urea solution should be at body temperature for administration.
Stability
Solutions of urea are unstable and cannot be sterilized by heat. Upon standing, heating, or exposure to acids or alkalies, urea is hydrolyzed to ammonia and carbon dioxide. Reconstituted solutions should be used within a few hours if stored at room temperature and within 48 hours if stored at 2 - 8°C...."
I don't completely understand all the technical language, but what I do understand sounds pretty frightening and horrible.
(to the women considering abortion: Just have a baby, why don't you? They're cute and cuddly and they grow up in the blink of an eye. Doesn't it sound so much better than this?)

reply from: sander

First best option, if not, please consider adoption. Mother doesn't get hurt, baby doesn't get hurt, only the abortionists checkbook.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Some women have crappy abortions. Some women have crappy babies. It has little effect on the issue at large.

reply from: galen

and why do you feel this way... because almost no one else does.. certainly not the women/ families who have to deal with the complications.
BTW some people also have a crappy attitude twards life in general... unless they are independantly wealthy hermits... it means they have a lonely life also.

reply from: sander

"Crappy babies" are a figment of your twisted mind and the lies you've bought hook, line and sinker.
Did something fall on your head? How can someone possibly think of an innocent baby the way you did...don't answser that, I all ready know the answer.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

"Crappy babies" are a figment of your twisted mind and the lies you've bought hook, line and sinker.
Did something fall on your head? How can someone possibly think of an innocent baby the way you did...don't answser that, I all ready know the answer.
Not all babies are perfect, don't you know. Some of them cry and scream all day and night. Some get awful diaper rash. Some are sick a lot. Some grow up to be serial killers.

reply from: sander

"Crappy babies" are a figment of your twisted mind and the lies you've bought hook, line and sinker.
Did something fall on your head? How can someone possibly think of an innocent baby the way you did...don't answser that, I all ready know the answer.
Not all babies are perfect, don't you know. Some of them cry and scream all day and night. Some get awful diaper rash. Some are sick a lot. Some grow up to be serial killers.
And some grow up to be serial abortionists and abortion supporters too, but that's still no excuse to murder the child.
Something did fall on your head. Seek some help for that. There could be a cure, unless that something missed your head and landed on your heart.

reply from: 4given

Lolita likes attention. I can't believe anyone actually speaks and thinks like this.. She just likes the attention she thinks she will receive from it..

reply from: sander

No dobut she's starved for attention. And maybe a little oxygen, something's messing up her mind!

reply from: nancyu

"Crappy babies" are a figment of your twisted mind and the lies you've bought hook, line and sinker.
Did something fall on your head? How can someone possibly think of an innocent baby the way you did...don't answser that, I all ready know the answer.
Not all babies are perfect, don't you know. Some of them cry and scream all day and night. Some get awful diaper rash. Some are sick a lot. Some grow up to be serial killers.
And some grow up to be serial abortionists and abortion supporters too, but that's still no excuse to murder the child.
Something did fall on your head. Seek some help for that. There could be a cure, unless that something missed your head and landed on your heart.
CP you have to admit this comment beat your hands down! Come on now, lighten up. We're all on the same side, are we not?

reply from: Teresa18

That story really got to me. The mixture of anger, sadness, and disgust I felt made it hard to make it through.
Lolita is saying what the abortion industry/radical pro-aborts think but won't say because people would realize how twisted abortion is. Luckily for us, she's revealing true colors and doing more harm than good.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Well, it's her body. What's next? Rape is only illegal if the victim can think of a good reason they didn't want the rapist having sex with them?

reply from: Antibigot

I don't think there is such a thing as "crappy babies." They do NOT purposely hurt anyone.

reply from: Antibigot

"Crappy babies" are a figment of your twisted mind and the lies you've bought hook, line and sinker.
Did something fall on your head? How can someone possibly think of an innocent baby the way you did...don't answser that, I all ready know the answer.
Not all babies are perfect, don't you know. Some of them cry and scream all day and night. Some get awful diaper rash. Some are sick a lot. Some grow up to be serial killers.
Babies ARE innocent. Babies are supposed to cry and scream, etc. That's what all babies do. They do not do these things on purpose. Your last sentence seems out of place. What does it have to do with babies?

reply from: yoda

Babies ARE innocent. Babies are supposed to cry and scream, etc. That's what all babies do. They do not do these things on purpose. Your last sentence seems out of place. What does it have to do with babies?
When you're trying to stretch credibility far enough to justify killing innocent babies, you have to throw everything, even the kitchen sink into the fray.
Babies poop, pee, and cry a lot..... what a revelation!

reply from: sander

I saw a little T-shirt once that said, "I drink my moo, I do my poo and that's all I do"
Guess lowlita would have been shocked!

reply from: ProInformed

Lowlita: "Some women have crappy abortions. Some women have crappy babies. It has little effect on the issue at large."
Some 'people' have crap for brains and souls so they just don't care.
You have consistently proven that you are a serious sicko Lowlita.
You and those like you are the dirty little secrets of the 'pro-choice' movement.
You reveal that defending abortion has nothing to do with caring about women, that you're just plain ole insane and cruel.

reply from: GratiaPlena

I love how Lolita says "crappy babies" like they're some kind of store product or something and not human beings.

reply from: ProInformed

I agree:
"Lolita is saying what the abortion industry/radical pro-aborts think but won't say because people would realize how twisted abortion is. Luckily for us, she's revealing true colors and doing more harm than good."
And there are a lot of Lowlita's online spewing the same sort of insanely hateful garbage Lowlita posts. I think it's great that the abortion industry can't muzzle 'em LOL. I'm betting if she sent a 'pro-choice' group a sample of her online postings, they'd probably pay her to STOP posting LOL. So much for the myth that all 'pro-choicers' are supposedly concerned, responsible folks... So much for the expensive ad campaigns the abortion industry pays for to try to present a positive spin on what they do. Lowlita's 'help' makes all that money they spend on PR a waste, eh?
I still think that most of her family and friends would be appalled if she showed them what she posts online. The dudette is in serious need of some counseling!

reply from: LolitaOlivia

I'm not saying anything to hurt my movement. There are dozens of other pro-choicers here, and none of them have ever expressed any concerns over my posts. In fact, some of them have asked for my opinion on their posts.
The pro-choice movement has done a lot of good for a lot of women and children.
I'm perfectly alright in the head. Not so sure about you. And some of my friends are on this site (trying to offend you lol) as well as my fiancee and sister-in-law who've checked out my posts.

reply from: sander

Dozens, really? Care to name names?
They've done nothing but murder over 50 million children...that's only good if you have a death wish for the most defensless.
And in the process their practices have increased breast cancer victims, to name just one vile outcome of murdering their own children.
Is there anyone in your "group" over the age of nine? No doubt their IQ's are that of younger children.

reply from: galen

i've noticed that lolita has absolutely no power to argue with me... why is this?
Are you scared? or do you understand how defenseless your position really is.

reply from: yoda

She has no intention of "debating", apparently. She seems to be a hit and run artist who can only spout proabort slogans and then disappear.

reply from: galen

i wonder what motivations Lolita is hiding in her past that make her so passionate... even kay admits she would probably not have an abortion... Lolita seems hell bent on doing the deed as soon as possible just because she can..

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Well, it's her body. What's next? Rape is only illegal if the victim can think of a good reason they didn't want the rapist having sex with them?
You just don't get it, do you? If it was just "her body," few would find reason to object! Every woman is free to do as she pleases with her body as far as I'm concerned, provided her choice does not involve harming another human being!
My point is quite simple, really. You and I have done this to death already, and I have shown that the arguments you make for abortion are meaningless. They are the product of your attempts to justify your position, and it took very little effort to show that you are insincere in all your rationalizations. Your bottom line has been exposed. You argue points that are irrelevant top your position simply for show. The only thing that matters to you is that, being a woman, women are allowed to go so far as to kill to get what they want, at least where their offspring are concerned. Like I said, you believe that no more justification is needed than your desire to be rid of your child, and all your rationalizations are just so much fluff....
But doesn't the fact that it's her body give her the right to decide what's inside it? Shouldn't a woman be able to decide what lives in her body? Why should she be forced to house something in her body when she doesn't want it there? Of course the only rationalization necessary is her desire to be rid of it! Why does a woman need some kind of reason to decide she doesn't want something living in her uterus?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

It's already there, yes, but what if she doesn't want it there? What if she doesn't want to have something living inside her? Shouldn't a woman have the right to decide what goes on inside her own body?
Fine, what if a woman who's childfree decides not to have sex ever, and goes through life saying no to everyone who offers, but gets raped and ends up pregnant? Should she be allowed an abortion? She certainly didn't make any kind of choice that she thought might lead to pregnancy.
It is within her rights to evict something that entered her body and is using it if she doesn't want it there.
So woman just loose their bodies when they get pregnant? They can't decide what to do with their own reproductive organs? The government has the right to make you let someone use your uterus as a home?

reply from: sander

Good grief! "It" is a human being who didn't "enter" her body of his or her own free will! You make it sound like there's a bunch of loose babies invading women's uteres without consent of the woman!
She gave her implied consent by having sex. Period.

reply from: carolemarie

I really do understand that some women don't want to be pregnant at that particular time in their lives, for whatever reason they have. I do understand and sympathize.
But just because things suck doesn't mean killing the baby is a good idea. Some times, you have to suck it up and deal with the consequences you set in motion. If you are having sex with people you don't want to have kids with, then you set in motion the chance that you will end up pregnant. Women are suppose to be smart enough to figure that out.
What about that little persons body? What about their rights to live, to have a name to fall in love to walk in the sun? What gives you or me the right to decide that their life doesn't matter as much as our own?
These are reasonable questions to ask yourself...and the truth DOES set you free. Making a wrong choice is one thing. Continuing to support it to make yourself feel better is setting up other women to fall victim to a deceptive lie.
You can't hate the loss of life in a war, yet advocate the killing of people to make your life easier.
You seem intelligent and bright and I think you know the truth. I will pray for you to find the courage to claim your voice. And I can understand how admitting you were wrong on this forum would be foolish, since so many would be mean. But you need to admit it to yourself. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger!
Carolemarie

reply from: sander

Like we were mean to Teddybear? CP was the only one who questioned her turn around and faramir chimed in, so I think the term "many" is an exaggeration to say the least.
Anyone who comes to terms with the horrors of abortion and turns around is welcomed and applauded.

reply from: galen

i have to agree with CM on this point..there are some here who will always use abortion to point out where someone else is wrong and they are right.. i think it makes them feel morally superior.. to me it shows a lack of compassion and a lack of common sense.
As for the question of rape.
When I was raped i was sorely tempted to have an abortion , by many well meaning people who tried to influence me. what it came down to was this.. my son was a human being... and as i had the right not to be raped ( but was) i had it in my power NOT to inflict the same devistation and horror that was inflicted upon me. The fact that he is the joy of my soul has helped me put that trajedy behinde me and gave me the courage and strength to go on with my life. It made me a better person, and he helped me see the good side of things.
In my counseling of women who have gone through abortion after rape, i have seen all too clearly how hard it is to admit the pain you feel and doubly so when you fell violated a second time by the doctor that was supposed to be there for you and help you. Make no mistake.. i have yet to meet an abortionist who took a rape victim and treated her any diffrently than any other patient seeking an abortion. even when that doctor knew her circumstances. When doing a rape exam it is paramount that you treat the victim with respect and comfort. invaribly such an intimate exam feels like another violation. To undergo an abortion is often seen by the psyche as not a way to bury / get rid of a problem, but as yet another attack. when you say abortion after rape please be sure you know of what you speak, I have met far too many women who took this option only to regret thier 'choice' 10/ 20/ 30/ 40 years later.

reply from: sander

Not on this board.
That's just not true.
How can you discount Teddybear, unless you're one of them that doesn't believe she's for real?

reply from: faithman

The lack of compassion and common sense is the complete domain of false pro-lifers who would fight personhood if it meant baby killers met justice. That is saying we should have "compassion" for the guilty, at the expence of the innocent. That kind of false compassion comes at to high a price. The price being, perverting scripture, justice, and throwing the womb child under the "feelings" bus of baby killing moms. That is not "mean", or "vengful" that is just simple fact. We will see the false ones fall by the way side, and actually become enemies of the womb child by opposing equality thru personhood. Only those who have been true at the beginning, will be there at the end. The only reason I pick on the phonies, is to show personhood advocates the enemy within the gate. Most are part of personality cults that mascruade as "ministry", but actually produce spiritually sick co-dependant relationships. You will not be able to directly deal with these types in real time. As seen on this forum, way to many are ruled by emotion, and actually defend the wolf in sheeps clothing. Let the compromisers do what they will. Up to a point, they may even be a help. But just remember, they are full of personal agenda, care more about themselves than the womb child, and will eventually betray your trust, and the cause of womb life. You are setting yourself up for a big bucket of hurt, and disapointment if you think the phonies really care at all. They only use "pro-life" as a platform to promote themselves, their agendas, and "ministries". They could really care less if the babies die, as long as they can make a living off of the cottage industry, that is supported by baby blood just as much as a planned parenthood abortion mill.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Implied consent? Unless she told the embryo it could come in or signed some sort of document, she didn't consent. That's like saying by refusing to lock my door I'm giving implied consent for people to come in.
You can't ignore that the fetus cannot survive without the woman's body. If the woman died, it would too. So what if it's already there? So if someone's already having sex with a woman, that means she can't make him stop? And it is self-defense, because pregnancy still carries a risk of death in America and when someone is putting your life, your health, and your lifestyle at risk without your permission, you have the right to make them stop.
But the woman doesn't either. Very few woman who seek abortions planned their pregnancies. It's not her intention to kill it, just to get it out of her body and her life. If there was a way to remove it easily without killing it, most women would pick that over abortion.
But, the fact of the matter is, it's inside her body, and unless she kills it it will stay there whether she likes it or not. SO, it is a matter of deciding what's inside her body.
Absolutely not, consenting to sex is not consenting to become pregnant and stay that way for nine months. What I'm saying is that most of your arguments rest on the idea that the woman put it inside her so there it should stay. So, even if you were right (which you're not), what would be the case if she had no role in it getting conceived? Would you support abortion in that case?
It doesn't mean to intrude, but it is an intruder. It comes into her body without permission.
But what if not "harming another" would require for you to house them in your body for nine months?
But what if harming them is the only way to remove something you don't want from inside you?
So what if your doctor cuts out your womb and, without intentionally harming the fetus, it just dies from being cut off from the woman?
So why does the government care if you remove a fetus from your own body? Or what if a woman needs an emergency c-section but doesn't want one? Would the government then be able to "interfere" and force her to undergo an unnatural medical procedure?
All pregnancies have risk, and are pretty much guaranteed to be painful near the ends. Protecting anyone from harming the mother (including the child) would require allowing her to have a legal abortion to protect herself for any harm pregnancy could cause her body.
Pregnancies aren't terminated to kill anything. They're terminated so the woman doesn't have to be pregnant anymore. If the child happens to die in the process, so be it.
I have a lot of doubts about teddybear. I doubt she was ever pro-choice and I doubt a lot of the things she says. I think she's probably faithman or CP in disguise.

reply from: sander

Your inability to grasp fundamental, biological truths, perhaps is what is causing you to stumble.
There are no babies on the loose envading women's uteruses. The women PUT the baby their with the help of a male partner.
Your refuting example is a straw man.
Our bodies are not buildings. All but the case of rape, a woman has CONSENTED to take the risk of becoming pregnant...no foreign invaders, just her own free will is involved.
The only way you can remain a strident supporter of murder is to remain blind to the biological fact that "anything" isn't killed, that "anything" has been de-humanized, but it still will NEVER take away from the biological fact that this "anything" is a tiny human being.
You doubt Teddybear because it pains you to believe that someone could come to their senses and illustrate that you condone MURDER of a helpless human being.
You'll just have to get over it. Thousands of women have joined Teddybear's remarkable turn around.

reply from: galen

hey Lucy this bump is for you!

reply from: yoda

Or.... because that's really one of Fartboy's many trolls.....

reply from: carolemarie

Can you answer this question?
What are women pregnant with?
Carolemarie

reply from: LolitaOlivia

A zygote, embryo, or fetus depending on how far along she is.

reply from: carolemarie

Very good!
Are they alive?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Of course. But a lot of things are alive.

reply from: carolemarie

These zygote, embryo, or fetus - are they human and if not when do they become human? I mean when do you consider them human...

reply from: faithman

Why are you asking? you agree with the baby killers that they come in second to murderous mommy's feelings. You don't really believe the womb child to be a person equal in value to all persons, or you wouldn't have vowed to fight for the womb child's equality.

reply from: yoda

Why are you asking? .
I don't know "why", but I think they are excellent questions and I'm glad she asked them. We all need to answer them.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Yes, they have human dna.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Oh, please! It would be more analogous to abortion to say you dragged a person into your house, then killed them. If you just leave the door open, that doesn't cause someone to be in your house. Having sex is not analogous to simply "leaving the door open," it actually causes the child to exist within your womb, and unlike an intruder who enters of his/her own volition through an unlocked door, the child has no say in the matter whatsoever...
Unless your actively intending to get pregnant, there's no difference. By having sex, you're doing something that "opens the door" to the possibility of getting pregnant, but every time you have sex you won't get pregnant, and every time you have sex you probably don't intend to.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Oh, please! It would be more analogous to abortion to say you dragged a person into your house, then killed them. If you just leave the door open, that doesn't cause someone to be in your house. Having sex is not analogous to simply "leaving the door open," it actually causes the child to exist within your womb, and unlike an intruder who enters of his/her own volition through an unlocked door, the child has no say in the matter whatsoever...
Unless your actively intending to get pregnant, there's no difference. By having sex, you're doing something that "opens the door" to the possibility of getting pregnant, but every time you have sex you won't get pregnant, and every time you have sex you probably don't intend to.
The fact that you did not want to become pregnant (but chose to willingly participate in an activity you were fully aware carried a strong possibility of causing that condition anyway), does not transfer responsibility for the condition to the child who had no say in any of it, and in fact, did not even exist at the time the decision was made!
The child's no more responsible than the woman, but the fact of the matter is that consenting to have sex is not consenting to get pregnant and remain that way for nine months.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No, but when your body is being used without your consent, you have a right to decide whether or not you want them to keep using it. The woman's right to decide what goes on in her own body should trump the right of the fetus to live. Besides, how do you know it even wants to live? It can't think or speak. For all you know, it could want the mother to abort it.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No, but when your body is being used without your consent, you have a right to decide whether or not you want them to keep using it. The woman's right to decide what goes on in her own body should trump the right of the fetus to live. Besides, how do you know it even wants to live? It can't think or speak. For all you know, it could want the mother to abort it.
So, if I handcuff your hand to mine and lose the key, can I cut your hand off because I decided I don't want you handcuffed to me? Why or why not?
There are lots of neat questions I asked that you seem to be ignoring....
No, because we're in it equally. We're both screwed over and we could both get out of it the same way. Therefor one of us has no more right to cut out than the other. With a pregnancy it's different. One party is being used, the other is using. One must continue to use the other, the other is fine without them.

reply from: sander

ALL proaborts have twisted reasons for killing their own child, but you need to go back to proabort school. The "one party" (a human baby) that is using is there at YOUR invitation!
Refusing to acknowledge that fact only makes you look beyond ignorant and foolish.

reply from: yoda

ALL proaborts have twisted reasons for killing their own child, but you need to go back to proabort school. The "one party" (a human baby) that is using is there at YOUR invitation! Refusing to acknowledge that fact only makes you look beyond ignorant and foolish.
Wow...... what reasoning.......??? I guess we all use each other in one way or another.... hardly anyone is an island to themselves... but to elevate that to a justification for slaughter....????
All the human warmth of a rock at the bottom of a glacier...

reply from: sander

I think she's been watching too much TV. I wonder if anyone has told her the movie, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" was fiction?
And an IQ to match...
She's definiatley one cold son of gun.

reply from: Teresa18

Good debate points, CP. A lot of your points are similar to the ones I would make, so you saved me the time of typing them all out.

reply from: nancyu

Lolita, do you think it is okay to kill any persons, as long as they are dependent on us and too weak to fight back? Or just those that haven't been born yet?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Lolita, do you think it is okay to kill any persons, as long as they are dependent on us and too weak to fight back? Or just those that haven't been born yet?
Any person who uses another's body without consent.

reply from: nancyu

Even if that person didn't consent to using the other's body?

reply from: sander

Nobody has told her the movie, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" was fiction!
Give her a break....where is your choice.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Yes. And if they don't consent to using the other's body, than cutting them off is best for everyone.

reply from: sander

Yes. And if they don't consent to using the other's body, than cutting them off is best for everyone.
No, it actually spells a gruesome death for the baby.
But, why let the murder of the innocent get in the way.
Serial killers of the born have the same mindset.
That's some sick company you keep.

reply from: nancyu

Oh but we mustn't judge, Sander, we don't know what's in her heart!

reply from: sander

Really? Shucks.
Well, there is that scripture that says, "out of the mouth speaks the abundance of the heart"! Guess tweedle dee and tweedle dumb didn't get their white out used on every Bible!

reply from: nancyu

Are you trying to tell me something you think I don't know CP? The point I think you are trying to make is that some people don't care whether or not a child is a person, they will still kill it if they can. BUT if personhood legislation is passed they will not be allowed to do that.
I get it. Do you? Pro abortion people sometimes recognize that an uborn child is a person. This makes them half pro life, just like those who are against abortion but won't support legal person hood are also only half pro life.
Pro abortion/pro personhood
pro life/anti personhood. Neither of these positions makes alot of sense to me. There's not alot of difference between the two, except the former is at least honest about it.

reply from: Faramir

It doesn't make them any more prolife if they recognize personhood but still want abortion to be legal. They are that much further from being prolife than those who say a "clump of cells" is being removed.

reply from: nancyu

You have the thickest skull of any 1/2 human being I have ever encountered. Yes these people are MORE pro life than YOU! Lolita is MORE pro life than YOU!

reply from: galen

--------------------------------
its funny but some of nancy's friends are turning on her... probably because they figured out she has only half a brain...

reply from: galen

Yes. And if they don't consent to using the other's body, than cutting them off is best for everyone.
------------------------------------
Lolita i do hope your children treat you just as well as you've treated them.....

reply from: JesusLovesYou

I've been watching this and I completely agree. CP is not really pro-life. He doesn't seem to care about the babies or making them people so I don't understand why he's pro-life. One of the pro-aborts made some comment about pro-lifers who aren't pro-personhood may be in it because they want to oppress women. I don't know about that, but I certainly think CP is here because he supports big government and abortion laws, not because he cares about babies. I mean, personhood would end the need for many more laws. One amendment for personhood would do everything we need to do at once because babies would be protected and Roe v. Wade would have to be overturned. I don't like "pro-life" politicians who vote for some life laws but won't back personhood. CP is like those politicians. He says he's pro-life, but he's really more concerned about just making laws that only eliminate a few abortions than the big picture. So many babies are dying! I don't care about wasting time making women look at ultrasounds or getting parental consent. That won't save more than a few hundred babies who might've been saved by a good sidewalk counselor anyway. We need to band together and get personhood so we can save all the babies!

reply from: nancyu

I've been watching this and I completely agree. CP is not really pro-life. He doesn't seem to care about the babies or making them people so I don't understand why he's pro-life. One of the pro-aborts made some comment about pro-lifers who aren't pro-personhood may be in it because they want to oppress women. I don't know about that, but I certainly think CP is here because he supports big government and abortion laws, not because he cares about babies. I mean, personhood would end the need for many more laws. One amendment for personhood would do everything we need to do at once because babies would be protected and Roe v. Wade would have to be overturned. I don't like "pro-life" politicians who vote for some life laws but won't back personhood. CP is like those politicians. He says he's pro-life, but he's really more concerned about just making laws that only eliminate a few abortions than the big picture. So many babies are dying! I don't care about wasting time making women look at ultrasounds or getting parental consent. That won't save more than a few hundred babies who might've been saved by a good sidewalk counselor anyway. We need to band together and get personhood so we can save all the babies!
Thank you, Jesus. And thank you, JesusLovesYou.

reply from: sander

Yes. And if they don't consent to using the other's body, than cutting them off is best for everyone.
------------------------------------
Lolita i do hope your children treat you just as well as you've treated them.....
Ouch...that's going to hurt when darling child comes at her with a pair of pliars!

reply from: galen

i agree.. cp and i may get on the wrong side of each other but at least he can read...and put a logical thought together.

reply from: Faramir

I've been watching this and I completely agree. CP is not really pro-life. He doesn't seem to care about the babies or making them people so I don't understand why he's pro-life. One of the pro-aborts made some comment about pro-lifers who aren't pro-personhood may be in it because they want to oppress women. I don't know about that, but I certainly think CP is here because he supports big government and abortion laws, not because he cares about babies. I mean, personhood would end the need for many more laws. One amendment for personhood would do everything we need to do at once because babies would be protected and Roe v. Wade would have to be overturned. I don't like "pro-life" politicians who vote for some life laws but won't back personhood. CP is like those politicians. He says he's pro-life, but he's really more concerned about just making laws that only eliminate a few abortions than the big picture. So many babies are dying! I don't care about wasting time making women look at ultrasounds or getting parental consent. That won't save more than a few hundred babies who might've been saved by a good sidewalk counselor anyway. We need to band together and get personhood so we can save all the babies!
CP has over 5,000 posts and you have only 27 and just got here, and you can see all this already?
I'm fairly new myself, but have been here long enough to see a good number of his posts, and he's never supported abortion rights and has confronted prochoicers as an adversary, always disputing prochoice rationale.

reply from: galen

Yes. And if they don't consent to using the other's body, than cutting them off is best for everyone.
------------------------------------
Lolita i do hope your children treat you just as well as you've treated them.....
Ouch...that's going to hurt when darling child comes at her with a pair of pliars!
---------------------------------
yep i do believe the sound of crunching bones may ring in her dreams too....

reply from: JesusLovesYou

I've been watching this and I completely agree. CP is not really pro-life. He doesn't seem to care about the babies or making them people so I don't understand why he's pro-life. One of the pro-aborts made some comment about pro-lifers who aren't pro-personhood may be in it because they want to oppress women. I don't know about that, but I certainly think CP is here because he supports big government and abortion laws, not because he cares about babies. I mean, personhood would end the need for many more laws. One amendment for personhood would do everything we need to do at once because babies would be protected and Roe v. Wade would have to be overturned. I don't like "pro-life" politicians who vote for some life laws but won't back personhood. CP is like those politicians. He says he's pro-life, but he's really more concerned about just making laws that only eliminate a few abortions than the big picture. So many babies are dying! I don't care about wasting time making women look at ultrasounds or getting parental consent. That won't save more than a few hundred babies who might've been saved by a good sidewalk counselor anyway. We need to band together and get personhood so we can save all the babies!
CP has over 5,000 posts and you have only 27 and just got here, and you can see all this already?
I'm fairly new myself, but have been here long enough to see a good number of his posts, and he's never supported abortion rights and has confronted prochoicers as an adversary, always disputing prochoice rationale.
I'm not saying he's pro-choice, just that I doubt he really cares about the babies. He seems to be in it just to practice debating and to support laws, not because he's really concerned with babies being murdered.

reply from: carolemarie

Hmmm--you do realize this is a debate board?
Why would you say CP doesn't care if babies die? What do you base that on? It is a rather harsh accusation to level at someone who is prolife...

reply from: galen

especially when that someone has been around longer than you have.....
read what he posts then get back to me.

reply from: nancyu

OK, obviously you're not going to go back and read all my posts, and while I really don't feel obligated to defend myself to you, especially in light of the fact that you are basically pulling rather insulting assumptions about me and my character out of some as yet undisclosed dark orifice, presumably in your nether regions, I'll be a good sport and give you a little background info.
First off, it's true that I don't do much street work anymore. We ran the last abortionist out of my county over ten years ago...I don't need any "practice" debating this issue. I've been doing it for over 20 years, and at risk of sounding conceited, I think it's fair to say I'm one of the best you will ever meet. I'm interested in other topics, but my real passion is pro-life. I could be on any of hundreds of other forums, but I spend most of my time on less than half a dozen, 4 of them devoted to the abortion issue.
On a more personal note, I am a single father of three. My youngest just turned 12, and I saved him from being aborted. I won't go into the details, but I have been involved with this issue with a renewed vigor these last 12 years, spending a great deal of my free time doing what I can to advance the pro-life cause.
How dare you presume to judge my character in the manner you have?
Thank you CP for the background. If JLY hadn't judged your character, we might never would have learned all of this about you. Many of us are new here and just learning, and you haven't hesitated to judge us without knowing who we are.
We all have plenty to learn about what it means to be pro life, and I don't see any harm in your reviewing some basic truths being brought up by us newbies. Like remembering that unborn children are people, and that is why we are defending them.
If we back off from, or minimize this basic truth we risk defeating our own arguments.
Humbly and respectfully, Nancy

reply from: yoda

Is it really relevant to the issues we need to pursue?

reply from: galen

Is it really relevant to the issues we need to pursue?
--------------
yoda you already missed the big reconciliation....by 8 hours or so.


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